adt110549601

@Jamaal Valentine, first, thx for hearing me out! With two offers, there would be a trade-off best value decision (adequate competition); with one offer, award could be made to a responsible offeror with fair and reasonable pricing (no longer best value, if one of the offers was no longer considered).

Can you have adequate price competition with two offerors, when one of them receives a marg/unsat/no condidence past performance rating? FAR 15.403-1(c)(1) Adequate price competition. (i) A price is based on adequate price competition when— (A) Two or more responsible offerors, competing independently, submit priced offers that satisfy the Government’s expressed requirement; So is it possible for a marg/unsat/no confidence rated offeror to submit an offer that still satisfies the Government's expressed requirement? If the answer is, no, would you remove the marg/unsat/no confidence offeror from the competition? This changes whether you would make a sole source award decision or a best value award decision.

This still feels tricky when you have offered prices in a proposal from an offeror that has received a marginal/unsat/no confidence past performance rating. I keep looping up and down this thread. There are several good nuggets of information. The tricky part is when an RFP says the Government will evaluate offered prices, but DAU’s Contract Pricing Reference Guide, Volume 1, paragraph 6.1.1 (link above) says to not compare prices of ‘technically unacceptable’ offers (and for good reason, I might add). How do you evaluate the price proposal from an unsat offeror without a comparison that is required as part of an analysis? The Gov’t plans to award without discussions, so this unsat offeror is not being kicked out so to speak. Thx again everyone, especially Joel and Jamaal!

Not including an unsat offeror in the price analysis and/or trade-off analysis feels like you are eliminating them from competition and therefore creating a competitive range. Is there a way to eliminate an unsat offeror from the competition without creating a competitive range? If so, how do you speak to this in your award decision document? BONUS QUESTIONS (if you are feeling generous with your time): How and when does a KO notify an unsat offeror that they are no longer being considered for award or that they did not receive the award? Thx everyone who has been participating in this discussion!

Above, posted by Sam101, a distinction was made between (1) a 'competitive range determination price comparison' and (2) a 'price analysis for price reasonableness purposes prior to making an award'. This got me thinking, could (2) be completed without the price proposal of an offeror who received a 'no confidence' past performance assessment rating from the KO, in a situation similar to below? In an OCONUS RFP using Parts 12/15, where the KO intends to award without discussions, with a best value source selection method, where there are only two evaluation factors (past performance (PP) & price, with PP significantly more important than price). The RFP does not state that "offerors who rate below Acceptable may not be considered for award." Does the price proposal from the offeror with a 'no confidence' PP rating need to be included in the price analysis? Including their price proposal in the analysis heavily skews the results and ultimately gives unrealistic results.

Reference Interim Rule for FAR Case 2019-009 published July 14, 2020 in the Federal Register - https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/FR-2020-07-14/pdf/2020-15293.pdf Ultimately, I would like to know your opinion whether a bilateral contract modification should be pursued to update FAR 52.204-25 to the newest AUG 2020 version. The clause is currently included in my IDIQ commercial services contract. The contract base and all options is anticipated to be 60 months in length, estimated total $12M. The contractor completed their representations in SAM for provisions 52.212-3(v)(2) and 52.204-26(c) and stated "does not" provide covered telecommunications equipment or services for both provisions. Provision FAR 52.204-24 is also being updated AUG 2020. Do I need their representations for FAR 52.204-24(d)(2)? Potentially prior to exercising an option??? The Interim Rule states contracting officers shall modify existing contracts prior to placing future orders. On page 11 of the Federal Register publication it states, "the objective of the rule is to provide an information collection mechanism that relies on an offer-by-offer representation that is required to enable agencies to determine and ensure that they are complying with section 889(a)(1)(B)." FAR 52.204-25 AUG 2019 does not address section 889(a)(1)(B). FAR 52.204-25 AUG 2020 added a second paragraph under (b), the second paragraph pertains to section 889(a)(1)(B). If I do not modify my contract to update FAR 52.204-25, will I potentially be in violation of section 889(a)(1)(B)? I can't recall ever modifying a contract just to include the most current version of a clause. Do you think a modification to update FAR 52.204-25 to AUG 2020 is appropriate? If so, would you expect this to be a no-cost mod? Thanks in advance for participating in this discussion!