Jump to content

Vern Edwards

Members
  • Posts

    2,651
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by Vern Edwards

  1. No, it doesn't. Don, I agree with your assertion, but I don't think you have proven its truth.
  2. All: I wrote the following letter to the DOL Wage and Hour Division: I received the following response from a DOL regional office today: The person who signed the response identified themself as: "Senior Investigator Advisor." I do not believe the DOL response answered my question, which was: Basically, the DOL response is "We won't tell an agency what it can or cannot do." That response does not seem to me to be consistent with the plain language of either 29 CFR 4.6(g)(4) or FAR 52.222-41(i)(4). However, it is clear to me that it's the only response I am going to get under the circumstances. I was told orally that CO-initiated interviews are rare. The only agency mentioned by the DOL rep was the Forest Service, but I did not inquire about other agencies. I think the DOL response lends support to C Culham's general take on the issue, but that it does not support his specific arguments and conclusions about the CO's authority. That's all I could learn. Such are the ways of bureaucracy.
  3. @ji20874I'd like to address that. FAR requires that agencies evaluate offerors and their offers on the basis of stated evaluation factors. Following the concepts and principles of decision analysis, I say that "evaluation factors" are attributes (characteristics, features, properties, qualities, etc.) of the things to be evaluated. They are qualities that will contribute the the achievement of the government's objectives, either by their presence of absence. A description of an evaluation factor should include a description of the object of evaluation—the thing to be evaluated—and the attribute of interest. If the evaluation factor is "soundness of proposed approach," then the object of evaluation is the proposed approach and the attribute of interest is soundness. The purpose of evaluation is to determine whether and to what extent various facets of offerors and their offers possess specified attributes. The findings of the evaluators in that regard are the principle products of evaluation. If the evaluation factor is soundness of approach, the evaluators will read the offerors' descriptions of their proposed approaches and determine whether and to what extent they possess the quality called "soundness." The evaluation findings will be statements of the extent to which each of the proposed approaches is or is not "sound." Both the GAO and the COFC have condemned the practice of basing a source selection decision on ratings alone. See, e.g., Braseth Trucking, LLC v. U.S., 124 Fed. Cl. 498, Dec. 4, 2015: And see Manhattan Strategy Group, LLC, GAO B-419040.3, 2021 CPD ¶ 216, May 21, 2021: Since FAR does not require ratings, and since the GAO and COFC will not permit agencies to base their decisions upon them, why use them? The reason is to reduce complexity and facilitate rationality. The finding associated with each of the various evaluation factors is stated in different terms than the others. That's because each factor is a different attribute, with a different description and a different scale of measurement or assessment. The terms used to describe the findings about "soundness of approach" will not be the same as those used to describe, say, "depth of experience," because those are attributes of different natures measured or assessed on different scales. Taking all factors into consideration at once in order to determine each offeror's overall value can be very hard if there are more than two or three factors. Ratings are used in order to simplify complex factor findings by converting findings expressed in different terms and on different scales to common terms and scales. In the quote I provided above, the authors stated: Each finding is like a fraction with a unique denominator. You cannot aggregate them until find the lowest common denominator (LCD). And that's where rating comes in. Ratings, whether they be numbers, adjectives, colors, emojis, or whatever, are like LCDs. A rating system converts judgments expressed in various terms to common terms like 85 points or "Good" or Green. However, you still cannot aggregate adjectives or colors. I agree that if you have a simple acquisition, by which I mean one that entails the evaluation of only two or three factors, then rating is unnecessary and perhaps a needless complication. Taking two or three factors into consideration at once is not too hard. But if you have an acquisition in which there are 5 or even 100 factors, then rating is useful and even necessary. Now, if rating is a useful or necessary means of simplifying complex information for decisional purposes, then a numerical system is superior to an adjectival system, because, quoting the authors again, "The advantage of numerical subjectivity is simply that expressing judgments in numerical form makes it easy to use arithmetical tools to aggregate them." If one has had the proper training, the process of using numerical rating is not inherently complex. There are several ways to do it (e.g., Simple Additive Weighting) and many books that describe them. But to one who has not had the proper training, writing a simple English declarative sentence is complex, and so is long division. And goodness knows, the contracting workforce does not receive proper training in formal decision-making techniques. I will agree in advance to disagree. I expect disagreement. I long ago gave up trying to convert anti-numericals. I am not trying to change anyone's mind here. I am not seeking anyone's agreement. I was once a convinced anti-numerical myself, back in the late 1970s, until properly taught by knowledgeable persons. I have been able to convert a few, but not many, either because I have not been convincing or because they were beyond the reach of my ability to inform and persuade. Based on my training and wide-reading, I believe that government source selection is in the stone age, but the government manages to chose contractors, usually, eventually, so what the heck. All I'm doing here is thinking out loud and talking to myself.
  4. I'm not sure that we do disagree. Your last post seemed to indicate that your problem with numerical scoring is the ignorance of the users and how they use it. You don't seem to object to it in principle.
  5. @joel hoffman The prejudice against numerical rating methods in source selection is strong and, as a practical matter, insurmountable. However, if you read any textbook or article about decision-making the authors will likely use a 0 to 100 point rating system. (NASA uses a 1,000 point system, and you can hardly call them idiots.) Two highly distinguished authors of one of the greatest of all textbooks on decision-making said this about the prejudice against numerical methods: [Emphasis added.] I find adjectival/color rating systems to be seriously dumb and, as a practical matter, almost useless. But they've been with us since the late 1970s and are not going away, giving the ignorance of decision analysis among policymakers and the workforce. It's funny how people who oppose the use of well-established numerical methods are willing to live with and base important decisions upon vague concepts such as "strengths" "weaknesses" and "significant weaknesses." It's very hard to overcome a prejudice among those who won't learn. I usually don't try. But I think you and I have discussed this before. There is a new book out entitled, Shape: The Hidden Geometry of Information, Biology, Strategy, Democracy, and Everything Else, by Jordan Ellenberg. The first chapter tells how Abraham Lincoln taught himself the art of logical persuasion by studying Euclid's Elements. I read about it in The Wall Street Journal, and I'm reading it now.
  6. You might be overstating your case. You can use numbers to analyze anything. COs just are not trained to do it. The problem is not that it cannot be done. The problem is that you cannot expect COs to be able to do it.
  7. @joel hoffman They were occasionally good for entertainment though. I'll never forget this quote from SMS Data Products Group, Inc., 87-1 BCA 19496, GSBCA 8985-P, Dec. 3, 1986:
  8. I think I know what you mean, but given the OP's request for explanation it might help if you explained. I can provide quotes from plenty of GAO decisions that would seem to contradict you. For example: Protest denied. LinTech Global, Inc., GAO B-419107, 2021 CPD ¶ 5, Dec. 10, 2020. That kind of thing does not seem to indicate that statements of relative importance are "irrelevant."
  9. @joel hoffmanA tale from the crypt. 😳 And your point is...?
  10. If you are using a tradeoff process, as opposed to, say, a higher technically rated with a fair and reasonable price process, then you must explain what good things you are getting from the higher-priced offeror that you are not getting from the others, or what bad things you are getting from the others that you are not getting from the higher priced offeror, and why the marginal difference in nonprice value is worth the difference in price. In other words, if you are paying a price premium, you must explain what are you getting for it and why it's worth it.
  11. @WifWafIn addition to the comments in my last post, I would require that a single award IDIQ contract minimum be based on the winning contractor's proposal preparation costs. I would require competing offerors to state their estimated proposal preparation costs in their proposals, and require that the winning offeror's contract minimum cover its costs. Estimated proposal preparation costs would be an evaluation factor. That would alert agencies to the proposal preparation costs that they are forcing contractors to incur and might motivate them to think more carefully when writing proposal preparation instructions. It might also motivate offerors not to spend too much on elaborate proposals. It might put an end to essay-writing contests.
  12. @WifWafI think multiple awards should be an option, not a preference. I would eliminate the policy stated in FAR 16.504(c). I would prohibit protests against a decision to make a single award. Multiple awards are expensive, and I don't think there is substantial evidence that multiple awards and "fair opportunity" competitions have resulted either in lower costs or better quality for the taxpayer. If anything, I would require justification for the making of multiple awards. To prevent abuses of single award IDIQ contracts I would require tighter "scope" descriptions, an absolute prohibition against post-award scope expansions, and a strict limit on the use of extension options. But the multiple award preference is a business welfare program. It would be hard to get rid of it.
  13. Some of you might find the following to be of interest: http://www.wifcon.com/discussion/index.php?/topic/2956-is-construction-considered-a-service/
  14. Actually, ji20874 should get the last word, since he provided the very best response to the OP on the very first day of this thread. 👏
  15. It can't be too difficult. There are a lot of single-award IDIQs. But I would still like to get rid of the multiple-award preference.
  16. I agree. What's more, I think it's Contracting 101. The OP refers to "HVAC units." That could mean anything. But the last HVAC unit I had installed at my home was installed by the supplier of the unit. I also had an emergency outside generator installed at my home, and that, too, was installed by the supplier. In any case, the FAR definition of "supplies" says what it says: "and the alteration or installation of any of the foregoing."
  17. You have made your point, Carl, that the contractor should inquire. You have made it several times. No one disagrees with you.
  18. I'm not sure what you are asking, but have you looked at the definition of "supplies" in FAR 2.101?
  19. You say it's a cost-plus-fixed-fee (CPFF) contract. That being the case, the government will have to reimburse the contractor at its actual, allowable indirect cost rates, unless the contract includes rate ceilings ("caps"). That is pretty elementary. Try reading the contract. Start with the Allowable Cost and Payment clause, FAR 52.216-7.
  20. @C CulhamYes, it supports the thought that I communicated, which was that a deobligation of funds, in and of itself, does not affect an agency's legal obligations under contract. See the following, from page 20 of the decision: Emphasis added. Deobligation of funds, in and of itself, without other contract changes, has no bearing on a contractor's substantive contractual rights. See also King Construction Co., ASBCA 39170, 94-2 BCA ¶ 26630, Jan. 14, 1994. The appellant in the case above paid a lawyer for nothing. It was stupid to file a claim objecting to a deobligation of funds. Once again, ji20874's advice to the OP not to freak out over the deobligation and just send an invoice has been proven to be sound. However, I do agree with you that upon receiving an unexplained unilateral modification to deobligate funds, a contractor would be wise to inquire.
  21. @formerfedHere is how DOD senior management testified about the decision to go single-award with JEDI, as quoted from the GAO's Oracle decision: What do you think?
  22. Wouldn't that approach be transactional, rather than relational? If so, would such an approach build trust and a solid foundation for a long-term strategic service relationship between customer and contractor? Wasn't that the kind of relationship that DOD was hoping to build under JEDI—long-term and strategic??
×
×
  • Create New...