Jump to content

Recommended Posts

12 hours ago, joel hoffman said:

Over-simplifying it simply to make the KO’s or specialists job easier may not make good business sense. 

I wholly agree with this statement as a general proposition.  I also aver that over-complicating it may not make good business sense.  

In federal agency procurements, I tend to see more over-complications than over-simplifications.  If someone (like REA’n Maker) feels a need to simplify our processes, and an occasional over-simplification results, I’m okay with that.  In any particular procurement, any prospective offeror is free to ask a clarifying question.  

I think REA’n Maker is okay.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, ji20874 said:

I wholly agree with this statement as a general proposition.  I also aver that over-complicating it may not make good business sense.  

In federal agency procurements, I tend to see more over-complications than over-simplifications.  If someone (like REA’n Maker) feels a need to simplify our processes, and an occasional over-simplification results, I’m okay with that.  In any particular procurement, any prospective offeror is free to ask a clarifying question.  

I think REA’n Maker is okay.

I think that the point I want to make is that you need to tell industry what your needs, priorities and desires are so that they can meet them. When I started working source selections in 1990,  the evaluation criteria was obscure and understated or omitted from solicitations, in an apparent concern that industry would game us or possibly protest the selection.

I overcame that thinking. We described the general process and added more detailed  evaluation criteria. Guess what? The industry was able to determine what was important and how to meet our expectations. The quality of proposals, solutions and pricing improved.

I agree with simplification for task orders, etc. but you still need to identify your priorities, needs and constraints so that industry can meet your needs.    I love negotiating and also buying in the construction market. Contractors and the folks at the supply houses help me find the best technical and economic (best value) solutions to my needs.    

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, ji20874 said:

In any particular procurement, any prospective offeror is free to ask a clarifying question.  

But in many instances, the government will not answer or give a meaningful answer.  You don't know how many times the response comes back, "the solicitation says what it says." 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, joel hoffman said:

you still need to identify your priorities, needs and constraints so that industry can meet your needs

How about, "I recommend as a best practice that you still need to identify your priorities, needs, and constraints so that industry can best meet your needs"?  FAR 16.505 doesn't require a contracting officer to list priorities, needs, and constraints in the announcement/solicitation when ordering under multiple-award IDIQ contracts, so to say that a contracting officer needs to include this information really isn't accurate.  

Between the SAT and $5.5 Million, contracting officers need provide only  "a clear description of the supplies to be delivered or the services to he performed and the basis upon which the selection will be made."  Over $5.5 Million, contracting officers must go a little further, providing "a clear statement of the agency's requirements" and "[d]isclosure of the significant factors and subfactors . . . that the agency expects to consider in evaluating proposals, and their relative importance."  So clearly, the contracting officer has a lower burden for orders up to $5.5 Million and a greater burden for orders over $5.5 Million.

A "clear statement of the agency's requirements" could encompass information such as "priorities, needs, and constraints," but a clear statement of the agency's requirements is required only for orders exceeding $5.5 Million.  A wise contracting officer will provide as much information as is practicable, considering all the circumstances, so that he or she can get the best offers appropriate to the circumstances.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I want to reiterate that this thread majority topic is fair opportunity under FAR 16.505.  I continue to fear that the continuing discussion confuses the complexity of a FAR part 15 trade-off procurement with that discretionary approach (within limited sideboards) that the FAR allows under fair opportunity.

With this said ji's posts continue to emphasize the minimalist approach noted by the FAR to provide all holders of the parent contract a fair opportunity.  Comments I might add that spin off of REA'n Makers approach which I agree meet the intent of 16.505(b) for procurements up to $5million.  Why?  I have not seen a position that supports that REA'n Makers approach does not meet the standard of 16.505(b)(1)(iii)(B).   I say this noting as well that if basis used by REA'n Maker works truly is as reflected, and parties to the contract find no quarrel with it then is it not fair opportunity in their combined view?

1 hour ago, Retreadfed said:

But in many instances, the government will not answer or give a meaningful answer.  You don't know how many times the response comes back, "the solicitation says what it says." 

Noting my above comments I then wonder if Retread's statement (above) is with regard to a fair opportunity process or a FAR part 15 process as by my experience a fair opportunity process that follows the ideal of FAR subpart 16.505(b) does and has encouraged communication different than portrayed by the statement.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Carl, if we go back to the original post, General Z was asking about an overall process for awarding an order.  He was not asking about the evaluation criteria that should be used to make the award or how to state the agency's needs.  The evaluation criteria are only a portion of the overall procedures that are to be used to issue an order.  Unfortunately, this discussion has digressed to a discussion of evaluation criteria or statement of needs instead of what placement procedure is applicable in General Z's situation.  To me, he was not asking about evaluation criteria or how to state agency needs.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

General Z’s question was answered long ago in the thread. Z then reported what happened and why. 

I disagreed with the determination that he cited.

 The referenced GAO decision didn’t support the determination.  It wasnt even relevant, in my opinion.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...