MadamSki Posted January 8, 2014 Report Share Posted January 8, 2014 "I have this friend..." who is in a source selection. Her policy people suggested a proposal elimination strategy termed: "Quick Cut". Where if a proposal does not meet a specific element up front, it is not further evaluated. For example (yes this is an unrealistic example): The proposal is for bird pevention services. The RFP states that if a proposal does not include shooting the birds, it shall not be further evaluated and it shall be considered unacceptable. This element shall be evaluated before any other subfactor, blah lah. It makes mt friend's tummy queezy just thinking about it. Has anyone heard of this before? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ji20874 Posted January 8, 2014 Report Share Posted January 8, 2014 Are you in a real source selection (FAR Subpart 15.3) or something else (like a FAR 16.505 Fair Opportunity to be Considered or FAR 8.405-2 Services under GSA Schedule)? If shooting the birds is an essential part of the agency's minimum requirement, and if the solicitation specifically says all offers will first be evaluated for that matter, pass or fail, well, maybe the suggestion is a reasonable approach. I'm not aware of anything that prohibits a step-by-step tiered evaluation and requires instead a single holistic evaluation. FAR 15.303( b )( 1 ) leads to an expectation of a "comprehensive" evaluation, but I'm not sure that comprehensive precludes tiered, if shooting the birds is an essential part of the agency's minimum requirement. The key fact, perhaps, will be whether the shooting approach to your bird prevention problem should be described as within the best value tradeoff space or as a minimum Government requirement. Why not invite industry input? FAR 11.002( c ) says "potential offerors whould be given an opportunity to comment on agency requirements..." Why is your friend's tummy queasy? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ji20874 Posted January 8, 2014 Report Share Posted January 8, 2014 Here's something you might find interesting... http://www.fundsforlearning.com/blog/2011/08/latest-evolution-multi-tier-bid-evaluation This concerns RFPs for utility/communications services under FCC authority, not FAR authority, But if you look at this from a perspective of FAR 1.102-4( e ), then paragraph 12 of the FCC order might be read as follows-- That is, [agencies] may use a multi-tiered vendor selection process when evaluating [proposals], but ultimately, price must be [a] factor in selecting [the best value] vendor. Specifically, [agencies] may use the first tier of a multi-tiered evaluation process to assess whether a proposal satisfies minimum technical capabilities, such as the scope of or quality of service, to ensure that the proposal is responsive to the RFP. This tier may be evaluated on a pass-fail basis or it may be scored numerically, where a minimum score is required to advance to the next phase of the evaluation process. [Agencies] may use the second tier of the evaluation process to examine price and other criteria. Consistent with [FAR 15.304( d )], we expect that any [agency] using a multi-tiered process would provide notice . . . in . . . its RFP . . . to all potential [offerors] as to the specific criteria to be evaluated in each tier, how those criteria will be scored, which criteria will be used as disqualification criteria, and the circumstances under which [offerors] will be disqualified from further consideration. We also remind [agencies] that price must be [evaluated] in a multi-tiered vendor selection process, consistent with [FAR 15.304( c )( 1 ). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MadamSki Posted January 8, 2014 Author Report Share Posted January 8, 2014 My Friend's tuimmy was queasy because if she were still a contractor, based on the direction the conversations were going, she would file an immediate protest. Yes, it is a real source selection, and the higher the dollar, the faster "stuff" pops up. All sorts of great ideas. Thank you, you have given me what I need. While I have you, and if you have the time, I would like to ask your opnion regarding the Rule of Two: Multiple award IDIQ with two competition pools, SB Setaside pool and a Full and Open Pool. IFF we receive two reasonable acceptable bids from Small Businesses that meet the requirements for the Full and Open Pool, must the Full and Open be changed to a set aside? I understand the rule at task order level, and have legal quasi opinions, that of course don't agree. New insights/thoughts would be awesome if u have the time. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ji20874 Posted January 9, 2014 Report Share Posted January 9, 2014 If we receive two reasonable acceptable bids from Small Businesses that meet the requirements for the Full and Open Pool, must the Full and Open be changed to a set aside? No. The market research and planning and approvals for the acquisition have already been done -- you decided it would be F&OC, and you issued an invitation for bids (or request for proposals?) -- your offers came in -- evaluate them and select the winner. Your large business offerors have acted in good faith, and you need to treat them with good faith. The question of two or more small businesses is answered BEFORE the solicitation is released (the standard is a reasonable expectation of obtaining, see FAR 19.502-2( b )), not AFTER offers are received. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MadamSki Posted January 9, 2014 Author Report Share Posted January 9, 2014 That's right! We have been so caught up at set aside at the task order level, that the MAC just got caught up with it. I know that didn't make sense, so let me try again: When people are seeking the opionions, they are combining what is to be done at the task order level, and what is to be done at the MAC award. And since they are all up in a huff anyway, they are missing the very important point that the decision to set aside is done before, not after. Let me tell you, (since you don't where I am) our SB office is pushing the AFTER. I am very grateful that you took the time to re-calibrate my thought patterns on both issues Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ji20874 Posted January 9, 2014 Report Share Posted January 9, 2014 Before issuing a solicitation for a set of multiple-award IDIQ contracts (the parent contracts), the contracting officer must make a set-aside decision based on his or her reasonable expectation and so forth. See FAR Subpart 6.2. This is for the parent multiple-award IDIQ contracts. Before issuing a solicitation for a task order under a set of multiple-award IDIQ contracts, the contracting officer may, at his or her discretion, make a set-aside decision solely for that instant task order consideration. See FAR 16.505( b )( 2 )( i )( F ). This is for the task order. In either case, the set-aside/non-set-aside decision is made BEFORE the solicitation is issued. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
.gif)
Recommended Posts