frog2

Thank you sir.

Understood - This information is in the local news paper and the weapons complex monitor. The redacted details about the protest are not public and probably wont be for quite some time. I wouldnt presume to put something out there which was not public knowledge.

GAO sustained these protests on the basis that NNSA failed to follow the publicly-stated solicitation criteria, which provided that the agency would evaluate the feasibility and size of each offerors proposed cost savings resulting from the consolidation of the management and operation of these sites. Specifically, GAO concluded that NNSA failed to meaningfully assess the majority of each offerors proposed cost savings, and based its source selection decision on the unsupported assumption that all cost savings proposed by every offeror would be achieved. The protesters raised various other protest allegations which were denied. The challenged contract, awarded pursuant to request for proposals No. DE-SOL-0001458, contemplates the consolidation of management and operating activities at NNSAs Y-12 National Security Complex, in Oak Ridge, Tennessee, and NNSAs Pantex Plant near Amarillo, Texas, as well as the construction of a new uranium processing facility at the Y-12 Complex. The contract also contemplates the possible exercise of an option to subsequently add the management and operation of NNSAs Savannah River Tritium Operations, located near Aiken, South Carolina. NNSA has stated that the total value of this contract is $22.8 billion. We recommended that the agency reopen the procurement, request additional information from the offerors about their proposed cost savings, and evaluate the relative size of each offerors proposed cost savings, consistent with the solicitations provisions. At the conclusion of this review, we recommended that NNSA make a new source selection decision. Because this protest decision contains proprietary and source selection sensitive information, release of the decision, at this point, is limited to NNSA personnel and to outside counsel who have been admitted under the GAO protective order issued for these protests. The parties have been directed to submit proposed redactions for the purpose of preparing a public version of the decision. GAO expects to publish a public version of the decision as soon as possible; however, since this competition will be ongoing, the release of a public decision may take a few weeks. When the public version of the decision is available, it will be posted to our website, www.gao.gov.

The decision isnt published yet but here is more information GAO sustained these protests on the basis that Agency failed to follow the publicly-stated solicitation criteria, which provided that the agency would evaluate the feasibility and size of each offerors proposed cost savings resulting from the consolidation of the management and operation of these sites. Specifically, GAO concluded that Agency failed to meaningfully assess the majority of each offerors proposed cost savings, and based its source selection decision on the unsupported assumption that all cost savings proposed by every offeror would be achieved. The protesters raised various other protest allegations which were denied.

I'm looking for help in understanding protocol under the following protest scenaio. Thank's in advance for you reply ..... ____________________________________________________________________________ A Government agency issues a solicitation for, and subsequently makes an award to operate a federal facility. The RFP contained many evaluation factors including cost savings each bidder proposes to save operating the facility. The award is protested by multiple bidders citing 15-20 different issues. One of the issues is skepticism about the amount of savings proposed by the successful bidder. After 100 days, GAO renders a decision denying all claims but one. GAO says agency accepted the cost savings proposed by each bidder at face value – didn’t evaluate the realism of the savings proposed. GAO recommends that the agency make a new award after reopening the procurement and requesting more information on the proposed cost savings of each bidder while also evaluating those savings. My questions are about how the government agency would go about complying with the GAO recommendation. Could/ Would the government agency issue a modification to the original solicitation, extend the bid due date, and ask only for backup on the cost savings proposed? Or Could / Would they issue a Best and Final potentially, allowing bidders to submit different (higher?) cost savings? Or Could / would the agency issue a request for additional information by letter rather than issuing a modification to the RFP. Or Something completely different? If the agency chooses not to follow GAO’s recommendation, GAO will inform appropriate congressional committees in writing, but what happens after that? · What are the potential repercussions for the agency in disregarding the GAO recommendation? Is it the threat of being hauled before a Congressional subcommittee to explain why? · If the challengers decide to turn to the courts, would the court issue an injunction staying the award/ putting the award on hold?

I appreciate the correction, Thank you.

Vern, Thank you for the fast responce. Is the contract still "open", if the warranty period has not yet expired?

I believe that the warranty is condition of the contract and until it expires the contract is not completed? My situation is this: M&O Contractor (Company) hires a contractor to furnish and install a piece of equipment. Equipment is installed, tested and accepted by Company. Equipment has a one year warranty that starts after acceptance. Stated contract period of performance does not include the one year warranty period. Before the warranty period expires, a problem arises with the equipment that may or may not be the fault the contractor (manufacturing defect). The problem may have been caused by factors attributable to the Company facility. It is essential that replacement parts be ordered and the repairs begin, probably before the cause has been determined. We want the contractor to repair the units irregardless. If the repairs are covered under warranty, the repairs would be done under the existing contract. I believe that if we have to pay for the repair, that the existing contract should be modified to add the repair. My compliance guy says no. His opinion is the contract is closed , and if we have to pay for the repairs and we should issue a new contract for the repair. I believe it would be redundant and unnecessary issue a separate contract. Would appreciate a ruling on this. Thank you in advance

Vern - thank you for the lightning quick and enlightening reply. Much appreciated.

I thought it was written in the FAR, that it was prohibited and even unlawful, to draft a scope of work / performance specification documents, in a manner that the would limit or restrict competition. Example: Drafting a scope of work and or performance specifications exceeding actual needs, and is such a way that to as to essentially ensure that a favored contractor would be successful. or Drafing the requirements for a Widget so closely to a particular manufacturers Widget that no other manufacturer's widget could meet the requirement. I could not find words to that effect in the FAR. Can someone point me to the right section please?

My fault for not being clear. We would not ask the three to do the geotech. In an attempt to lower the contractors potential risk and potentially our costs, we would be asking 1 or 3 firms, for a new lump sum GM proposal for for the turnkey job. We are not separating out the geotech. The risk elimination part is the ability of the sucessful contractor to negortiate a price for the final design and construction, after that same sucessful contractor had completed the geotech and 30% design. The negotiated price could not exceed their lump sum GM turnkey price.

Gentlemen, I appreciate your jumping in on this and I apologize fort not getting back to the Board quicker. I work for a prime contractor and we want to award a fixed lump sum design build subcontract. The design part will require them to do geo tech investigation to be able to do the design. Right now, all three contractors are guessing about what?s under the hill and what kind of conditions they will encounter, and what it will really cost to do the job. Earthwork was roughly a third ? half of the total proposal totals. My thoughts? All three contractors are guessing about subsurface conditions, so which contractor is guessing correctly? Perhaps it is the high bidders. Who is to say how much contingency the high bidders included ? perhaps double the low bidder? I thought that the revised RFP is significantly different from the original RFP so that no matter the original proposal prices, they all ought to get a shot at the revision. Integrity may not have been the correct word ? maybe equal treatment, level playing field, etc. The bidders spent their time and money on the original proposal. The time and effort to put together a revised proposal should be minimal. Ditto the evaluation of the revised proposals. Again, I appreciate value and look forward to your input.

I work for a "prime? contractor with an approved purchasing system working for a government entity. I am looking for a sanity check please. ************** A RFP was issued for a lump sum turnkey design / build road construction project. The road is on the side of a hill. To design the road the contractor will have to obtain geotechnical data upon which to base its design. No geotechnical data was provided with the RFP. Exact location to place the road is contractor?s choice. Bids come in much higher than the estimate. Two bids are close together but are a factor higher that the other bid. Bidders were "prequalified". All three proposals are determined to be responsive, respobnsible, acceptable, etc. An estimate was done but it was not an in depth "proper" estimate. There are technical people who thought that the estimate that was done is by a factor. When asked for reasons that bids are so hiogh, they all indicate that contingency has been added because they have no way of knowing what is under ground. They say that if you let us do the geotechnical information and a 30 percent design, we can "do it cheaper" (another surprise). Program Manager wants to revise the scope of work and request a revised proposal from the apparent low bidder, only. He now wants a price for a 30 % design, which would include them performing the geotech investigation, with the provision that we would negotiate the price for the construction, after receipt of the 30 % design. The total value of the award would still be their original lump sum price received for the original RFP We procurement believe that this kind of modification represents a significant restructuring of the game and the cleanest and proper way to do is to let all three bidders play, or just award a contract to the original low bidder at their original price. He disagrees and is adamant that going back to the one bidder does not compromise the integrity of the procurement. and he has the opportunity to save money. One stated concern is that there is a potential that one of the other companies could come in and low-ball the design 30% design and Buy the work. He also claims that he does not want to "exercise" the other two bidders. Time and budget are issues. This Program Manager is not taking "no" for an answer. He also believes that procurement works for him, and that this decision is his to make. I thought I would solicit comments / suggestions from you Professionals out there.