Search the Community
Showing results for tags 'soo'.
Found 3 results
Hi, I am reviewing a SOO (per FAR 37.6) from a technical office. Mostly traditionally performance-based, it does contain prescriptive elements of "how" under certain IRs akin to a traditional SOW. Though unusual given the differing purposes, I see nothing in the FAR or my agency supplement that prohibits the mixing of PBC with more traditional methods if it makes logical operational sense. Does anyone have examples where a SOO and SOW were mixed (e.g. as separate sections) under one solicitation? In my case, neither would be on a fixed-price basis. thanks
How does one make an IGCE for a Statement of Objectives (SOO)? The way it works is, the offeror's proposal is the proposed PWS. So the government agency doesn't write the PWS and post it with the solicitation. If that is the case, how can the agency make an IGCE?
FAR 37.602 addresses using a Statement of Objectives (SOO) instead of a SOW in a solicitation. With a SOO, the agency puts the SOO in the solicitation that simply spells out what results/objectives the agency is seeking. Then the offeror submits a proposal, and if selected for award, that proposal gets adopted into the contract as the SOW/PWS. In real-life practice, how would the agency craft the evaluation criteria for this? Let me illustrate the problem. If the agency does a LPTA, how can the agency determine whether a proposal is technically acceptable if there are no "requirements" in the SOW, b/c there is no SOW, just a SOO? Remember, FAR 37.6 states that the SOO never gets incorporated into the contract. The SOO does not provide "requirements," only "objectives." The contractor's proposal becomes the PWS with the requirements. If the agency does a TRADEOFF, how does the SSA realistically determine if one proposal is technically superior to another? Once again, we have no "requirements" in the original solicitation. In this scenario, let's assume that the evaluation criteria are TECHNICAL APPROACH and PRICE.