ji20874

I won't answer your "...must I..." question, but how about we make it a "...should I..." question?  Maybe resoliciting more broadly on SAM.GOV will get you better prices closer to your IGCE.  If you have a credible IGCE at less than $25K, why would you want to pay $10-15K more?

8 minutes ago, MP65 said:

It might be as simple as requesting CO approval incur the post-PoP costs associated with finalizing the deliverable...

There you go.  Simple.  Hopefully you will get a YES answer.  

MP65,

Is the annual report a separate deliverable?  If YES, is it (1) priced; or (2) not-separately-priced?

Do you think the period of performance applies (1) only to the actual contract work but not the annual report; or (2) to both the performance and report?

_KB_, a salaried employee, or an hourly-rate employee?

Fixed-price, cost-reimbursement, or T&M/LH?

What is the nature of the work?

Sometimes, the contracting officer has to determine...

Sometimes, the contracting officer has to determine in writing...

Sometimes, the contracting must prepare a D&F...

Only a dim-witted or poorly-trained contracting officer or procurement analyst would require all of the above in a D&F format.

Joel,

The original poster isn't talking about using a IFB and isn't talking about construction.  Please re-read the original posting.

2 hours ago, PATRICK3 said:

I was just wondering if the CO has fulfilled their duty as to the information given to the vendor.

This seems to be the case, from what I have read here. 

2 hours ago, PATRICK3 said:

What would make an award improper in your eyes?

I think that a grossly improper award will be self-evident and fact-specific.  If you [with access to the entire file] are not seeing any impropriety, then I'm not, either.  We cannot second-guess every award decision beyond the reviews and controls already in place.

31 minutes ago, PATRICK3 said:

I wouldn't say it was improper to be honest

If you won't say the award was improper, then why are you even thinking about a T4C and a re-evaluation?

Whether or not the protester can still file a protest is not your concern -- that is between the vendor and the GAO.

According to the GAO, an inadequate debriefing is not generally a basis for a protest.  Are you wondering about an uncompleted debriefing?  It doesn't sound like it -- the former contracting officer already and promptly provided "...information as to why the vendor didn't qualify..." (the basis for the determination, right?).  It seems to me that any required debriefing has been done.

As far as I can tell, there is no obligation for you to reply to the unhappy vendor's letter requesting re-evaluation.  Why are you wringing your hands over this matter?  Is there something else you haven't shared?

Oh, no -- now the discussion is being clouded even more with talk about task order competitions.

The original poster is talking about FAR 15.3 source selections.  Any talk here about task order competitions is inapt, as the crucial citation from FAR 15.3 is wholly irrelevant to task order competitions.

The answer to the original poster's question is a simple YES -- a contracting officer may waive the evaluation of past performance in a FAR 15.3 source selection under the circumstances described in the original posting with an appropriate determination.  All the demurring going on is not contributing support or clarity and is clouding the simple YES answer by trying to change the YES [the contracting officer may waive...] to a NO [the contracting officer should not waive...].

Voyager, the FAR says what it says.  Do what is right for your circumstances.  Do not be afraid to prudently and appropriately use the flexibility the FAR gives you.

My thought:  Forget your questions 1 and 2.  Instead, the question the new contracting officer and his or her managers need to answer is whether the award was grossly improper.  Was the award grossly improper?  If NO, then leave it alone.  If YES, then you might think about a T4C along with other measures (including leaving it alone).

In your opinion, was the award grossly improper?  This is a YES/NO question.

The process works best when all players follow the rules.  Your unhappy vendor could have filed a protest which would have forced a timely resolution -- but the vendor did not, which indicates it is not pursuing the matter.  I have little sympathy for vendors who won't file protests but still want to beg for reconsideration. 

formerfed and Joel, I think you are clouding the discussion.  The original poster wanted to know if it would be possible to not evaluate past performance in a particular situation, and the answer is a simple YES.  You might choose to evaluate past performance in that situation, but that was not the question.

I make this note because I want to support the original poster in his or her seemingly new discovery that past performance evaluation in a 15.3 source selection may appropriately be waived -- he or she likely already has plenty of office co-workers, reviewers, and policy people who are saying past performance must or always should be evaluated.  Vern shared the case law that a contracting officer's decision to waive past performance evaluation has never been overturned on protest.  So I want to support the principle, and encourage contracting officers to appropriately use the flexibility they are given. 

Voyager,

You said you wanted a discussion, but you haven't said peep since the original posting.  What is your own answer to your question?  

If you're conducting a FAR 15.3 competitive source selection, and you are limiting participation to a short list of companies with known good past performance, then YES, it may make sense to not use past performance as an evaluation factor.  Whether or not the procurement is for "systems contracting" is irrelevant.

Now, why don't you answer your own question and ask if anyone agrees with you?  You have an opinion, right?

First, let's make sure your facts are clear...

(1) You do not include the NAICS code in solicitations for subcontracts.

(2) You do include the NAICS code in your awarded subcontracts.

Is this right?

Guardian, Since you agree these vouchers are commercial items, what has your market research told you about what other buyers and sellers in your market segment are doing for T&Cs?  You want to do the same thing they're doing, right?

Are you purchasing a fixed number of vouchers, with each voucher redeemable by the Government within a certain period for 50 hours of IT support?

Are the vouchers being offered as commercial items (or commercial services) under FAR Part 12?  If YES, could you do some market research to learn what other buyers and sellers in your market segment are doing?

But yes, please explain.

The question of consideration seems irrelevant to everything.  Please, why are you asking about consideration?

The question of the protest clock depends on when you provided notice to unsuccessful offerors, or when they may otherwise have learned.  Did you provide notice to unsuccessful offerors close to the "CO signature date" or are you waiting until the "next FY effective date"?

58 minutes ago, joel hoffman said:

Those procedures aren’t applicable if you need to hire an A/E for total building commissioning 

If this is true, it seems you should have said it a long time ago.  

An earlier post of yours recommends the use of professional engineers for such work, and construction phase services are included in the definition of A-E.  

Anyway, Joel, help me out a little -- is there a citation or case that prohibits use of A-E procedures for total building commissioning?  Inquiring minds want to know...

If you are the contracting officer, and you made your YES answer based on the definition, then full speed ahead.  I think you will be glad you can use the A-E procedures instead of FAR Part 13, 14, or 15 -- if you use them vigorously, those procedures are powerful and almost certainly will result in the best possible contract and contractor.

Once you make a decision, you might learn some new things from others.  Those new insights may or may not cause you to change your mind.

But, it sounds like you already released a solicitation -- you might have to cancel it if you want to re-start as an A-E procurement.

You need to ask the contracting officer for that procurement.  

One thing I have done is to reply to the contractor saying that I am seeing the recent letter as a REA and not a claim (or vice versa), and asking for the contractor's confirmation.

You should easily be able to do all fifty past performance evaluations in a single week.

Best wishes!

4 hours ago, govt2310 said:

...and about 3-5 days later...

How about 3-5 hours later?

11 hours ago, Constricting Officer said:

Does the chance that a A&E firm, under a solicitation posted under NAICS 541350, would quote/provide an offer make the procurement subject to the Brooks Act?

No.  And regardless, that is the wrong question.

The right question is whether building commissioning services are A-E services.  That is a YES or NO question.  How do you answer that question?