Jump to content
The Wifcon Forums and Blogs

SchruteBeets

Members
  • Content Count

    3
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

0 Neutral

About SchruteBeets

  • Rank
    New
  1. "One of the big challenges now will be to develop appropriate adaptations of the "highest technically rated offerors with a fair and reasonable price" for single award non-IDIQ contracts." Agree this is a big challenge and am excited by it. It will be interesting to see how the GAO handles a protest to a task or delivery order that attempts to utilize the HTROFRP methodology; perhaps noteworthy that such orders typically are not considered "negotiated acquisitions" like the Alliant 2 acquisition subject of the Sevatec decision. Looking forward to thinking more critically abou
  2. Nash & Cibinic in February talked about combining source selection procedures. In the recent case linked here, K-MAR B-411262, the Air Force's approach to best value is interesting. One the one hand the AF told offerors that past performance, evaluated qualitatively not pass/fail, is significantly more important than price. On the other other hand the AF essentially stated it would rank-order proposals by price and then evaluate past performance of only the lowest priced proposal and if that offeror was rated substantial confidence for past performance then the evaluation process would sto
  3. Yes it appears that the question was whether a 90-day phase-in is included in the 5 years mentioned in FAR 17.104(a) or is separate? And it appears that it was answered above (i.e., the up to 90 days in the continuity of services clause applies to the incumbent's period of performance, and don't exclude phase-in from successor's period of performance and if that contract/order is one with options then it should not exceed the 5-year limitation in 17.204(e) unless the agency has in place specific procedures to authorize more than 5 years). A related question is -- shouldn't a contractor be on
×
×
  • Create New...