wakefield99

Thanks!

Great stuff. Thanks so much for posting!

Joel: Great feedback. Full disclosure, and please don't hold this against me, is that I am fairly new to the Acquisition and GOV world as I pointed out previously. I am obviously aware that there have always been updates and changes to the FAR, however, the specific differences, as you pointed out, I have not viewed. For clarity sake, I was referring to leveling as the old FAR defined it (which you pointed out). I agree with both of you though, it's an up-hill battle to convince the Acq. team to take the time to have more meaningful discussions. I hope Joel and Vern, and others, continue this post. It's a very important topic indeed.

Vern: I agree with you wholeheartedly. I am fairly new (4YRS) to acquisition and I already see the stagnant processes and ideas. As much as I can, I'm trying to get the process more innovative. Agencies should (I know, not likely) promote "proving grounds" to be innovative in the process. I read you loud in clear in your response that you no longer teach the subject nor desire to provide further feedback, and I respect that. However, I would love to hear more of your ideas on the topic in the future. Either way, appreciate the feedback and considerations.

Vern: I appreciate your feedback on the topic and like the idea you presented previously (specifically highlighted by Don in response #4 above). However, I was hoping you can elaborate. After receipt of proposals and determining the Competitive Range (C.R.), I would welcome going through the small details with each offeror - page-by-page, filling in gaps, etc, and receiving a revised proposal based on those very detailed discussions. I hesitate though because I would be worried an offeror not selected in the C.R. would cry foul because they were not given the same chance (so Question 1 to you (or anyone) is: How can that be avoided to where the those outside the C.R. don't feel slighted). My next hesitation would be that during the process of going through everything page by page and getting rid of the ambiguity, it *might* change how the government is evaluating. If discussions turn to areas in which are not even being evaluated in Section M, how then can the GOV use that information to make a trade-off analysis (assuming it's not LTPA) between those in the C.R. (say 2-3 that you mentioned above). Also, how do you avoid "leveling" during such a detailed discussion? Thanks for any feedback. I really like the idea, I just want to see if I can gather additional information so I can plan to implement it.