apsofacto

Vern asked an interesting during this discussion:

This is the question:

On ‎5‎/‎8‎/‎2018 at 11:38 AM, Guest Vern Edwards said:

See FAR 15.209(a)(1). Now ask yourself: Why is the government's default position that competitively "negotiated" contracts will be awarded without discussions? Isn't that odd in light of FAR 6.401(b)(2)? What do you think is the reason?

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.

On ‎10‎/‎31‎/‎2018 at 11:25 AM, flitzer said:

who is going to call you crazy?

It has been done.

19 hours ago, PepeTheFrog said:

flitzer, play dumb and ask your colleagues about this "policy."

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.

2 hours ago, flitzer said:

My office feels that when quotes have a significant spread that those quotes are not valid and cannot be used as a means of price reasonableness

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.

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 . . .

On ‎9‎/‎26‎/‎2018 at 2:14 PM, Don Mansfield said:

Or can you say something like "HIT-ferp" or "HI-ter-ferp"?

Nominating "Hater Farp" for the group's consideration.

17 hours ago, meg327 said:

Can I get some opinions on whether to keep the evaluation method in the solicitation or keep it out?

We do not include this in our RFPs and no one on the proposers' side seems to miss it.  We only use this internally.

5 minutes ago, Jamaal Valentine said:

I am more concerned about someone comparing prices to offers which they have not evaluated nor determined are suitable for comparison.

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.  

1 hour ago, Jamaal Valentine said:

I wonder what GAO would have decided if a prejudiced party specifically challenged the comparison of the market average concept. (The technical acceptability of some of the offer's was not evaluated - unknown; for competitive range purposes they were essentially treated as acceptable)

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 . . .

Quote

1. Is it common in practice for the procurement team, especially those who are professionals in fields other than procurement, to purposely evaluate proposals from their favorite vendors more leniently than they evaluate proposals from others?

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. 

Some Anti-MBA literature here.

Quote

Entrepreneurs with MBAs or accelerator experience did not respond to this intervention, suggesting that formal training can limit the spread of peer advice.

Fair warning though: studies say half of all studies are bad studies.  

On 6/7/2018 at 1:01 PM, jayandstacey said:

Even if you take the supposition that small business concerns should be favored as a way to drive the economy, I'm not sure the current regs actually help that...and maybe they do the opposite

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

11 hours ago, napolik said:

COs that cannot track their inventory of procurement actions and that cannot correspond with their customers need to be stripped of their warrants and removed from supervisory positions. 

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.

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)

On 3/6/2018 at 12:44 PM, FrankJon said:

Examples include vehicles that overlap significantly or completely with existing vehicles; vehicles under which the first order will use up the vast majority of the ceiling or estimated value; and vehicles championed primarily by the contracting community, that receive relatively little input from the requirements community.

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.

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?

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.

On ‎6‎/‎24‎/‎2017 at 7:11 AM, Vern Edwards said:

How does that make anything better?

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. 

Thanks as always, H2H.

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 . . . 

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? 

15 hours ago, Retreadfed said:

Note that the OP stated that this contract was one of a series of multiple award contracts.  We do not know if these were IDIQ contracts, but if they were and no orders were issued to this contractor, where is the default?

They would run afoul of FAR 52.216-22, right?

Quote

(b) Delivery or performance shall be made only as authorized by orders issued in accordance with the Ordering clause. The Contractor shall furnish to the Government, when and if ordered, the supplies or services specified in the Schedule up to and including the quantity designated in the Schedule as the “maximum.” The Government shall order at least the quantity of supplies or services designated in the Schedule as the “minimum.”

Government has to order at least the minimum, Contractor has to perform up to the max . . .

I have never issued an unpriced purchase order (they may be horrible and I'm curious if anyone has experience), but it sounds like they were conceived with this circumstance in mind . . .

1 hour ago, Matthew Fleharty said:

Seems team Schooner has some more supporters:

He deserves better supporters that that! 

That requirement might be in the third trimester.