Jump to content

How about this?


Recommended Posts

Just brain-storming...

Agency prepares a two-page RFP stating only its acquisition objectives, contract type, and evaluation factors. Invites offerors to prepare a proposal that includes (1) a complete proposed government contract, prepared in accordance with applicable rules in FAR and the agency FAR supplement and (2) a statement of the offeror's qualifications (capability, capacity, reliability). Agency allows three months for proposal preparation.

Evaluation factors are, in order of importance:

  (1) legal acceptability of offer nonprice terms (based on statutory and regulatory requirements);

  (2) likelihood of achievement of government acquisition objectives;

  (3) price reasonableness; and

  (4) prospect for achieving mutual assent to contract terms.

Agency selects top two offerors for discussions leading to negotiated agreement.

Government selects and accepts the "most promising" negotiated agreement based on stated evaluation factors.

What are the advantages of this process?

  1. Eliminates government time and effort to prepare a complete RFP (and amend it) in accordance with FAR Part 15. All the government needs to prepare is a two-page SOO.
  2. Allows offerors maximum freedom to propose technical solutions and technical and nontechnical contract terms; however, mandatory FAR and agency FAR supp. clauses must be included.
  3. Forces offerors to do, in addition to technical thinking, FAR and agency FAR supp. homework. (Contract to include a "Christian Doctrine clause.")
  4. Government develops a checklist of statutory and regulatory requirements while offerors prepare offers. Uses checklist to determine legal acceptability.
  5. Permits and facilitates in-depth one-on-one negotiations with top two contenders.

I haven't thought this through completely. A one-time FAR deviation or two may be necessary. I haven't tried to identify any.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You said it - SOO RFP! Figured out how to do this for services, why not the acquisition process. I like it. Let them come up with the contract, solution and price for it. Could really cut down on the workforce needed to compete and award requirements. Meets all of the CO's responsibilities under FAR 1.602-2.

Probably have to add Past Performance as an evaluation factor, unless you are planning on doing it under 2.

Only downside is it would increase cost, but that could easily be offset through workforce reduction. Other than that, guessing the main pushback would be from the agency and office level review policy. Going to be hard to talk a lawyer into signing off on releasing a RFP with no clauses in it. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Typically any ambiguity in a contract would go against the drafter. Seems highly risky for our industry partners, I wonder if they would be willing to do all the extra work and take on that additional risk. Definitely a big trade off (pardon the pun) for them. 

I'd also be concerned about the ability of Government Contracting Officers and Lawyers to review these agreements to ensure the Government is getting a fair deal.

Like Constricting Officer said, I like the idea and the burden it takes off the Federal workforce but it seems like it'll take a lot of additional training. I can see our lawyers being on board more with this than policy or higher level reviewers though. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Don’t mean to get this thread off topic but we did a somewhat similar approach a long time ago with R&D.  Many of the actions were for basic and applied research.  Competition was often between commercial organizations, non and not-for-profits, educational institutions, and certain kinds of labs.  An RFQ was used as the solicitation and contract terms and conditions were decided after source selection.  Those often were negotiated between the selectee and the KO.  The RFQ contained high level evaluation factors and a suggested contract type but offerers were free to propose alternative types. 

The process worked well for years but got stopped when word reached the ASD (I&L) as being too unstructured. 
 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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