Jump to content

Best Practices for "Brief Explanations"


Recommended Posts

When awarding an order under a MAS using FAR part 8, what have been the best practices for providing a brief explanation for the basis of award? I imagine a typical response of "it depends.." is applicable here, but what is generally included in a brief explanation? Addressing strengths/weaknesses? Noting the awardee and award price? None of the above?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

"It depends" is always good . . . Outside of the below, need more info (source selection procedure/complexity/SOW v. No SOW/etc.). 

Just generally I prefer to always include the following:

 - Position compared to awardee (price);

 - Offer for a more detailed debrief if requested.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

We should not turn brief explanations into debriefings -- actions under FAR subpart 8.4 are supposed to be streamlined and simplified.  Unsuccessful quoters might be hopeful for debriefings as defined in FAR subpart 15.5, but contracting officers should not give them.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It does depend, and it really depends on the same factors you would consider in providing more than the minimum in a debriefing.  I don't want a contracting officer to underestimate the extent to which he or she can impact whether a disappointed offeror protests.  Often a good debriefing can prevent protests.  Even when that doesn't occur, sometimes a good debriefing can get the disappointed offeror on the clock on a potential protest ground, preventing the piecemeal presentation of allegations later.  In either case, you save yourself time later.  The effort to defend some of these protests far exceed the effort of a carefully considered explanation of the basis for award.

While the debriefing is never a proper ground for a protest, I'm quite sure folks have protested because of the debriefing they received, for instance, they thought the Government was hiding something (like the failure to follow proper procedures).  While the dollar value of these actions (where no debriefing is required) are often low enough that rational disappointed offerors don't bother to protest, one need only look at the Latvian Connections LLC line of decisions to realize not everyone behaves as a economically rational actor. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 4/1/2020 at 3:19 PM, Captain22 said:

When awarding an order under a MAS using FAR part 8, what have been the best practices for providing a brief explanation for the basis of award? I imagine a typical response of "it depends.." is applicable here, but what is generally included in a brief explanation? Addressing strengths/weaknesses? Noting the awardee and award price? None of the above?

Are there any documented “best practices”* for providing a “brief explanation” of the basis of award for orders under a FAR Part 8 MAS?

* See ( note the applicable references) https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Best_practice

The term “Best practices” should refer to practices adopted through formal processes, not simply personal experiences or personal opinions.

Or are you just looking for recommended practices or techniques,  based upon someone’s personal experience or other reference?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Two different opinions expressed by ji20874 and Jacques.  I’m guessing that’s based upon different approaches using FAR part 8.4.  Ji20874 is correct in that FAR 8.4 uses a streamlined ordering process with very simple rules and debriefings  don’t apply.  I always tell people to disclose price and rational why a company was selected.  That should be it.

i think Jacques advise pertains to situations where people apply a FAR 15 selection process to GSA Schedule ordering.  In that case if a selection looks like a formal process, probably a debriefing type explanation is needed, especially to avoid a protest where an offeror wants more information.

The lesson is don’t complicate 8.4 but lots of agencies don’t seem to get it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 hours ago, formerfed said:

i think Jacques advise pertains to situations where people apply a FAR 15 selection process to GSA Schedule ordering. * * *

The lesson is don’t complicate 8.4 but lots of agencies don’t seem to get it.

Well-stated @formerfed.  If we kept simplified procedures simple, to include proposals and evaluation criteria, even a complete explanation wouldn't take much effort.

While there are simplified procedures for awarding contracts, there is no simplified procedure for handling a protest.  With few exceptions, the same protest rules apply regardless of the contract's dollar value.  Here's a way to look at it:  The "brief explanation" (for FAR Subpart 8.4 and FAR 13.106-3(d)), like the debriefing for Part 15, is not the last step in the source selection process, it is the first step in the bid protest process.

Just to be clear, I'm not advocating any particular level of detail.  I'm suggesting that the considerations a PCO looks to in deciding the level of detail of an explanation are the same considerations a PCO would look to in deciding the level of detail (beyond the minimum) of a debriefing.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
×
×
  • Create New...