Search the Community
Showing results for tags 'procurement'.
Found 14 results
-
Company has been approached by several DoD purchasers across agencies that are interested in purchasing its product. The product is a ubiquitous, low-tech component found in most government hardware systems. Government systems that require this manufactured component cannot function without it, and existing government hardware is obsolete technology and failing, raising national security concerns. Because this hardware is located in major & minor systems across the defense industrial base, the potential scope of work is daunting. The government lacks records containing specs for the currently installed product, requiring reverse engineering in many instances. The government also lacks an inventory database. It appears that the government officials who want to purchase the products are not sure how to design and scope this type of procurement and fund it. I am helping the Company think through procurement options for discussion with government officials. We would like to find an analogous situation that was successfully solved, thinking that this can't be the first time the government faced this problem. The Company is a small business. So, here's my question: Can you identify an example of a ubiquitous component in government property that was replaced with a new and improved product. Ideal examples would involve replacement of manufactured hardware components in the defense industrial base. -
The Section 809 Panel, created in section 809 of the FY 2016 National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA), is charged with recommending improvements to the defense acquisition process. In January 2018 the panel released their first volume of three, which provides guidance for simplifying the DoD procurement process in ways that could benefit contractors. Their insights shed light on the obstacles contractors face, and pave the road for changes in law to help overcome them. Read the full article at Petrillo & Powell's Patterns of Procurement. -
Why Timing is Everything in Small Business Recertification
Joseph Petrillo posted a blog entry in Patterns of Procurement
Congratulations: you’ve certified as small business for federal contracting purposes. In a typical contract setting, you keep your size status for the life of the contract. But in the instance of a merger or acquisition or if a contract lasts longer than 5 years, you must recertify to maintain your size status. For multiple-award contracts, the Contracting Officer is also given a good deal of latitude in terms of whether a small business must recertify for an individual order. In a recent case, Unissant, Inc. protested the size status of a competitor who’d recently earned a task order award. Read on to learn what small businesses contractors need to know about small business status in light of this case. Read the full article at Petrillo & Powell's Patterns of Procurement. -
When the Department of Defense (DoD) sought restrictions on bid protests, Congress made them commission a study to validate their case. That study, authored by the RAND Corporation, looks at bid protests during the 9-year period from 2008-2016. The study indicates a significant increase in the number of bid protests over that time period. That trend alone bolsters the DoD’s case. But a further look at the extensive data from RAND’s study suggests otherwise, and provides critical insights for Defense contractors. Read the full article at Petrillo & Powell's Patterns of Procurement.
-
Statute and regulation prevent public access to contractor past performance information. That said, contractors who contest poor performance reviews in Court or at a board may unintentionally put themselves at risk to have the details of the matter released in a public decision. Such was the case for Torres Advanced Enterprise Solutions, whose recent protest at the COFC inadvertently lead to their performance issues becoming a matter of public record. The case serves as a cautionary tale for other contractors considering whether to contest a poor performance review. Read the full article at Petrillo & Powell's Patterns of Procurement.
-
Sometimes multiple contractors earn spots on Indefinite Delivery, Indefinite Quantity (IDIQ) contracts, which allow for an undetermined quantity of supplies or services during a fixed period of time, as outlined in FAR. But what happens when winning contractors have reservations about the competitors who earn contracts alongside them? DaeKee Global Co. found itself in such a situation, and reacted by protesting the terms of the solicitation. Read on to learn how GAO and the COFC responded to such protests, and what this means for contractors concerned about their bedfellows in IDIQ contracts. To read the full article, visit Petrillo & Powell's Patterns of Procurement.
-
After the proposal due date, the rule is that late changes or revisions are not accepted, with certain narrow exceptions spelled out in regulation. However, GAO has carved out its own exception when key personnel become unavailable. Such was the case when the YWCA protested a recent Labor Department award. GAO held that after proposal submission, an agency cannot accept a replacement for a key person who becomes unavailable without opening discussions with all offerors in the competitive range. The case highlights some of issues that arise for offerors when personnel changes occur after proposals are submitted. Read the full article at Petrillo & Powell's Patterns of Procurement.
-
In two recent cases, disappointed contractors protested when agencies failed to request clarifications or open discussions. Both Defense Base Services and Level 3 argued that the issues with their proposals could have been remedied if given the chance. GAO denied both offerors’ protests. Yet when Level 3 persisted at the COFC, the judge concluded that an agency’s failure to request clarifications constituted an abuse of discretion. The cases illustrate the difference in the way GAO and the COFC view clarifications and discussions, and shed insight for offerors under similar circumstances. Read the full article at Petrillo & Powell's Patterns of Procurement.
-
An offeror protested an award by the U.S. Forest Service when the agency’s solicitation appeared to favor a competitor, but the protest was denied at GAO. The Simplex Aerospace decision, in comparison to the recent case of PSI, raises the question of whether disappointed contractors are better served by filing protests with GAO or the Court of Federal Claims. Does the decision of where to file really mean the difference between a win and a loss in the world of Government contracts? Read the full article at Petrillo & Powell's Patterns of Procurement.
-
Sometimes the Government seeks the best overall value, and at times simply lowest cost. But even when low price is determinative, the bidder must still meet minimum technical qualifications. In a recent case, Level 3 Communications lost a major contract with the Dept. of Defense to Verizon, whose bid exceeded theirs by nearly $40 million. Level 3 was disqualified for what it thought were trivial reasons. When Level 3 protested, it got no relief from GAO, but the Court of Federal Claims came to their rescue. More at Petrillo & Powell's Patterns of Procurement.
-
Contracts with the Federal Government represent big bucks for technology companies. According to ITDashboard.gov, government agencies spent a whopping $82.8 billion on information technology investments in FY2016, a number that’s poised to grow in the next two years. It’s no wonder, then, that technology companies take government contracts seriously. So when tech giant Palantir Technologies could not get the Army to consider its commercial IT system, they protested. And ultimately, the Court of Federal Claims decided in their favor. View the full article here.
-
For losing contractors, the question of whether to protest is a tricky one. Contractors often move to protest when the requirements seem to favor one competitor over another, or when the rules of the procurement are unclear. But there’s an important difference between an agency displaying an abuse of discretion and simply utilizing the flexibility written into the Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR). Two recent cases shed light on where that distinction may lie. Professional Service Industries,Inc. v. United States, et al., 129 Fed. Cl. 190 (2016) SSI, B-413486, et al., Nov. 3, 2016. View the full article here.
-
My supervisory CO has asked me to research how to do a "blind competition," which I understand is a process whereby companies interested in submitting offers do not use their own identity in their technical (and cost?) proposals. The purpose of the blind competition is to establish a true(r) objectivity on behalf of the technical evaluation committee. I have searched the wifcon pages and done a general online search, but have not found any guidance on how to set up a blind competition. I am looking for best ways to set-up/structure a blind competition, e.g. does it work better if offerors are instructed to write their technical proposals in such a way so as to not identify themselves or we ask them to register and then assign a number or other name to them? What are other lessons learned, best practices, guidance, pitfalls, etc.? Thanks in advance for any inputs!
-
http://oversight.house.gov/wp-content/uploads/2013/03/FITARA.pdf I was wondering if some of the senior members of this discussion board had any impressions of the proposed legislation. It is a bit different from the initial draft (Summary of changes found here: http://oversight.house.gov/wp-content/uploads/2013/03/FITARA_RevisionsSummary.pdf). One piece of the proposed legislation is the introduction of the "fixed-priced technical competition" that I thought would be of interest to some (Sec. 503). I know that some find IT acquisitions dry as dirt, but IT procurement is something that every agency procurement division manages in some form or fashion, and the implications of this legislation fall beyond IT procurement. Just interested in your impressions. Jon Johnson