ContractSpecialistTJohn

Thank you for you feedback. My question is really more about under which circumstances would you have those phases 1-3 under one solicitation versus separate like you have it above.

"Phased" suggests that you will progress from some beginning to some ending. Is that what you will be doing? Yes phase 1 is system development each phase builds on the previous. Like Phase 2 is an advanced version of the system that was built in phase 1. Therefore each phase is cumulative the requirements for the subsequent phases are not fully defined because it is depended on the first phase. Just the scope. Are you buying a service, such as R&D, or system development? If system development, will the acquisition involve production and delivery of prototypes, testing, and a production model? System development and yes. Will the phasing be competitive, as in a "down-select"? (Do you know what that is?) Will you have, say, three contractors in the first phase, two in the second, and take only one to the finish? Not sure yet, but that makes sense. Will the phases be contiguous with fiscal years or will they cross-fiscal years? Whenever we can get it awarded. In what situations would it be contiguous with fiscal years? How will the procurement be funded? Fully or incrementally? We are looking at firm fixed price contract, however in the out years not sure. Do you envision using the same contract type in each phase or progressive risk reduction? I don't know. We are considering whether it would make sense to do it as one procurement or 2. I think if it is one, it will likely be a hybrid. Are you talking about one procurement that will have three phases, and the end result will be one contract? That's what I am trying to determine. Or are you talking about a series of procurements, with one or more contracts for each phase? That's what I am trying to determine. Are you willing to share what you are buying? Its a system development.

Are you talking about one procurement that will have three phases, and the end result will be one contract? That's what I am trying to determine. Or are you talking about a series of procurements, with one or more contracts for each phase? That's what I am trying to determine. Are you willing to share what you are buying? Its a system development.

"Phased" suggests that you will progress from some beginning to some ending. Is that what you will be doing? Yes phase 1 is system development each phase builds on the previous. Like Phase 2 is an advanced version of the system that was built in phase 1. Therefore each phase is cumulative the requirements for the subsequent phases are not fully defined because it is depended on the first phase. Just the scope. Are you buying a service, such as R&D, or system development? If system development, will the acquisition involve production and delivery of prototypes, testing, and a production model? System development and yes. Will the phasing be competitive, as in a "down-select"? (Do you know what that is?) Will you have, say, three contractors in the first phase, two in the second, and take only one to the finish? Not sure yet, but that makes sense. Will the phases be contiguous with fiscal years or will they cross-fiscal years? Whenever we can get it awarded. In what situations would it be contiguous with fiscal years? How will the procurement be funded? Fully or incrementally? We are looking at firm fixed price contract, however in the out years not sure. Do you envision using the same contract type in each phase or progressive risk reduction? I don't know. We are considering whether it would make sense to do it as one procurement or 2. I think if it is one, it will likely be a hybrid. Are you talking about one procurement that will have three phases, and the end result will be one contract? That's what I am trying to determine. Or are you talking about a series of procurements, with one or more contracts for each phase? That's what I am trying to determine. Are you willing to share what you are buying? Its a system development.

Hello All! Thanks for taking the time to read and respond. I am working on a procurement that has 3 phases. The first phase is very clear and detailed. The remaining two phases are not as clear cut and will depend on what will transpire in the first phase. How would you go about structuring a procurement like this? I am considering two or three procurements to cover each phase, options, and T&M CLNs. Additionally, we are still doing market research, so I am not looking for RFI questions or questions on bid/no bid decision from industry. I am looking for your thoughts and experience on this and how you would approach this or any advice out there. Thank you So much

The agency does not dictate the approach that is to be used, there is room for innovation for our procurements to utilize streamlined strategies.

Hello All! I am wondering if anybody has experience implementing the PIL (procurement innovation lab) streamlined procedures for technical evaluations. I am interested in your best practices lessons learned for implementing confidence ratings for technical factor, where technical is significantly more important than price. What was your approach for documenting the consensus report and confidence levels. With regard to evaluation under the mission suitability and technical/management factors, the solicitation stated that the agency “will consider the Offeror’s approach and the risks associated with the approaches proposed,” and make “confidence assessments” regarding the offeror’s understanding of the requirements and the likelihood of successful contract performance, assigning ratings under each factor of: high confidence, some confidence, or low confidence.

I understand that 15.204 discusses the required contents of the contract award for the UCF format. Would anybody know if there is a similar FAR reference for solicitations that are not in the UCF format? Thank You

I came across some agency guidance and it identified a clause in an IDIQ that did not "flow down" to the order level. So @Vern Edwards you are probably right. Will need to read through everything just to verify some things on this.

Would anybody happen to recall or know, how to determine which clauses in a MAS contract flow down to the order level? Thank You!

Good Day All: I am doing some information gathering. I am interested to know what the contracting officers/specialists here use to determine whether a vendor has adequate financial resources to perform a contract. I know some CO/CS will look at things like current ratio, etc. Thank you in advance

Good day All: I am writing this question which some may think is basic. So here it goes. Lets say you are researching whether to purchase a widget on the Multiple Award Schedule. You find that this widget has only two vendors who provide it. Could you solicit non-Multiple Award Schedule vendors if you include MAS vendors? What are your thoughts on this? What are the implications of going beyond the MAS to obtain better pricing? My thoughts are that the MAS vendors should be solicited and then based on the results, then open market vendors should be solicited. My thought is that it violates the FAR Part 8 priorities.

thanks, but I think the question that I asked was past more on past performance evaluation and not responsibility. I'll take another look. Thanks for taking the time to answer.

If I am doing an LPTA procurement under FAR 13 or 8.4 FAR 15.101-2 states that a COC is required for small business. If we are doing a FAR 8.4 procurement or FAR PART `13 procurement, is a COC required since FAR Part 15 does not apply for 8.404 and is not mandatory13.106-2(b)(1) ?