Jump to content
The Wifcon Forums and Blogs


  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

0 Neutral

About PD216ohio

  • Rank
  1. As a contractor, I can confirm that there are a LOT of "dirtbags" in the construction business. A lot of inexperienced, wham-bam-thank-you-ma'am types. The tough part is being good and charging appropriately when competing with these types. I service a couple national chains locally and the president of one told me once that I had two reputations with them. I was expensive and I was good. My approach to government work has really been that I bid the price I am comfortable with. If I get the job, great... it is worth my time. I'll travel anywhere for the right price.
  2. I'm not sure what you mean by timely in this regard. I am only seeking award status (which hasn't been noticed anywhere else either). If you mean timely as in 10 days to file a protest, that time should begin after an award declaration is or should have been known. Some awards take a week to decide... others take over a month.... some take longer. I have one project that is past 30 days but the CO is responsive to my follow ups. I have contacted him once at the two-week mark and then again right after the four week mark. He has responded both times and advised that his office has just been incredibly busy and he is working on it. The project is something that they do need done to prepare for the next project.
  3. Email or even texts are fine. I handle all of the service work for a couple national chains in my region. Almost all communication is by text. After about 15 years of being their main guy things are very simplified with regard to communication. I don't even write contracts anymore. I send them a quote, they email me back to go ahead, I do the work and send them an invoice and I get paid. It's a nice simple system. In my case, I personally perform on all of my projects. It's one of the things that has kept me working through all of these years because my clients know they are getting my personal quality of work, not just an employee or sub of mine. I guess it makes it an odd transition into government work where companies as small as mine might not be as common. I've done two government projects so far and both ended with extraordinary comments about the quality I've provided. To me, that is the best part. I really take pride in a job well done.
  4. Thank you, I appreciate that. It is just frustrating. If I am awarded, I have to be ready to move forward and complete a project in a timely manner... but I am at the mercy of when an award is made and if it is made. Another consideration is when I know I have sharpened my pencil and have good numbers and then I am worried about placing other bids which might result in an overlapping project. I am a small company and one at a time is our typical capacity.
  5. yes, I track all projects that I bid. If there is not an award notice, I follow up after a week or two and then additionally if I don't get responses. I've hand a handful that just never respond in any way.
  6. The issue has usually been on projects under 50k.
  7. I'm hoping to get some perspective from the other side of things. I am a contractor so I don't really get to see the inner workings from the contracting officer's side and thought this group could shed some light. More often than I would have expected, there are solicitations (typically RFQs and RFPs) to which I respond and never see an award and most times I am unable to get a response from the contracting officer. From my viewpoint, I often put a lot of work into preparing quotes, proposals, etc. Attending pre-bids, writing out technicals, working out pricing and all of the other activities of preparing an adequate response can take a lot of time. It's one thing to not be the awardee but it's something else to never see any award made and to have COs completely ignore any phone calls and emails inquiring of the status of these solicitations. I guess my question is why does this happen? Understaffed and overworked COs? Lazy COs? A technical reason that is easier solved by ghosting respondents? I suspect most of the people here are on the government side of operations so I thought it might be a good place to solve my curiosity. Thanks.
  8. Than you for pointing out that previous conversation... it is very interesting. I think the effective answer is that the CO in this case, regardless if 52.212-1 changes anything, can ammend the solicitation at any time before award for any "legitimate" reason they claim. In this specific circumstance, 52.212-1 was incorporated (without modification) into the RFQ. The offer was due on a certain date. A little more than an hour after all offers were due, an amendment was issued to extend the due date by a week in order to arrange a site visit (which was set for the day after the original due date). I would assume that the CO can justify the extension by claiming that a site visit was requested and would generate potentially more and better offers.
  9. I say it is "either or" because the RFQ contained 52.212-1 which changes the quotation to be treated like an offer.... at least that has been successfully argued in past GAO decisions.
  10. I only suspect I may have been a sole bidder since this past week was mostly holiday time for most. I may have used the term "bid" incorrectly as it was actually a quotation or an offer actually. This RFQ contained by incorporation 52-212-1 which changes the standards of an RFQ.
  11. I am a bidder on a RFQ that was due at a certain time on a certain day. A little over an hour after the due date, the bid was extended to allow site visits. My concern is that, with the holiday week, my bid was the only one and after the due date passed the CO wanted to modify things. Is this a valid extension of the due date (now extended for another 7 days) even though the site visit was scheduled for the very next day after the amendment.
  12. I didn't mean to be insulting. I was referring to two different groups. The first group being the people here who didn't think 52212-1 changes the rfq. The second group being COs not in this discussion who don't understand or do sloppy work. As someone on the contractor side, I see many many sloppily or lazily written solicitations. However, I do see some that are superb and it kind of excites me when I do.
  13. Likewise, it is not absolute that the other bidder would win. However, without progressing, we don't have any details about that other bidder, their bid and the evaluation process.
  14. Hi ji20874, Excellent citations. I find case law extremely fascinating to read (I served 6 years as a local legislator and have created a few laws myself). You mentioned that there would still be an allowance for amendments by the CO and that I've overlooked this point apologies if I didn't mention it clearly but there was no amendment, in my opinion (for what that's worth lol). The solicitation cleary stated that experience was an evaluation factor. Many of the offerors did not submit an experience profile (inexperienced bidders, perhaps). The CO then sent an email offering them a second chance to do so. I would not call that an amendment but an offer to correct deficient bids. On edit : I wanted to add that I did some searching of GAO decisions by using the combined keywords of "rfq" and "52212-1", and that's where I felt that I found many pertinent cases as well.
  15. There are a lot of people here that don't realize that the full incorporation of 52212-1 into an rfq changes the rules of simplified acquisition. This fact has been decided so in numerous GAO cases. It seems to be a common mistake (or careless) to incorporate it and not understand what the effect is.
  • Create New...