Jump to content
The Wifcon Forums and Blogs


  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

0 Neutral

About NewtoGovContracting

  • Rank

Recent Profile Visitors

The recent visitors block is disabled and is not being shown to other users.

  1. Update on this: No there has not been a violation of procurement integrity it had something to do with the format/method of communication. There is a protocol to sending emails or information when it pertains to source selection, which I am still completely unclear about. So will need to research that. The KO response is below if anyone has any thoughts. "No there has not been a violation of procurement integrity. There is a protocol to sending emails or information when it pertains to source selection. Also you will be receiving a written debrief so there will not be a meeting scheduled and we are not accepting and/or answering questions." So I'm betting there's been a ridiculous amount of protests because Vendors were not afforded the opporutunity to ask questions and gain resolution on why they were not selected. And I'm doubting the writeup will contain anything truly useful, but I gess we will see.
  2. No, I just requested the debrief because we only had 3 days to request and we need to review the proposal and RFP again. It's been almost 2 years since we bid this
  3. Thanks, that's what had me concerned, but if it was anything other than them thinking we falsely tried to claim points, it doesn't make sense. That's a judgement call to a certain extend or a difference of opinion, unless we provided nothing to back that data up. I have already requested a debrief, so let's see what they come back with.
  4. Sorry, the communication with the engineering director is pre award and sending white paper was pre award. The denial letter references nothing other than the points shortage as the reason for being removed from competition. It mentioned nothing about sending the white papers, or any discussions, which the conversation we had was only about some ideas around potential solutions to some issues they mentioned. We didn't discuss the ID/IQ at all. This is a bid for a spot in the ID/IQ, not a task order. We might protest as we are a little befuddled as to how they disallowed so many points. We established a JV with another experienced government contractor who had a lot of the past performance. We provided plenty of examples of work that lined up with the point requirements. But yes a my main question is about the procurement integrity reference.
  5. I tried searching for this in the forum but couldn't find any relevant information, my apologies if I missed something. I am new to the community. We were recently deemed unnacpetable based on points verification within our Technical Narrative writeup on a IDIQ. The Contracting Officer (KO) send an email with the notice stating that the agency was unable to verify 1,650 of of the 5,350 points within our Technical Narrative. Which put us below the 4,200 points required to continue in the process. What I was mainly concered about was the fact that the KO referenced FAR 2.101 and FAR 3.104 in the Subject body saying see this specific clauses. FAR 3.104 is about Procurement Integrity. Now we are new to govnerment contracting and I'm not sure if the are intimating that we violated some kind of procurement activity either potentially or accidentally. But I'm assuming that would have been stated specifically in the denial letter they sent. Or would I be incorrect in that assumption? At one point we did speak with one of the agencies Engineering Director's and discussed some potential solutions we had in mind for problems they expressed in a conference. He asked us to send a white paper on that. In the white paper we mentioned we were bidders on IDIQ, but our thought process was that we would have a potential contract vehicle in the future upon which we could take advantage of the white paper's proposed solutions. Maybe that was incorrect to do on our part, I'm not sure. Can anyone shed any light as to why they would reference that in the subject body, is that a fairly standard clause to reference? Thank you
  • Create New...