newContractor

I was asked by the CO on Friday to "review the cost you submitted with your proposal. Can you do the work for the price that you quoted? Please confirm your numbers." I verified my bid as submitted. The CO mentioned that the review of technical proposals is not yet complete but would be finished "NLT next week." I presume that this means either one of two things: 1) my price was far lower than other submitted prices that the CO thinks I made a mistake and asked me to confirm my bid or 2) I was simply the low bidder and he wanted to 'double check' or 3) something else entirely. I lean toward 2 because I infer from FAR 14.407-3(g)(1) that if he thought my bid were a mistake, his email would have included additional information regarding why he thought my bid were a mistake, namely that Had it been #3, why ask for bid verification at all? I'm looking forward to seeing what the rest of this process is like. This is the first bid I've submitted that I've had any contact with the CO other than the normal "Q&A" session or the 'thanks but no thanks' emails. nC

Hmm. Based upon what is requested in the 'statement of work,' I would have called this RFQ as a procurement for services. However, it seems as though there are very specific definitions in the FAR and very specific ways to use different FAR parts. You are all much more familiar and more educated with vastly more experience than I in FAR and I will agree that you are probably right. My question answered, I'd consider this thread finished. Though I have SO MANY QUESTIONS about FAR, interpretations of the clauses and provisions therein, what kind of timelines I can expect on different RFQs and RFPs, and whether asking questions of the CO on a given solicitation will reduce my chances of award, I'll have to save them all for another time or just learn from experience! Thanks again all. I appreciate your time and experience.

Without question, B provides the best value. I was simply surprised that price (defined as total price) could be the sole determining factor for the government in awarding a contract, provided an acceptable technical proposal. I proposed clearly defined work costs of X and travel cost as Y for a totalPrice = X + Y. There was no language in the RFQ that states that travel costs were reimbursable; I did, however, make the assumption that travel will be a reimbursable cost. I estimated travel costs from the Defense Travel Management Office as that was where I was directed after learning that lodging/meals are established by DOD for non-continental US destinations.

Though I haven't responded to a large number of RFP/RFQ solicitations, this has been the most confusing of those to which I have responded. For all of the past solicitations, evaluation factors have all been price, past performance, technical, etc. In other words, it's been clear how my company would be evaluated. Here, I didn't understand the basis of award but with some help, I gather that lowest price is chosen for award (if the price is "reasonable") then the technical proposal is checked to make sure it's adequate on a 'yes/no' basis. If yes == award is made; no == the technical proposal from the next lowest offeror is evaluated and so on until an offeror has been identified. As I read the 52.212-2 in this RFQ, I read it as price is the only factor that will be evaluated for contract award. The caveat, however, is that the technical proposal must be acceptable. The required technical proposal appears to me to be the 'other factors' aspect of the 52.212-2. For this solicitation, I submitted separate proposed work costs and estimated travel costs. I think my work costs are very reasonable, particularly given my proposed methods; however, the RFQ had no indication of what the government considers a 'reasonable' price. As a result, I'm at a total loss as to how my proposed cost compares to theirs. The fact that I haven't heard anything yet may be a good sign; the deadline for submissions was Friday 18 July and, if it's a 'price only' issue with no discussion, I would think that the determination could be made relatively quickly. (Also, the 'period of performance' is scheduled to begin on 1 August.) If you haven't guessed by now, I'm not a contracting officer. I'm a small business owner (fisheries science and statistician)--without a legal department--submitting responses to federal government solicitations while trying to understand and decipher the fine print of the solicitations to which I respond. It's difficult and trying to handicap myself compared to unknown competition can be maddening. For example, I always have questions that I'd like to ask the CO but I'm always afraid that any questions I ask--beyond the clarifications for the SOW--would annoy the CO, thus reducing my chances of being successful. Thanks for everyone's help. You've all been patient with me and I appreciate it.

Thanks so much for all of the responses. They've been enlightening. As a fisheries scientist and biometrician, whenever I write a proposal in response to an RFP or RFQ I always find myself lost in the clauses and provisions, barely keeping my head above water when I read them. After discovering this forum a few months ago--and doing some serious reading--I've gotten a better understanding of the contract award and selection process. Regarding including a price 'disclaimer' in an LPTA, how does FAR 15.306(e)(3) apply? Would this be an instance where an offeror would simply need to ask the CO about what price they consider reasonable?

That was an excellent illustration. Thanks for offering it. I'm wondering what the process is like when the situation isn't as black or white as the illustration. For example, as a new contractor, my company has no past performance history and I know that FAR 15.305(a)(2)(iv) states that my company will be rated neither favorable nor unfavorably because of a lack of our performance history. As a result, what if the illustration looked something more like this: Quoter Quoter Quoter Quoter A B C D ------ ------ ------ ------ Price $ 100 $ 102 $ 103 $ 104 Past Performance poor neutral good great! Technical Expertise nil great! acceptable great! How much leeway is a CO allowed to move beyond 'neutral' ratings? Ultimately, I'm trying to gain some insight into how the decision-making process of a CO when confronted with a contractor that provides a technically proficient proposal, offers a lower price than a competitor (exclusive of travel costs; this particular RFQ is for work in HI), yet has no past-performance history. These discussion boards are an eye-opening look into the contracting process and, as a biometrician, something I've never considered that much in depth. Now however, as a business owner, it's one that I am interested in. I've always tried to limit my questions of the CO primarily because the responses I get generally seem very curt, from which I infer they're not very interested in sharing any further details. However, the information here suggests that queries of the CO are almost required if the true process of the proposal submission, evaluation and award are to be determined. This is fascinating. I had no idea that if LPTA were the source selection that the value to be used needs to be identified in the provisions. I thoroughly read the provisions of the solicitation I'm referring to here and don't recall seeing any value against which the responses would be evaluated. Is this requirement codified somewhere in the FAR? Thank you for all of your insight.

Hello all - By posting this, I feel like I'm poking my head into a clubhouse in which I don't belong! I'm a (new) small business that has responded to a limited number of federal solicitations. As such, I've 'dipped my toes' into FAR but do not pretend to be a contracting officer or anything even CLOSE to that. The information contained here in the WifCon.com forums has answered a number of my 'contract process' questions (e.g., how does FAR deal with new contractors that have no past performance history) but I have yet to find an answer to the question below. Put directly, my question is this: how can a contracting officer (CO) evaluate solicited proposals based upon price only? An RFQ for which I recently submitted a proposal stated this under FAR 52.212-2: Does this imply that, regardless of anything else, whichever proposal comes in at the lowest--reasonable, I would guess--price would be awarded the contract, regardless of past performance, experience, etc? Are estimated travel costs taken into account for a response to an RFQ evaluated solely on price? Frankly, I'm surprised that this would be allowed. Does the 'responsible offeror' and 'other factors considered' phrase allow them the ability to use past peformance, experience, etc., as an evaluation means without explicitly stating that the CO will do so? Additional details: This is an RFQ for for non-personal services to conduct data management and database creation for natural resources data. A technical proposal was required along with the quotation. Thanks for your help and guidance. I appreciate all of the information I've already gleaned from past discussions and available blogs. nC