govt2310

Members
  • Content count

    258
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

0 Neutral

About govt2310

  • Rank
    Silver Member

Contact Methods

  • ICQ 0

Profile Information

  • Gender Not Telling
  1. The original award was never terminated. The CO simply "froze" the contract by doing the CICA stay of performance. It was frozen for 15 months, then "unfrozen" when it turned out that the original awardee was the awardee again after corrective action.
  2. HYPO: A Contracting Officer finds a company "responsible" just before making award. The CO makes award. After sending out the Notice of Award letters, an unsuccessful offeror files a protest at GAO alleging misevaluation of its own proposal. The agency takes corrective action. It takes 15 months to reevaluate and complete the corrective action. The results of the corrective action are the same as before: the original awardee is the awardee again. The CO did not "redo" the responsibility determination for the awardee. Instead, the CO believes that the previous responsibility determination they did -- which is now 15 months old -- is "still good." After making award and sending out the Notice of Award letters to the unsuccessful offerors, the same protester from before files a protest at GAO. QUESTIONS: Was the corrective action proper if the CO did not "redo" the responsibility determination, but instead, relied on the 15 month old responsibility determination from before? Is there a time limit on how long a CO's responsibility determination is good for?
  3. To Jamaal: Let's say the Notice of Award was already issued to the awardee. Notice of Award letters went out as well.
  4. HYPO: An agency finds ABC's proposal to be Technically Acceptable. Later, the agency sends ABC a Notice of Award Letter notifying them that ABC is an unsuccessful offeror. ABC files a protest at GAO. After the protest is filed, the agency realizes that ABC's proposal should have been found Technically Unacceptable, because it failed to meet a material solicitation requirement. QUESTION: Does anyone know of a GAO Decision with these facts? Do you think GAO would or should deny the protest, just based on these facts?
  5. Vern wrote: Technically, this is not a "new" award. Yes, we have simply take corrective action, which involved reevaluation and a new source selection decision/memo. It happens to be that the "new" awardee is the original awardee. Note, the original protest involved allegations that the agency did not take certain information into account when evaluating past performance. So in the corrective action, that "new" PP info was taken into account. The original protest was filed at GAO only, and the agency took corrective action.
  6. Say an agency sent out FAR 15.503(B ) Postaward Notice of Award letters to unsuccessful offerors. Written debriefings were provided to all of them. After a protest was filed, the agency decided to take Corrective Action. The Corrective Action involved reevaluating the proposals. While it was reevaluating the proposals, the agency did not "terminate" the original contract award to the original awardee, but rather, "suspended" their contract and did not allow them to work. Now the agency has completed its new reevaluation. The same awardee from the initial evaluation is also the awardee after Corrective Action. Must the agency send "new" FAR 15.503(B ) Postaward Notice of Award letters to ALL the unsuccesful offerors? Can the agency send the Notice of Award letters to ONLY the unsuccessful offeror that protested last time? Technically, this is not a "new" award in the sense that, there is no new contract being awarded, but rather, the contract with the original awardee, which was "suspended," will now be "unsuspended" so the contractor can start performing the work.
  7. The Performance-Price Tradeoff (PPT) method raises practical issues. When agencies try to use PPT for "FAR Part 15" solicitations, PPT does not allow for compliance with FAR 15.306(c ) (it requires evaluation "against all evaluation criteria"). In PPT, usually the solicitation will say that Price is evaluated first, then only those proposals found to have F&R price move on to be evaluated for Technical, then only those proposals found Technically Acceptable move on to be evaluated for Past Performance. If an agency intends to hold discussions, and they want to do a Competitive Range, it looks like the agency could just do the Competitive Range "cut-off" by including in discussions only those offerors with technically acceptable proposals. In other words, an agency does not have to evaluate on "all" evaluation criteria, as the agency does not even get to evaluating Past Performance until after the Competitive Range has been made. But I can see how a disgruntled offeror might see this as the agency failing to comply with FAR 15.306©. As far as I know, GAO has not addressed this specific question.
  8. Does anyone have any guidance on how a CO is supposed to evaluate for "Balanced Pricing" in a Price Analysis? Some colleagues have proposed using the "Total Allocation of Price" or "Total Allocation of Cost" method for determining Balanced Pricing. I have never heard of this method before. Is anyone here familiar with it? Does anyone have any other methods for determining whether a price/individual CLINs are "balanced"?
  9. The solicitation was silent on that issue. The solicitation did not require submission of proof of a "binding commitment between the offeror and the sub."
  10. EXCELLENT/HIGH CONFIDENCE: Based on the Offeror's recent and relevant performance record, hte Gov't has a high expectation that hte Offeror will successfully perform the required effort. GOOD/SIGNIFICANT CONFIDENCE: Based on the Offeror's recent and relevant performance record, the Gov't has a reasonable expectation that hte Offeror will successfully perofrm the required effort. FAIR/SOME CONFIDENCE: Based on the Offeror's recent and relevant performance record, the Gov't has a low expectation that hte Offeror will successfully perform the required effort. NO CONFIDENCE: Based on the Offeror's recent and relevant performance record, the Gov't has no expectation that hte Offeror will be able to successfully perform the required effort. NEUTRAL/UNKNOWN CONFIDENCE: No recent and relevant performance record is available or the Offeror's performance record is so sparse that no meaningful confidence assessment rating can be reasonably assigned.
  11. A solicitation requires offerors to submit Past Performance. It further states that the agency will consider the Past Performance of the offerors' proposed subcontractors if it is submitted. One of the offerors submits a proposal containing the past performance of its subcontractor. The past performance is considered Very Relevant, and the PP surveys are all "Excellent." The evaluators rate the offeror's Past Performance as "Neutral." Why? They say that, because the glowing Past Performance was done by the subcontractor, not the prime, and there is always a general risk that the prime will not be able to manage the subcontractor in such a way as to achieve the same level of high performance (Excellent), the evaluators "downgrade" the overall Past Performance from "Excellent" to "Neutral." Does this sound reasonable?