Jump to content

Old3044

Members
  • Posts

    9
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Reputation

0 Neutral

Recent Profile Visitors

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

  1. Have you seen "Best Value with LPTA" used before? If so, can you explain the rationale for what appears to be contradictory evaluation criteria? When I was trained, it was Best Value or LPTA, indicating the priority of the evaluation. If the priority was brand-name, delivery schedule, or quality you would use best value. LPTA was the simplest expression of "we need this particular widget, cheapest offer wins". I'm still not sure how combining those two really makes sense. Perhaps our resident philosopher may have some insight....
  2. I'm not sure that they read the clauses that they include by reference. I had them strike several that were inapplicable and they didn't argue. It wouldn't surprise me at all that your original statement was accurate.
  3. It is included by reference. This is great. Thank you for pointing that one out. I must have overlooked it during my review. I think I have what I need to address this with the PCO. Once again, thank you all for the advice. You guys have been outstanding. Five stars all around.
  4. Without being too specific, the office falls under the ACC. We've been dealing with them for decades and the established methodologies seem to have left with the personnel who retired or were promoted. This new batch of contracting specialists and officers seem unaware of what they have in their solicitations and contracts until it's pointed out to them. My unsubstantiated opinion is that they are following boiler-plate, cook-book style formats without the understanding of the regulations or procurement-specific tailoring that I was trained to do. Heck, they don't even complete fillable clauses when you request the information. I requested that they complete the WAWF clause with the pertinent information, I was told that all the relevant information can be found on the first page of the contract so they didn't feel the need to complete it. Which they never did.
  5. Joel, I'm as confused by their approach as you are. I really appreciate the insight, at the very least it confirmed that I'm not nuts for thinking this is odd and unusual. Your responses were well thought out and helpful. I've got a bit of reading to do with all you've provided and I'll definitely be back with the next perplexing amalgamation of regs and eval criteria! The procurement offices have shifted their methodologies over the past year and it feels like they are doing whatever they want with little regard for actual FAR.
  6. "Best Value" is a common colloquialism utilized by many KOs, so much so that it is being used in their solicitations. It may not appear in FAR 15.101, but it is being used in practical application when developing the solicitation's narrative for evaluation criteria. It's their term from the solicitation, not mine. I feel like if I pointed this out to them, they'd think I was being a smartypants.
  7. It is a FAR acquisition for supplies, no "other transactional authority" (OTA) involved. The solicitation was pretty standard and included past performance, price, technical approach with three sub categories, and all associated reps & certs. Their eval criteria was "Best Value with LPTA" which I have only ever seen used on two separate occasions, this one included. I always thought it was one or the other and combining Best Value with LPTA was contradictory. I did mean certified cost or pricing data when referencing CoPD, that was a mistake by omission on my part.
  8. Thanks for that, I'll review the applicable FAR and see if I interpret it the same way. The USG has requested that we re-certify our cost and pricing data when we submit the BAFO. Joel, It was solicited publicly and we submitted our proposal. About two months later, they requested the CoPD. After another two weeks, they requested a BAFO with a "Cover Page in accordance with FAR 15.406-2 for Certified Cost and Pricing Data". There was no negotiation unless you can consider their BAFO request a negotiation tactic. The industry is small with well established competitors, the USG hasn't performed an actual negotiation in years. The contract is for non-commercial items for USG use only and at least three business concerns that regularly bid on these requirements. I know the "reasonable expectation of competition" rule has been tossed out for fair and reasonable price determinations by the the FAR council but I have a hard time imagining that they only received one bid. If they did receive more than one bid, why are they asking for certified CoPD then follow that up with a request for a BAFO that also needs to be certified? I'm unsure if the application of FAR is changing and my approach is antiquated or if I'm dealing with inexperienced KOs that could possibly be educated.
  9. I'm wondering if any one else has any experience with this particular circumstance. 1). Our PCO requested certified cost or pricing data after submittal of our proposal. 2). Once the cost or pricing data had been reviewed, they then asked for a BAFO. As a prior USG PCO, I had never seen source selection performed in this manner. How do you present a lower "Best and Final" after you've just certified your costs? The only thing I can think to adjust was the profit margin which was already extremely low. My main concern was creating the appearance of "fluffing" our original price if a BAFO was significantly lower than the pricing to which we provided certified cost or pricing data. It kind of felt like a trap. Any insight/advice would be appreciated.
×
×
  • Create New...