Jump to content

When a solicitation closes and all prices are above the budget, is negotiations acceptable? If so at what point?


mskitty

Recommended Posts

I'm new to this forum and am a first year contract specialist intern. There is a debate within my command on this issue: When a solicitation closes and all prices are above the budget, is negotiations acceptable? If so at what point?

Thank you for any clarification you can offer

mskitty

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm new to this forum and am a first year contract specialist intern. There is a debate within my command on this issue: When a solicitation closes and all prices are above the budget, is negotiations acceptable? If so at what point?

Thank you for any clarification you can offer

mskitty

mskitty, in order to better focus this discussion, are you asking about any particular type acquisition process or acquisition in general? For instance, FAR Part 15 outlines the competitive negotiated source selection process. But there are several other types of acquisitions. Even a Part 14 IFB acquisition can provide for conversion to a negotiated method under certain circumstances. Can you provide more information on the "debate" within your command? Thanks.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

mskitty, in order to better focus this discussion, are you asking about any particular type acquisition process or acquisition in general? For instance, FAR Part 15 outlines the competitive negotiated source selection process. But there are several other types of acquisitions. Even a Part 14 IFB acquisition can provide for conversion to a negotiated method under certain circumstances. Can you provide more information on the "debate" within your command? Thanks.

The debate is in general within the command. We work on many different types of acquistions. My interest would be focused on the acquisition of commercial items with simplified acqusition procedures through negotiations (FAR Part 15, 13.5 and 12).

mskitty

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Here is a situation that offers lots of debate:

Once a solicitation has closed, all quotes are above the allowable funding, the quoters have been evaluated based on the LPTA, can you request that the quoter reduce their price further to meet the budget? Many believe this is requesting the LPTA quoter to make additional concessions the government has no right to ask for. Would this be entering into "discussion" or "negotiation"? I think much of the confusion can be attributed to these terms as well and how we are using them in this scenerio.

I hope this offers more of a focus on our debate. It gets pretty heated!

mskitty

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm unclear on what the debate is, so I may be stating the obvious.

In order for offerors to propose a lower price, they would have to revise their proposals. This would require setting a competitive range and opening discussions with the offerors in the competitive range.

My concern about concessions was driving an already reasonable offeror lower once you had a competitive range of one. In baierle's case, it may have been that the government's motive was to remove excesses not integral to the offeror's design (similar to FAR 15.306(d)(4)) which seems perfectly appropriate. However, if the motive was to drive an already reasonable price lower, I find that troubling.

Is the debate between entering discussion or amending the solicitation or cancelling it? If so, shouldn't that depend on the totality of the circumstances? (In other words, shouldn't that be decided case-by-case?) Wouldn't you want to consider how clear your requirement was, whether the customer would accept something less, how close the prices are to your desired funding, how much the requirement would need to change to get an appropriate price, etc.? Of course, whatever you do, be mindful of FAR 15.206(e):

If, in the judgment of the contracting officer, based on market research or otherwise, an amendment proposed for issuance after offers have been received is so substantial as to exceed what prospective offerors reasonably could have anticipated, so that additional sources likely would have submitted offers had the substance of the amendment been known to them, the contracting officer shall cancel the original solicitation and issue a new one, regardless of the stage of the acquisition.

Sorry if I'm answering a question other than your's.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Vern Edwards
Here is a situation that offers lots of debate:

Once a solicitation has closed, all quotes are above the allowable funding, the quoters have been evaluated based on the LPTA, can you request that the quoter reduce their price further to meet the budget? Many believe this is requesting the LPTA quoter to make additional concessions the government has no right to ask for. Would this be entering into "discussion" or "negotiation"? I think much of the confusion can be attributed to these terms as well and how we are using them in this scenerio.

You said you are using simplified acquisition procedures pursuant to FAR Subpart 13.5. The answer to your questions depend on how the solicitation was written. Did it say you were conducting the acquisition pursuant to FAR Part 15? Did you use words and terms like discussions and competitive range?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If you're using commercial item procedures, it is perhaps worth noting that FAR Part 12 is not freestanding. ?Contracting officers shall use the policies in this part in conjunction with the policies and procedures for solicitation, evaluation and award prescribed in Part 13, Simplified Acquisition Procedures; Part 14, Sealed Bidding; or Part 15, Contracting by Negotiation, as appropriate for the particular acquisition.? FAR 12.102(B). FAR 12.603?(2)(ii) requires identification in the combined synopsis/solicitation of whether the solicitation is issued as an IFB, RFQ, or RFP. When using simplified acquisition procedures, a Contracting Officer is not required to follow Parts 14 or 15, but may ?use any appropriate combination of the procedures.? FAR 13.003(g)(2); FAR 13.106-2(B)(1). Of course, if you're going to enter discussions, you need to be fair, so at the very least be careful if borrowing only some of FAR 15.306. A CO can borrow procedures from Part 15, but only when not inconsistent with Parts 12 and 13. Ibid.

(As an aside, as it relates to amendments, the rule at FAR 15.206? permitting amendments to solicitations to only be provided to offerors in the competitive range may not be the end of the story under a commercial item buy borrowing from Part 15. Rather, if an amendment to a combined synopsis/solicitation is required, FAR 12.603?(4) seems to require the government publicize that amendment ?in the same manner as the initial synopsis and solicitation.?)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Vern Edwards

STOP! DAMMIT! If she is using simplified acquisition procedures she need not worry about the rules in FAR Part 15 unless the solicitation said so or alludes to such rules.

Stop prognosticating, guessing, and rattling off regulations. Wait until you have enough information to make an INTELLIGENT statement. Wait for her to answer the questions she's been asked.

CRIMINY!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

My interest would be focused on the acquisition of commercial items with simplified acqusition procedures through negotiations (FAR Part 15, 13.5 and 12).

mskitty,

Don't mix negotiations and FAR part 15 with simplified acquisition of commercial items and FAR 13.5. Many people unnecessarily do that. Simplified acquisition procedures are that - intended to be simple.

If you received quotes that are for more money than you intended, you have flexibility in dealing with the situation. Forget about what Jacques says about a competitive range - you don't have competitive ranges with simplified acquisitions - unless you like to make your job complicated.

Think of you asking roofing companies to put new shingles on your house. If the quotes come in over your budget, just tell one or more that the quote is high. Ask them to "sharpen their pencil" and provide another quote. Or you could bargain and see what they could do in terms of providing something less experience. If you make a change to your requirements, give other firms a chance to quote on the same basis.

You have to use reason though. If quotes came in double your estimate, go back and verify the estimate is right.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

mskitty,

Are you talking about quotations under FAR Part 13 or proposals under FAR Part 15 (including the LPTA process)?

For simplified acquisitions under FAR Part 13, yes, you can negotiate price and nothing else -- even prices that seem reasonable may still be negotiated downwards. It need not be a general rule that you always negotiate price and nothing else, but you can when circumstances warrant -- and in your case, it is okay to ( a ) tell each of a few of the lowest-price quoters that you appreciate its quotation but its price is too high to allow for an award; and ( b ) invite it to sharpen its pencil and give you new a lower price. Just be fair. You might succeed in getting the price you can afford to pay. You might not.

For LPTA proposals under FAR Part 15, the same idea applies. Just be fair. Negotiations in a Part 15 environment allow for bargaining and may apply to price and nothing else. I differ with Jacques in this matter. Yes, a competitive range is for the purpose of allowing discussions (negotiations) and proposal revisions, and it is okay if the only matter negotiated is price and the proposal revisions affect only price.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm unclear on what the debate is, so I may be stating the obvious.

In order for offerors to propose a lower price, they would have to revise their proposals. This would require setting a competitive range and opening discussions with the offerors in the competitive range.

Jacques,

See FAR 13.106-2(a)(3):

If using price and other factors, ensure that quotations or offers can be evaluated in an efficient and minimally burdensome fashion. Formal evaluation plans and establishing a competitive range, conducting discussions, and scoring quotations or offers are not required.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Seeker

Wow Jacques. You're like a duck flying low over a marsh at sunrise on opening day. Everybody is taking shots at you. I think you overdid it newbie.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Wow Jacques. You're like a duck flying low over a marsh at sunrise on opening day. Everybody is taking shots at you. I think you overdid it newbie.

I want to thank all of you for the discussion. I giggle because this is how our discussions go! Jacques position is the one we face most often. The question whether we site FAR 15 or 13.5 in our solicitation is another. These are SAP solicitations that address services, supplies or both. They are most often but not always, evaluated as LPTA.

When we ask what would the conditions be under FAR 15 or 13.5 that would allow us to "discuss or negotiate" with the lowest quoter, to go even lower to meet the governments budget. The answer is most often "never do it". This response doesn't answer our question, under what circumstances can we approach the lowest quoter to request that they go back and sharpen their pencil?

Again, thank you all for your discussion. My fellow interns and I are looking up the FAR sections mentioned and discussing the topics you have raised among ourselves.

mskitty

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Vern Edwards
nder what circumstances can we approach the lowest quoter to request that they go back and sharpen their pencil?

I assume that you would ask for nothing but a price cut. No change in other proposal content.

My answer is that if you are using SAP and the rules in Part 15 are not implicated in any way, then there is no express prohibition against it in FAR and I know of no GAO decision that would preclude it. However, it would be foolish and unethical, so you must not do it. In the private sector it is considered a form of "sharp practice" that violates the purchasing profession's ethical standards.

Is that clear enough for you?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

[T]here is no express prohibition against it in FAR and I know of no GAO decision that would preclude it. However, it would be foolish...

Vern, I sense your tongue is deeply embedded in your cheek, but this is the most pragmatic statement related to simplified acquisition I've heard in a long time.

Is Part 13 a tool or a religion?

Put differently, if you had a map (or a GPS receiver) that took you to the wrong location as often as Part 13 brought you to the wrong side of a protest decision, you?d throw it out and get a new map. It's time for a new map.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Vern Edwards
Vern, I sense your tongue is deeply embedded in your cheek, but this is the most pragmatic statement related to simplified acquisition I've heard in a long time.

Is Part 13 a tool or a religion?

Put differently, if you had a map (or a GPS receiver) that took you to the wrong location as often as Part 13 brought you to the wrong side of a protest decision, you?d throw it out and get a new map. It's time for a new map.

What is your point? Drop the metaphors and make a clear and precise statement. For once.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest carl r culham

mskitty - Just an observation but you continue to mention LPTA evaluation while also stating you are using only FAR Part 13/12 or at least that is the sense I get in reading your posts. As a question for your internal discussion where in FAR Part 13/12 do you see reference to LPTA?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It seems like you're looking for a test case to get the GAO decisions "back on track." It is rational?though perhaps short-sighted?for a CO to want to avoid an area where the trend in the decisions appears to try to contain CO's discretion and limit flexibility.

While the decisions are the problem, I'm not sure one correct decision is the solution. Courts and the GAO have a tendency to "fill the gaps" when they feel flexibility is likely to be "abused" (as they see it). If all we have is FAR 13.106-2(a)(3) to hang our hats on for the proposition that the government can negotiate with some, but not all, vendors (without some safeguards similar to FAR 15.306 & 15.307), I predict the endeavor is doomed to failure. (The default language on discussions in FAR provision 52.212-1 doesn't help, either.)

Simplified acquisition is a volume business, often with inexperienced buyers and COs. I work in a bureaucracy. If and when we break this code, the government is going to need something to institutionalize the tried and tested procedures that the GAO and COFC can live with. Acquisition reform (IMHO) does not have its own institutional momentum?it must be taught to each new cohort.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

PS: I don't think the answer is less in the solicitation, I think it is more. If you don't want to GAO to fill the gaps, fill them in advance. Describe how the government intends to handle negotiations.

How would you suggest we do that?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I assume that you would ask for nothing but a price cut. No change in other proposal content.

My answer is that if you are using SAP and the rules in Part 15 are not implicated in any way, then there is no express prohibition against it in FAR and I know of no GAO decision that would preclude it. However, it would be foolish and unethical, so you must not do it. In the private sector it is considered a form of "sharp practice" that violates the purchasing profession's ethical standards.

Is that clear enough for you?

I will preface this post with the admission that I'm not involved with the government's simplified acquisition methods, so do not claim any expertise. however, I have worked both in private sector and in City Government where the purchasing agents bought stuff every day. I am also familiar with construction contracting purchasing by primes.

When I was assigned to a huge construction program in Saudi Arabia, I worked with a fellow contract administrator who is Korean. Mr. Chong once told me (paraphrasing), "You Americans are so gullible and naive. If somebody offers you a price or you see a price on something, you believe it and just pay it. In Korea, we negotiate for everything, including a loaf of bread." His favorite expression to me was "Use your imagination," which meant "Get out of your box".

In the proposed scenario here, all quotations exceed the agency's budget. Vern says that it would be unethical to go back and ask for a lower price. So, I guess the purchasing system fails to provide a solution and the buyer tells the customer, "Sorry, we didn't get quotes within the budget but there isn't anything I can ethically do about it."

As far as private sector not going back after receiving quotations for ethical reasons, what proof do you have of that, Vern? When I was City Engineer, 35 years ago, my office was across the hall from the purchasing agent, who bargained all the time with suppliers. He was a gee whiz negotiator. In fact, the mayor was a buyer for Broan Manufacturing Corp., who makes many of the bathroom fans sold in the US. He also told me how he would bargain with suppliers. Prime construction contractors do it all the time with their subs and suppliers. And I'm not talking about the practice of "bid shopping", either. I'm talking about some ethical primes that I know who prepare their own estimates, get sub prices, then negotiate to get them within the budget, before submitting a bid or proposal to the Gov't.

I've told the story of my secretary in a USACE construction office about 28 years ago who made the lab boys check at least three places for prices on 3 magic markers that they needed. The cheapest ones were at Wal-Mart, so she called them up and asked the manager for a 10 cent per marker reduction, which WalMart accepted! I've always thought that was a bit extreme, considering the fact that the effort involved and driving around town cost more than the magic markers, but it apparently didnt bother the WalMart guy.

When I took a business law class in night school that same year, we were all amazed when the Prof told us that the prices in stores are all negotiable and the UCC provides the opportunity for bargaining for almost anything. I've since learned to bargain on occasion in stores, when I know that I'm dealing with somebody who has the authority to offer or accept a lower price.

The fact that we say that we are looking for the lowest-priced acceptable product should not preclude the ethical or practical possibility of asking for a price break when the lowest price exceeds the budget or when you have some knowledge that the price is unreasonable.

I thought that a quotation wasn't a proposal and that the government then goes back with an offer or purchase order for the supplier to accept.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

How would you suggest we do that?

Use your imagination and experience (and/or the experience of others). Think of times when you've wanted to negotiate but felt constrained. What do you wish you could have been able to do (consistent with basic fairness)?

mskitty, I don't have a good answer for you. Everyone's conception of basic fairness is different. But almost any attempt would probably be better than where we are today. Maybe it's worth a try.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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