Jump to content
The Wifcon Forums and Blogs

MileHighAcq

Members
  • Content Count

    12
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

0 Neutral

About MileHighAcq

  • Rank
    New
  • Birthday June 28

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Male
  • Location
    Denver, CO
  1. I think this particular "received truth" (i.e. evaluating all offers received - and thank you Vern for that concept I read earlier today in a speech you gave (whether contracting is an intellectual pursuit)) has been so ingrained in me over the years, that I haven't stopped to question what it actually accomplishes and whether it's actually necessary.
  2. For some reason, I was hung up on "what if none of the other offers are acceptable". But I think I see now that it wouldn't matter for the purposes of source selection.
  3. Upon further review, reflection, and self-doubt, I think I see the error of my ways. In my car buying scenario, I didn't consider that in a Federal contracting LPTA scenario, the buyer would already have prices, so he/she would not just be randomly going to the first dealership around the corner and blindly accepting their price if they met the technical specs, but can go to the lowest priced dealership first, thereby ensuring that he/she gets the lowest priced, technically acceptable car. That's the part that was missing in my example. Sometimes just have to think through things.
  4. here's what I wanted to say above: To clarify, you're saying it's acceptable for a buyer to get competitive bids, and in an LPTA environment, simply order the bids by price, start with the lowest price and award to the first technically acceptable offer they come across without looking at the other bids at all? From a technical standpoint, this could ensure that the buyer gets a technically acceptable product, but from a price perspective, how could the buyer be sure that the price is the lowest price without having received at least one other technically acceptable bid? The point
  5. edit: looks like I screwed up the quote function. sorry. still getting used to the forum functionality.
  6. Right on. Just making sure I wasn't missing anything. Point I was trying to make with my other imperfect analogy is that in real life, you never just settle for the first option or offer that comes along without shopping around an doing your due diligence. Even if the first offer satisfies your technical requirements, you don't know if the price is any good (i.e. fair and reasonable) without comparing it to the other offers to make sure that they're for the same thing (or at least meet your minimum requirements).
  7. Out of curiosity, if all technical factors need to be satisfied, what does it add to say that they are of equal importance? Isn't it implied in the LPTA process already that the factors are of equal importance, since you cannot trade off one factor vs. another?
  8. I haven't read every single response on this topic, but going back to the original inquiry, if you were buying a car, would you simply go to the first dealership and if you found a car that met your requirements, buy it right then and there at the sticker price? Even if there were several dealerships in that area that sold the car you wanted, would you simply assume that the pricing was competitive, or would you shop around?
  9. Why include the -8 clause in an IDIQ anyway? If there's an actual requirement for work covered by the contract over the next 6 months, why not just issue a Task Order for it prior to the expiration of the IDIQ and then get on with the business of awarding another IDIQ. The -8 clause is specific to the extension of services. The IDIQ does not itself involve the initiation or performance of any services. All services are initiated and performed under Task Orders - that's where the -8 clause makes sense.
  10. Out of curiosity, do other agencies distinguish between whether the services are serverable or non-severable when it comes to multi-year contracts, for the purposes of obtaining HCA approval? In my mind, it comes down to whether you are buying more than 1 year's requirement. If the services are non-severable (e.g. it will take 3 years to complete a study), then it's essentially one requirement that spans several years rather than buying multiple years' of requirements.
  11. I was involved with the award of one 10-year service contract for base support services at NASA-KSC over 10 years ago (https://www.nasa.gov/centers/kennedy/news/releases/2008/release-20080618.html). The services were pretty complex (more more than the typical "roads and commodes" base ops contract) and the SSEB took over a year (and that was with everything going smoothly and no protest) simply because the proposals and the required evaluations were so complex. You can see how this is not something you want to go through every 5 years.... Edit: our base year was 3 years (if I remembe
×
×
  • Create New...