Jump to content
The Wifcon Forums and Blogs

Recommended Posts

Hi,

So, FAR 15.304(c) says the following:

(c) The evaluation factors and significant subfactors that apply to an acquisition and their relative importance, are within the broad discretion of agency acquisition officials, subject to the following requirements:

(1) Price or cost to the Government shall be evaluated in every source selection (10 U.S.C.2305(a)(3)(A)(ii) and 41 U.S.C.3306(c)(1)(B)) (also see part  36 for architect-engineer contracts);

(2) The quality of the product or service shall be addressed in every source selection through consideration of one or more non-cost evaluation factors such as past performance, compliance with solicitation requirements, technical excellence, management capability, personnel qualifications, and prior experience (10 U.S.C.2305(a)(3)(A)(i) and 41 U.S.C.3306(c)(1)(A)); and

(3) (i) Past performance, except as set forth in paragraph (c)(3)(iii) of this section, shall be evaluated in all source selections for negotiated competitive acquisitions expected to exceed the simplified acquisition threshold.

(ii) For solicitations that are not set aside for small business concerns, involving consolidation or bundling, that offer a significant opportunity for subcontracting, the contracting officer shall include a factor to evaluate past performance indicating the extent to which the offeror attained applicable goals for small business participation under contracts that required subcontracting plans (15 U.S.C.637(d)(4)(G)(ii)).

(iii) Past performance need not be evaluated if the contracting officer documents the reason past performance is not an appropriate evaluation factor for the acquisition.

My question is, how is the red past performance mentioned at (c)(2) different then the blue past performance mentioned at (c)(3)? Or is there no difference? I believe that there is no difference. And I also believe that if I decide (along with the program office) to have just two evaluation factors: 1) Past Performance (non-price factor) and 2) Price, and I'm doing a Trade-Off and not an LPTA, that I don't have to worry about that Small Business Certificate of Competency situation, is this correct? Because I'm rating Past Performance on an adjectival scale and not on a pass/fail basis, correct?

Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, Sam101 said:

And I also believe that if I decide (along with the program office) to have just two evaluation factors: 1) Past Performance (non-price factor) and 2) Price, and I'm doing a Trade-Off and not an LPTA, that I don't have to worry about that Small Business Certificate of Competency situation, is this correct? Because I'm rating Past Performance on an adjectival scale and not on a pass/fail basis, correct?

Generally true.  Sorry for being semantic, but there are still circumstances where a CoC might be required.  However, by evaluating past performance as other than pass/fail, and giving a neutral where there is no relevant past performance, where a neutral would be eligible for award, your past performance evaluation would not amount to a responsibility determination.

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Jacques said:

Generally true.  Sorry for being semantic, but there are still circumstances where a CoC might be required.  However, by evaluating past performance as other than pass/fail, and giving a neutral where there is no relevant past performance, where a neutral would be eligible for award, your past performance evaluation would not amount to a responsibility determination.

Thanks Jacques. I guess just to be safe I would probably include key personnel and prior experience as separate evaluation factors, in addition to past performance. I just don't feel the need to include technical approach as an evaluation factor on every single acquisition, especially when FAR 15.304(c)(2) says that the quality of the product or service can be addressed by things other than technical approach.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Technical excellence is an example of what could be considered quality factor. It need not be a mandatory factor If it isn’t necessary to evaluate such for comparative purposes or to determine compliance , etc. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Quick story:

22 hours ago, Sam101 said:

I would probably include key personnel and prior experience as separate evaluation factors, 

I was going through a source selection file at one of the Department of Energy sites many years ago.  One of the offeror's Key Personnel was an individual present at the development of the first nuclear weapon.  I stared at the name in the proposal for a moment and turned to an SSET member and said with reverence:  he's one of the old ones.  I seem to remember Captain Kirk and Mr. Spock saying something similar on their adventures.  I've seen other offeror's using well known names for window-dressing but the guy I saw in the offeror's proposal was the real thing.

Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, bob7947 said:

Quick story:

I was going through a source selection file at one of the Department of Energy sites many years ago.  One of the offeror's Key Personnel was an individual present at the development of the first nuclear weapon.  I stared at the name in the proposal for a moment and turned to an SSET member and said with reverence:  he's one of the old ones.  I seem to remember Captain Kirk and Mr. Spock saying something similar on their adventures.  I've seen other offeror's using well known names for window-dressing but the guy I saw in the offeror's proposal was the real thing.

I worked at Treasury prior to 9/11 when it had several law enforcement bureaus.  The bureau I was at conducted a very significant and visible procurement.  I scanned through proposals and a key personnel listed in one offeror was the deputy head of another bureau!  I checked and that person was still employed by the government.  I discreetly asked around and that person supposably received clearance from Department ethics lawyers to be proposed with intent of resigning if the company won.  I wasn’t sure if I believed all that.

Another old one story.  The next agency I worked for received special status as a government agency.  We received flexibility and relief from some statutory requirements.  Our management asked for help in drafting new operational procedures from from several sources including the National Academy of Public Administration.  We scheduled a meeting with NAPA and two very elderly gentleman came in. One was a former Deputy Director of the Bureau of Budget and the other worked in the White House.  He mentioned something about some Truman policy that he drafted.  I looked around the table and everyone was mentally calculating ages.  We later found out one was 89 and the other 91.

Link to post
Share on other sites
On ‎3‎/‎14‎/‎2020 at 2:33 PM, formerfed said:

We scheduled a meeting with NAPA and two very elderly gentleman came in. One was a former Deputy Director of the Bureau of Budget and the other worked in the White House.  He mentioned something about some Truman policy that he drafted.  I looked around the table and everyone was mentally calculating ages.  We later found out one was 89 and the other 91.

Spring chickens. Mr. Tatigian turns 98 this year and is in his 78th year of federal service.

https://www.navsea.navy.mil/Media/News/Article/1326404/sarkis-tatigian-honored-for-75-years-of-navy-service/

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
×
  • Create New...