Jump to content

brian

Members
  • Posts

    268
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by brian

  1. . It is my impression that I've won 6 FedBid competitions. I can't prove that. One was reposted, but I never saw the reposted item. I suspect it was awarded at a higher price than my price on the original posting. On another, the contract was awarded to another bidder at a higher price. When I complained, it was canceled. I suspect it was later reacquired through another avenue that avoided public notice and competition, so that the preferred vendor could win. Two were canceled, and my price was fairly high because the requirement was pretty open-ended, possibly leaving me liable for costs that should not have been part of the requirement, but could have been. A lot of the requirements posted there are vague. It made sense to cancel because my prices were so high. But on the last two, I bid very competitively, and still they were canceled. For one, long after bids closed, I was told that the requiring activity now realized that they really didn't need the services, after all. I didn't find that answer believable. The last one was just canceled today. Bidding closed more than 2 weeks ago, and I've checked the status daily. It was listed as "Lag - pending selection" until this afternoon. When I asked why it was canceled, I was told, "The _____ requirement will be procured through DAPS Defense Automation Production Service. They are a mandatory source." Ouch. I can tell you, FedBid hasn't worked out so good for me, but I don't blame FedBid. Government purchasing people have been very sloppy when using this system. .
  2. Go Gold, A CO is required to set aside and award a contract to small businesses when they reasonably expect 2 or more capable small businesses to bid at a fair price. This is the rule for over the SAT, which I think is $100,000. Under that threshold, but above the Micropurchase threshold of $2,500, the rules are stated differently, but the net effect is exactly the same. The differences are just semantic. Under the SAT, every contract is automatically set-aside, and if the CO determines that she should not expect two good bids from small businesses, then she has to get permission to "dissolve" the automatic set-aside. Over the SAT, every contract starts out as "unrestricted," but the CO has to do market research to see if it should be set-aside. If it meets the test (2 or more,) then she is required to set it aside. I agree that this is a commercial item. Why do you say that it should have been acquired using simplified acquisition procedures ? Are you saying that setting something aside for Small Business is not using simplified acquisition procedures ? Are you saying that awarding a contract for hotel rooms and conference rooms to a broker of travel services is not using simplified acquisition procedures ? I didn't follow that part of your posting. ........ I assume you operate a hotel, and think that the award should have gone to a hotel. If I was in your industry, I'm sure I'd feel the same way. But the Government contracting person probably decided that the 3rd party bidder was able to deliver the needed services, and the price was better. I assume that there are intangible benefits that the Government would have gained by dealing directly with a hotel, rather than going through an intermediary. In the future, you need to do a better job of explaining those benefits. .
  3. . If I got this right, Pro Se Harry bid on a job and lost. Then, the contractor who underbid him and won the contract came to him to ask for a quote to fabricate the item. Harry is asking how he can influence the Government so that they award contracts to him in the future, and not to his too-low-priced competition. Harry knows his costs to produce the item. He knows the winning bid. He thinks he knows his competitor's costs. ......... Harry assumes that the guy who beat him didn't know that Harry had submitted a losing bid. That's a reasonable assumption, but not the one that I made. I assume that the low-ball competitor was collecting pricing data in order to support a request for a waiver to Buy America Act provisions. I assume the low-baller wants to fabricate the item in Somalia, where labor costs are lower, and environmental requirements are less stringent. Bottom line, I don't know the low-baller's costs, and neither does Harry. Maybe this competitor has access to an innovative new technology that is a lot cheaper. Maybe he already built the items for a different project that got canceled. Maybe he feels bad about cheating on his taxes and sees this as a way to compensate the Government. To help Harry with his situation, if an unfit competitor is underbidding an item he can't even furnish, and if the item in question is a critical supply item, Harry might work with the buyer to institute some sort of pre-qualification procedure, perhaps a qualified supplier list or by specifying a proprietary process. .
  4. . I've placed about 15 bids through this system, and have yet to win anything. Every bid I've placed went straight into LAG status, meaning I didn't hit their target price. Or possibly that they already had a lower bid. Every time I think I've been the low bidder, the requirement gets canceled or reposted. Yesterday I posted a very conservative bid, allowing for unexpected contingencies, and they emailed me to say my price was awfully high, and asking me to verify my pricing. So, buyers who use this system: how is it working out for you ? .
  5. . The Army's Installation Management Command has an office set up just for utilities contracts. Maybe they can help. .
  6. What happens if a solicitation is put out and no offers are received? The first option that occurs to me: if there were no responses, then nobody has standing to object to a post-hoc extension. That's when the time that offers are due passes, the offer acceptance period ends, and then an amendment is issued to reopen the bid acceptance window. Thus, you can readvertise the exact same requirement, no changes, right away. You could add a note saying that it is being readvertised because no offers were received. You could even openly state that you were extending the deadline after it had expired. That would be like chumming or pouring fresh blood into the water when hunting sharks. For some contractors, that's like an open flame beckoning a moth. This tactic will not yield low-ball pricing, but it will incentivize a handful of small businesses to put together a quote. Only give them a couple days to react, heightening the sense of urgency. Another possible course of action: consider that first solicitation that garnered no interest as a test of the marketplace. You now know that there isn't much interest, so why not make it a sole source under one of the preference programs, like 8(a,) SDVOSB or HUBZone ? When you directly negotiate a sole source, you almost never end up in a no-bid situation. .
  7. If I follow you, Vern, I think you are suggesting that, in any debriefing for an acquisition where there is only one line item, the CO should not give the award price until a FOIA request is fully processed. But I didn't see anybody present an argument why a CO might not tell who won the contract. .
  8. . apologies to all, especially to Joel, for dribbling out bits of information. My intention was to not give out so much information that the CO involved, who I felt had made an incorrect decision, would be readily identifiable. I asked the CO I disagreed with for contact info for her Small Biz liaison, and she gave me email addresses for her boss and the SB person. Today, her boss emailed me. She didn't understand why I was so put out - all I had to do was to ask her for the information. She told me how many offers, who won, and at what price. Turns out my estimate of the level of effort was way, way high. I figured almost 4 FTE's, and the PO was awarded for under $25K. With my cost structure, which I think is lean, that wouldn't have covered even 1 FTE, with the costs for labor overhead, equipment and materials factored in. The separate discussion on releasing prices has made me think. .
  9. . Don, I first admit that I am not trained to read court decisions, and may be way off. I believe the court intended to say that all programs that have any racial component can only be applied after there is a proof of specific harm from past discrimination, and that, for all 5 types of programs listed, while discrimination and harm had been proven in the past in limited circumstances, there is no current showing that the test of such adverse impact is still met. I believe the court intended to say that, in particular, since the 8(a) program is a subset of SDB preferences, it is not permitted. The implications for HUBZone seemed more tenuous. But the SBA response appears to me to be well-founded and supported. I believe that the SBA interpretation will prevail until it is overturned through further litigation or legislation. .
  10. . I find this discussion interesting - its more like the old WIFCON, before the switch over to the new format. Maybe it's just me, but I think that the debates aren't as lively as they used to be. I really appreciate all of the feedback, particularly the exploration of aspects that I'd never considered. So, this discussion is on two levels - my individual whining about how life is unfair is on one level, and the bigger picture about what the FAR and the courts actually say about releasing or withholding pricing information is on the other level. This second level of discussion does not depend on the particulars of my case. ........ I am selfishly more interested in finding out if I lost out to someone with an improper competitive advantage, such as a business run by the CO's husband, for example. And if so, was his price higher than mine ? I know that the protocols here say we don't get too deep into the particulars of a specific situation. This is a forum for intellectual exchange, not for pointing fingers or embarrassing individuals. If it would help, I could provide specifics of the solicitation. But I think that could effectively identify the post and CO involved, even if I deleted their names and address, due to the unique aspects of the required grounds maintenance services. I think I can safely say that the requirement is for picking up and disposing of an unusual form of debris/ trash under conditions that require special safety precautions, protective equipment and security clearances. It was not SECRET; it was posted at the Army's asfi website. I could also provide the text of the Government's email to me saying that they would not release either the award price or the winner's name. That would not identify the Government people involved. Please let me know if that would help. .
  11. . Earlier, in my post #9 above, on 13 March, I suggested that the first defense against contracting irregularities is for interested parties to be able to see if they were treated fairly in competitions. Do you agree ? While it is fitting for GAO to weigh each case before them with a presumption that government officials are acting in good faith, unless there is a showing otherwise, we recognize that government officials sometimes do not act that way. There are several GAO decisions where bad faith on the part of a CO affected the outcome; one particular case [Tecom, Inc.] involved serial bad faith by a former supervisor of mine. If the Government can conceal the award price in an acquisition where evaluation is based on price alone, and can conceal the name of the awardee, that violates one of the four foundations of Government contracting: openness (which is essential for accountability.) That in turn can conceal violations of the three remaining foundations: competition, socio-economic programs, and fair and reasonable pricing. Clearly, most CO's act in good faith all of the time, and of those who don't, they only abuse their authority selectively. Assume for the sake of discussion that only one tenth of 1% of all Government acquisitions involve abuse and bad faith. Should we just let those slide, since they are so few in number ? . I am familiar with a GAO decision that denied an unsuccessful offeror's request to know who won, and at what price. The acquisition was for services to be provided in Iraq and Afghanistan, but it was not classified. "We dismiss the protest because an agency's failure to provide a debriefing is not a matter that we will consider. This is because the scheduling of a debriefing is a procedural matter that does not involve the validity of an award. The Ideal Solution, LLC . B-298300, July 10, 2006 CPD [para] 101 at 3 n.2; Canadian Commercial Corp., B-222515, July 16, 1986, 86-2 CPD [para] 73 at 5." But this action didn't protest a failure to offer or schedule a debriefing; it protested the concealment of who won, and at what price. Even though the award would have exceeded $5.5 Million, it was not even posted on the DoD contract awards page. . I have some auditing in my background. A basic principle for internal controls is to require several people to sign off on each requirement: a requiring official who signs the Purchase Request/ funding document; a CO who signs the contract; and a receiving official who certifies the goods and services were acceptable. Underlying this principle is the understanding that one person, acting alone, may be tempted to use their official position for personal gain, because they are not likely to be found out. But if they have to coordinate that misconduct with another person, the chances of being found out go way up; and if a 3rd person is required, it is more likely than not that one of the three is going to feel slighted by the other two, which greatly expands the possibility that the conspiracy will come to light. Now, the for-profit business community should not be allowed to know all of the Government's business, but when I take the time to prepare an offer, and put my name and resources on the line, I think that I am entitled to know that I lost fair and square. Secrecy in contracting is needed to an extent, but it becomes a cancer when left unchecked. .
  12. Don, why do you say "HUBZones, too ?" What else has been ruled unconstitutional ?
  13. . I used the "fast reply" function, and nothing showed up. Guess its time for me to read the instructions. Thanks everyone for commenting. It's a little humbling to go from contracts to provide foreign policy advice to purchase orders for grounds maintenance, but I was too proud to begin with. There is only one CLIN per year, base + 2 options. I am asking for the award price for the entire contract (in the Base Year,) but that's effectively the same as line item pricing. I don't see how there could be any misunderstanding about what I want, but I may be too close to see the bigger picture. I am also asking to know who won. I'd like to know if its someone with the same last name as the CO, for example. I didn't ever inspect the job site, and suspect my price was either way high or way low, compared to the government estimate and/ or other bids. I would expect the CO to be anxious to tell me if I was way high, so I assume the agency thought I was too low and unreasonably so. I assume they expect me to make a fuss if the award price was significantly higher than mine, or even just barely higher than mine, and thus the secrecy. But that's just a guess. In my opinion, the first defense against contracting irregularities is for interested parties to be able to see if they were treated fairly in competitions. Without openness, how can there be accountability ? .
  14. . When an Army CO says that she will not release the award price on a Part 13 acquisition for grounds maintenance services, and cites FAR 24.202 as her authority, saying that the award price is proprietary, since it was part of the winning proposal, how is this different from her saying that her office could benefit from an IG visit, or a protest ? .
  15. . Based on my very limited experience, cancellation of an RFP could mean that the evaluation scheme was defective, resulting in the wrong offeror being ranked as "in line for award." When the agency goes through the evaluation process outlined in the solicitation, and their preferred vendor doesn't win, they have a couple of choices. They can change the scope of the requirement and cancel and resolicit; if the solicitation is written poorly enough, they can find that the scope falls within the scope of an existing contract with a vendor they really don't like working with, but who is preferrred over the vendor in line for award of the new contract, and cancel the RFP; they can deobligate funds and then cancel due to insufficient funds; theoretically, they could even award to the vendor who won the competition. The fact that they are talking to you after the cancellation suggests that you might be the preferred vendor that they wanted to win, and they are now subtly coaching you how to win under the resolicitation. .
  16. . this post may demonstrate that I shouldn't post this early in the AM, but here goes. The sort of on-site monitoring of how a tailored system works for a particular customer, I don't think that's looking at Past Performance. I think that's a Technical Evaluation. Implications ? I don't know. .
  17. didn't paratroopers used to be more interested in bad women ?
×
×
  • Create New...