Jump to content
The Wifcon Forums and Blogs


  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

0 Neutral

About apsofacto

  • Rank

Recent Profile Visitors

12,190 profile views
  1. apsofacto

    Why all the "Award without discussions" talk?

    Hi Joel, Thank you- I think all those reasons make sense! But those can't be the reasons the FAR default to award without discussions, right? Those are all very local, case-specific decisions, so they couldn't explain the system-wide default position.
  2. I self-identify as a HUBZone. The whole zone.
  3. Vern asked an interesting during this discussion: This is the question: I thought it was a good enough question to deserve its own thread- it was discussed mostly in the context of protest risk aversion in the other thread, but there may be more to the story. My notion was that the Government does not want fake prices in initial proposals, we want hard offers that we can use as a basis for excluding proposers from the competitive range if applicable. Awarding without discussions is a threat that we will hold the slippery proposer it its initial prices. I don't know if my notion is true, though. Even if true, there are likely other reasons I don't know about.
  4. Pepe and flitzer, I find it useful to blink a lot with an blank, innocent expression on my face. Actual example: "I couldn't find the prohibition in our purchase card policy against buying that particular item, but I'm probably looking in the wrong place. Can you point me in the right direction?" (blinks innocently) If you try to hear church choir music in your head while doing this it really helps you carry It off. Since I hit my 40s I feel I'm really coming into my own as a performer.
  5. Yeah, that is a new one on me too. If you learn anything about why this notion is in place (e.g. GAO decision, regulation, law) please share. My hunch is that it is something an auditor invented, and is based on nothing but the feelz. I'd be happy to be wrong, though.
  6. apsofacto

    Ribbon Gun

    Let's stipulate: An inventor invents a firearm useful to the Government, and it functions as advertised. Inventor "is convinced that his weapon is so revolutionary that it will overcome Army foot-dragging" in order to get it into the hands of U.S. soldiers. You are a project manager tasked with writing a sole source justification for the firearm. Can it be done? If yes, what else will need to occur to procure this product? The actual story can be found by googling "ribbon gun Grier Gazette". I believe this could be accomplished without FAR changes, but with a lot of elbow grease. However, there are smarter people than me lurking around here . . .
  7. Nominating "Hater Farp" for the group's consideration.
  8. We do not include this in our RFPs and no one on the proposers' side seems to miss it. We only use this internally.
  9. 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.
  10. 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 . . .
  11. 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.
  12. apsofacto

    Master Degrees

    Some Anti-MBA literature here. Fair warning though: studies say half of all studies are bad studies.
  13. 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
  14. 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.