Jump to content
The Wifcon Forums and Blogs


  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

0 Neutral

About apsofacto

  • Rank

Recent Profile Visitors

12,135 profile views
  1. Yawp, agreed: 1.) Source selection and 2.) finding the price fair and reasonable are two separate issues, and the EPA technique streamlines 1.) and complicates 2.) a little bit. I'm following this discussion with interest since my employer makes a practice of technically evaluating all proposers in this scenario. It seems like an inefficient use of time, so I'm happy to see EPA trying something different, and that it survived contact with the enemy. Regarding price reasonableness, though, I suppose you could at least compare the prices in the competitive range, since they *were* evaluated technically. I wonder why there was no mention of that? May have been Perhaps In the event of an award without discussion, you could technically evaluate the lowest three to ensure the prices were truly comparable? This would save you the trouble of evaluating proposers 4-10.
  2. The GAO said in that particular decision that there was no prejudice in that evaluation scheme for the higher-priced proposers because the CO assumed they were technically acceptable. So I suppose it would have to be the other firm in the competitive range to carry that flag? Still, that firm was higher priced by definition . . .
  3. apsofacto

    Evaluation Bias

    I think this question is worded to assume some bad faith on the part of the evaluator. Let me assume good faith just for a contrast: A "favorite" firm may be a favorite because they have a good record of past performance, good personnel, etc. and therefore earn a higher score. The higher score may be a result of those superior features, rather than some emotion on the part of an evaluator. Then, you as an outsider may interpret that as a lenient evaluation, even when the "favorite" is evaluated to the same standard as everyone else.
  4. apsofacto

    Master Degrees

    Some Anti-MBA literature here. Fair warning though: studies say half of all studies are bad studies.
  5. I sometimes shake my head at the incentive structure that leads small business to argue *in public* that they are not responsible: http://www.wifcon.com/pd19_6022.htm
  6. apsofacto

    Bridge Contracts

    Also, project managers must track their projects and initiate a procurement on occasion. If the project manager requires this level of babysitting they may also need a cork on their fork.
  7. apsofacto

    Is this a common evaluation scheme?

    Price has to be considered [ 8.405-2(d) ], so that may be why they are asking for prices for phase 1. I am assuming this is a service given the context. I have no idea if this is common. Been out of the game too long . . . (steely gaze into the distance)
  8. apsofacto

    Has strategic sourcing gone too far?

    I emphasized the piece of FrankJon's description above that caught my eye. I thought strategic sourcing requires you to solicit an actual order, not just establish some ordering vehicle. This entails whipping disparate requiring activities into consolidating and standardizing their requirements, or so I thought. So my follow up question is: Is this stuff even strategic sourcing? I'm not a supply chain person, so this is a plea to those who are to educate me.
  9. Require auditors to have more procurement knowledge? Not sure how widespread this problem is, but I have seen strange audit findings in the past that have led to defensive and time-consuming countermeasures from my procurement group. Failing that, perhaps adopting a system of appeal?
  10. Would this principle be applied in a combat zone? Never served, but I imagine there are times a soldier can not purchase things even if he wanted to. Nevertheless a commanding officer could purchase the plates personally. That would be a good move.
  11. apsofacto

    Kickstarter and the GCPC

    I think Kickstarter may even agree here, assuming the Government is the sole funder. If there are many other funders, it would be nice to spread the cost of widget development around. If different federal agencies were funding without each others' knowledge, would that tick off the budget people? If the dollar amounts were large? I don't think you get to know who the other funders are. I have contributed to these before and I was one of many small funders. Kickstarter was able to aggregate my contribution with many others and throw a large wad of cash at the "creators". Aggregating lots of small contributions is Kickstarter's main purpose, I think. I can also confirm the funders' credit cards get charged prior to work commencing, not after completion and delivery. The financing issue is a great one to raise.
  12. I believe there is also a ceiling on the executive compensation that can be put in the indirect cost pool. H2H, is that factoid germane to the question? What I could find only addressed the amount of the compensation, didn't seem to address the manner in which they awarded it . . .
  13. This is in no way helpful to you, but I think you could have found them non-responsible during the pre-award phase due to a 'cannot render impartial advice'-type organizational conflict of interest. I had a follow-up question regarding Vern's T4C suggestion, which springs from my paranoia. If the Government sends a T4C notice to the Contractor without ordering the minimum, can the Contractor then request payment of the minimum? Is there a "stand-off", and if so, how would one resolve?
  14. They would run afoul of FAR 52.216-22, right? Government has to order at least the minimum, Contractor has to perform up to the max . . .