Jump to content
The Wifcon Forums and Blogs

ji20874

Members
  • Content Count

    2,419
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

0 Neutral

2 Followers

About ji20874

  • Rank
    Contributing Member

Contact Methods

  • Website URL
    http://

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Male
  • Location
    Vermont

Recent Profile Visitors

25,267 profile views
  1. Don, Of my numbered statements 1. through 5. reflecting my thought process, which do you judge as untrue? Earlier in this thread, I asked you a question and you haven’t answered it yet. Will you answer it now? T F FAR 16.505(b)(1) repeatedly uses the word “notice” and never uses the word “solicitation” to describe a fair opportunity announcement. And one more? It also has been asked, but you haven’t answered it yet. Y N In your own practice, do you insert the Bankruptcy clause in every fair opportunity notice exceeding the SAT (even though the clause is already included in the parent contract and will be applicable to the order regardless of whether or not you insert the clause in the notice)? You err in providing the reason that I will have not answered your question. You really shouldn’t put words in my mouth. Your question has a flawed premise, and answering your question with a simple yes or no (as you demanded) would not provide for an honest discussion. But please answer my questions above — that actually will help us have an honest discussion. If you tell me which of the five statements is offending you, and why, I am hopeful that I can resolve your concern and assuage your animus. If you answer TRUE to the FAR text question, I am hopeful we will have found common ground. If you answer FALSE to that question, we will be miles apart. If you answer YES to the bankruptcy clause question, we will have a difference of opinion — you do what you need to do in your practice, and me in mine. If you answer NO, I will be glad you aren’t wasting ink and paper but it will seem inconsistent with your insistence that a notice is a solicitation.
  2. Apparently, there may be more than one definition of "fact." Do you have anything to contribute to help the original poster with comparative evaluation?
  3. My apologies for confusing -- I try to be clear. I thought I had been consistent and clear, but I will re-state to erase any confusion. FAR 16.505(b)(1) uses the word “notice,” not “solicitation,” to refer to a fair opportunity order announcement; I believe this is purposeful; I use the word “notice” in my own practice, not “solicitation"; To me, a fair opportunity notice is not a solicitation within the construct of the FAR (see 1. and 2. above), even though it may be commonly referred to as such within our community; and As an example, when the FAR's prescribing text for the Bankruptcy clause calls for insertion of that clause in all solicitations exceeding the SAT, I don't insert that clause in my fair opportunity notices (because they aren't solicitations) (the clause is already included in parent IDIQ contracts exceeding the SAT and is applicable to the resulting orders, so it isn't needed in my notices). In short, the FAR doesn't call it a solicitation, so I don't. The FAR calls it a notice, so I do, too.
  4. Facts are nice, and they should be used wherever they are available. But often, we have to make acquisition decisions based on information that may fall short of being factual. I'm okay with that. When one person quotes someone else, the quoter should take care not to faithfully convey the essential thought and to avoid skewing the quoted person’s thought. I wrote, “The comparative evaluation process doesn't require facts -- it requires information, and that information sometimes will be factual and sometimes might not be...” (emphasis added on my text that you dropped in your quote, but that essential to faithfully convey my thought).
  5. ibn battuta (1), I didn't want to put too much emphasis on the word "facts," because the process works just as well for facts as it does with other information. You spoke of a finding based on facts, and it could be an observation based on other information. The comparative evaluation process doesn't require facts -- it requires information, and that information sometimes will be factual and sometimes might not be, and it may be judged objectively or subjectively as appropriate. I wouldn't want a simple-minded reader to go through this thread and think that "facts" are required for a comparative evaluation and a selection (the formal 15.3 source selection process also doesn't require facts). So rather than saying that one vendor is better than another based on facts, I prefer to say that I subjectively decided one vendor was better than another based on the information available to me. don, You are not contributing to this thread's discussion. Ibn battuta (2), The "notice" versus "solicitation" discussion was another thread, not this one. Many do use "solicitation," but some use "notice" consistent with the FAR usage. But I agree that the fair opportunity process was initially intended to be a matter of post-award administration, and we* have turned it into a pre-award process. *not you and me personally, but our community generally guardian (original poster), You can be as innovative as you and your organizational culture will allow. Many organizations are getting better at staying true to the FAR and leaving 15.3 methodology out of their ordering situations. Professional dialogue is important. Maybe you can convince your superiors and reviewers to let you do a comparative evaluation on a fair opportunity below the protest threshold? Your success there might help start a thaw in your organization.
  6. Carl, FAR 16.505(b)(1)(iv) speaks of offers and factors and evaluation and relative order and best value — how does one simply consider and then choose? Can you sketch out a strawman of the process you envision? If it is simpler and better than my practice, I’ll adopt it. Or, are you stopping short of 16.505(b)(1)(iv) and only covering up to (iii)? That’s okay if that is your thought process, as (iii) is different ftom (iv) (for a reason, right?) and (ii) is even different from (iii).
  7. I would aver that I decided subjectively that "A" is better than "B" based on the information available to me. Then, assuming the other factors were performance, delivery, and price, and "A" was better for past performance and price and "B" was better for performance and delivery, then I would do a subjective tradeoff to select the successful firm.
  8. Yes. My only caution would be not to put too much formality on the word "findings." For example, for the past performance factor in a selection process, we might say that "A" is better than "B" because the CPARS history for "A" shows 100 satisfactory or better ratings and zero marginal or unacceptable ratings, of which 80 for were similar services, while the history for "B" shows zero satisfactory ratings and 14 marginal or unsatisfactory ratings, of which all 14 were for similar services. I believe comparative evaluations can be done subjectively, without point scores, mathematics, or algorithms.
  9. FAR 15.305 speaks of evaluating offers and FAR 15.308 speaks of a comparative assessment, both as part of the formal 15.3 source selection process. Generally, in formal 15.3 source selections, adjectival ratings are assigned in the evaluation process before the comparative assessment occurs. In contrast, comparative evaluation is a practice to skip the adjectival ratings step completely.
  10. The workbook shows a way to do a comparative evaluation. It neither pretends nor presumes to show the only way. The workbook is not a policy document; rather, it is an aid to practice (but everything in it conforms to DHS policy requirements). PIL Boot Camps are for contracting officers, program managers, and procurement attorneys. Everything is legal and honorable, and is offered for those who are looking to innovate. If you like the technique, feel free to use it or let it inform your own approach. Afterwards, share your story with your colleagues so others can benefit from your learning.
  11. I actually like the construction — it combines both “notice” which is what it really is/what the FAR calls it and “solicitation” which is what some people think of it as when they’re in a hurry, so everyone is happy and no one is offended. It helps reinforce correct principles, and is a good compromise for a document where the purpose is meaningful learning rather than pedantry.
  12. https://www.dhs.gov/sites/default/files/publications/pil_boot_camp_workbook.pdf Technique 5 in the DHS Procurement Innovation Lab Boot Camp Workbook (link above) is on comparative evaluation -- and Technique 4 is on down-select. You can do a down-select on a single non-price factor (or a couple of non-price factors), and you can make your down-select decision on a comparative evaluation basis (no adjectival ratings). One of the key messages from the DHS procurement innovation community is to "stay in your lane" and to keep FAR subpart 15.3 procedures out of your fair opportunity considerations. DHS is also encouraging streamlined evaluation and selection documentation, and has won GAO bid protest decisions where unsuccessful offerors say the evaluation and selection documentation are too short.
  13. Maybe the clause doesn't apply since you are using the cell phones for your own purposes under your own contract, are not delivering the cell phones for use by the agency or by other agency contractors. Is para. (a)(4) your out?
×
×
  • Create New...