apsofacto

I have a hard time with it being a blanket rule, but I have done it and I'm OK with it. I think the need to do this relates inversely to the quality of your requirements documents and/or the ability to define the requirement in advance. Possible I have worked on too many construction procurements.

Agreed, Vern Standardized services, certified personnel. Objections seem to be emotional and instinctual, though ji20874 may have a more objective objection. (The recent news surrounding FedBid cannot help) A service acquired through the contracting office is viewed much differently than a service acquired through the human resources office for some reason. Ronald Coase helped eliminate some of that baggage for me, but most people carry it still. Whatever the reason, I doubt you will find it satisfying. I was also wondering if there as a Scriptural reason a priest would not bid. Ideally, I could answer this question myself, but sorely lacking in the religion department . . .

Maybe the reason this seems distasteful is a belief that these services should not be charged, or that religious services should be acquired through the HR office and not the procurement office. Also, the image of Jesus throwing vendors out of the temple comes to mind . . . Fuller dislosure: I was a terrible Catholic, and currently only a somewhat terrible Episcopalian. I will continue to fake it until I make it. Thank you, Joel, for that link. The *musical* services I think are commercial services. It's not unheard of to hire the Church choir for a large wedding/funeral. Or at least a soloist or two, plus the organist. This statement is based on my experience with larger, more high profile churches located toward the middle of town. I tend to go to these because they tend to hire my wife to sing. Render unto Washington that with George Washington's picture on it! This is my first post at WIFCON- I'll try to pass along more of these quirky things if I run across them. I found this one through marginalrevolution.com . . .

Oh my: https://www.fbo.gov/?s=opportunity&mode=form&id=d7643856b558e4d1d096fa6e9477e2e1&tab=core&_cview=0 I know the purpose of these threads are to address a specific question, and here it is: Is a reverse auction an appropriate source selection procedure for this particular service? My inner contracting officer cannot help but note that these services, by definintion, have been standardized (since Vatican 2?), and there is no source with an inherent price advantage. I suspect the answer is "yes". However, there seems to be some aversion to this kind of thing- a jouralist at Federal News Radio seems to take umbrage. The language about "bad faith bids" takes on an olternate meaning in this context. Full disclosure: Former Catholic, current Episcopalian A quote from the announcement is below:

I think Larry or Moe could have surpassed this. Unsure about Curly. I second the comments regarding the decline of our profession. I think public shaming is an excellent idea. It is both effective and free. But let's try to aim our fire away from the Stooges, who I can only assume were geniuses off the screen.

I have had great experiences talking to prospective proposers, but I don't operate in the same prtest environment as many commenters here. Wish I could do more of it.

FAR 31.3 (though brief) may have some application depending on your reimbursement type . . . I inherited a cost-plus-no-fee contract with a university once, but that was many years ago.

I have never had the occasion to purchase Alpacas. I'm told they are ill-tempered and disgusting, but have a wonderful coat. Why is the Army purchasing them when they have that new four legged robot? As an aside, I think we should all strive to read the initial posting very carefully before responding. Pride, people. Pride.

Hi, Vern, The Brooks Act approach works for engineering, and can work for IT. However, I have learned that the process has a few warts- primarily the virtual tie described in post #10. Then the evaluation process devolves into almost ridiculous parsing of the qualifications: who has the most years' experience, the most exquisitiely relelvant past performance, etc. (I edited post #14 to correct a typo on this subject- hopefully it is more clear now) Another problem is that it allows the process to become more politicized due to the large amount of discretion the Subject Matter Experts have in source selection. They often have friends in the business and the IT field is pretty tribal (e.g. "SAP BAD! Oracle GOOD!"). User groups do this too, should not pick on SMEs exclusively. If you have a marketplace with a contractor who is clearly superior to the others (even to our Subject Matter Experts) and an IT workforce of Vulcans who can evaluate qualifications in a manner free of animal spirits, then this process is perfect. Some CO's have this, and I think you are right that the CO should have the option to do this is he wants to- no process is perfect and options are a good thing. What are everyone's thoughts about the humble T&M MATOC? You can learn as you go through the project, have blueprinting/design competitions between vendors, quit ordering from vendors whose performance slides during the term, and who knows what else. I have done many Brooks Act-type procurements, but no IT projects in this fashion. It seems promising so I am due for a heavy dose of T&M MATOC horror stories, likely beginning with post #17 . . .

Looks like you can create one in Word and drop it in if necessary: Header 1 Header 2 Header 3 Data Data Data Data Data Data Data Data Data Data Data Data Though a button would be nice. EDIT: I stand corrected! It strips the table away. Let's view this as a blessing- maybe we need fewer tables.

I always caution my evaluators that they cannot 'un-know' something that they know, and that they should pipe up and tell the group if they have that information close at hand. I'm a little suspicious of any policy (such as redacting the company name) which makes our evaluators know less about what they are reading, rather than more. Upon reading this thread, I will also emphasize point 1. above, which I have not been doing as explicitly as I should . . .

Putting IT on the Brooks Act list makes some sense, if we admit that the safety-oriented justification for that list (and that legislation) is bunk. My frustration with Brooks Act procurements is that the technical evaluations become a little ridiculous because you can no longer say that one company is as good as another- you must find ever more fine discriminators between the two companies. PM has two more years of experience, or another certification, the company's past performance is ever so slightly more relevant for some reason. None of it means a higher likelihood of successful performance, but you need *something*. I'd love a mix between the two, some sort of option to revert to considering price in the event of a technical tie. Update 7/17/14: Changed "ever more find discriminators" to "ever more fine discriminators".

Here's to many more . . .

Odessa's procurement sounds like a professional services qualifications-based process. I deal with those often and struggle with the lack of price competition. Vern's comments remind me of the sometimes expressed hope that the United States will have airport security which is as good as the Israelis. The Israelis have *one* airport, and the only allow the very best in the business to work security there. This is why they appear to be absolute security ninjas, while our airport security seems fairly pedestrian. Can you imagine how good the contracting shop would be if there was only one medium sized agency in the Federal goverment? This shop could be an amazing crew of highly paid, highly trained practitioners with the best tools available. The FAR would not be the size that it is today. This is a dream, though. Vern is absolutely correct that an elite workforce fixes almost everything, but this solution is *not scalable*. I'm part of the problem, of course. I'm not very well trained (though I'm certainly curious!). My background was not in this field, and I don't really have many good tools at my disposal. I'm a decent, journeyman-level practitioner who has to look things up and ask a few dumb questions, and I am legion. There are not enough Verns, formerfeds, etc. to go around. Regulations are scalable. Prescriptions are scalable. Excellent people are not. Barring some magical moneyball-type talent evaluation tool for COs, or barring scaling back the Federal Government to some managable level (i.e. dissolving the SBA, Dept. of Energy, and a host of other agencies), these problems will persist. There is no innovation, there is no hope. There are only tradeoffs using the resources available, and whatever incremental improvement which can be gained through the hard work of personal improvement. Sorry to be kind of a downer.

Possibly not the case, but if the future modifications are too nebulous to define (even as a T&M), could you consider a change order?

Thank you so much, C, I have been out of the game for too long . . . looks like someone had that idea long ago.

Is it possible configurethe database to delete all information older than three years? I know we are supposed to consider the currency of past performance information, and this would be in concert with that. But more importantly it should reduce the stakes of a negative past performance rating for the offeror- hopefully reducing the number of challenges. Google never forgets, but CPARS vertainly could. I've sent out this trial balloon in a few different places, but no one has really shot at it, so it's hard to tell if this is a good idea. I bet a platinum WIFCON member has some ammunition handy. (A second thought: Sometimes when you and your Contractor sue each other, you settle and agree to not say nasty things about one another. Don't think this accounts for much of the data problems, but it is bound to come up occasionally.)

Point of clarification: I will *not* remove the past performance evaluation process if an offeror has none. I will believe it can be done when another CO does this and a protest goes to GAO who then says that action is permissible. I will not be that CO. The "neither favorable or unfavorable" language is still problematic, but I intend to handle it in the traditional manner. (Put a comment on the previous entry to clarify that, putting one here too) If anyone does try this, kudos for your courage, and we'll all see how it turns out.

Apologies to Cautus and Physiocrat- I *was* projecting. I don't have the guts to try this recommended approach in the event of the receipt of an offer with no past performance information, but I'm interested in the results if someone does.

Thank you for continuing this discussion! I just had a few questions . . . I know that the GAO is inclined to allow the consideration of relevance under a past performance evaluation factor: If you add an "Experience" factor, should all strengths/weaknesses about relevance be moved the "Experience" Factor? Or can they be counted in both evaluation factors? In the event an offeror with no past performance information submits a proposal, and we have taken your recommendation to not evaluate past performance, does the "Experience" factor serve as a life boat which preserves our ability to consider relevance/currency of the past performance of the other offerors? Please forgive me if I am not following. Very interesting discussion!

Requirements doesn't seem appropriate- you have a minimum order chambered and ready to go, so why would you imply that this is the only vendor you can buy these systems from? If there is certainty you need four systems, you have the opportunity to be the first person in the office to utilize FAR 16.502. You said subject to need, though . . . I would respond to the queries in the following manner: " IDIQ : Risky! :: FFP + Options : Safe and comforting!" Then ask to be excused due to a medical condition.

Hello, Boof, I just recently set up an account with the forums here- should have done that long ago!

I'm probably projecting.

I was focusing on his point about how the 'neither favorable nor unfavorable' FAR language doesn't make sense from a practical standpoint (which I read as the main idea of the posting). I read Emptor's "Ignore it" advice as a tongue-in-cheek, or an inevitable bizarre result the 'neither favorable nor unfavorable' language taken to its logical end. It was the "The Comptroller General does not necessarily seem to see it my way" that brought me to that conclusion, but as always, I could be missing something. You seem worried that some CO may actually try this. I learned in college that if you can imagine it, then someone is doing it. Somewhere. Right now. So . . . you are absolutely right about that! He promises a (corporate?) experience follow-up post so this may be clearer in the future.

Hello, Physiocrat, I thought that was what Emptor was getting at. The neutral rating is weaker than the favorable rating.