G Wiz

Yes, the apparent successful vendor was the one I requested the price reduction. They were already the higher rated, lowest priced. I went after additional reductions. By invoking Part 15, that opens up other requirements not required by Part 8.4, i.e Debriefings, etc. etc. Part 8.4 is written with streamlined ordering procedures to increase efficiencies. If we're required to include Part 15 just because a Technical Quote needs fixed, It defeats that purpose. That's what I'm trying to get to the bottom of. How do I fix Technical Quotes while staying in Part 8.4? Further, if I've graduated to Part 15 does that mean Parts 5 and 6 now apply?

Good morning , I ran into a roadblock a week ago regarding the procedures you need to follow when addressing TQ's that are lacking. For the sake of this post I issued an RFQ against Schedule 70's. Two responses were received. After review of both TQ's we found both had missing aspects. We gave them initial ratings. So we held a conference call, in which I called 'Exchanges of Information', with each vendor to address what was missing. Both vendors were able to fix their TQ's. We then gave them a final rating. Award was based on the final ratings. Counsel advised me that no matter what you call it we still entered into discussions therefore Part 15 procedures must apply from there on out. I understand if it walks like a duck and smells like a duck; it's a duck. I get that, but how do we stay out of Part 15 if a situation arises when TQ's are lacking? In the above example none of the language I used throughout the process was reminiscent of Part 15. What gave counsel heartburn was I asked for a 'Price Reduction' from only one vendor. I have read Case Law that allows CO's to go to only one vendor for Price Reductions, but because we apparently opened discussion I had to extend that to both vendors. Is the GAO truly expecting TQ's to be perfect without any revisions?? If revisions are needed then we move into Part 15? That seems unreasonable. Thanks