Can anyone provided guidance on whether TO evaluation criteria are required in a TO RFQ to be issued under a single award IDIQ? The IDIQ ordering procedures don't contain eval criteria for issuance of TOs.

Thanks

You didn't provide enough detail to understand why or why not evaluation criteria would be necessary for a non-competitive negotiated acquisition. What will be submitted?

If the contract is single award, why would you need task order evaluation criteria?

Reasons to have TO eval criteria:

1. A responsibility determination should be made for each awarded TO which would also include evaluating a vendor?s proposal against the criteria of whether the procurement will provide best value to the government.

2. How does one have a basis to negotiate a sole source TO unless the vendor?s proposal does not comply with some evaluation standard?

3. One should do either a price or cost reasonableness determination which is a mandatory evaluation requirement. The TOs are cost reimbursement.

Reasons to have TO eval criteria:

1. A responsibility determination should be made for each awarded TO which would also include evaluating a vendor?s proposal against the criteria of whether the procurement will provide best value to the government.

2. How does one have a basis to negotiate a sole source TO unless the vendor?s proposal does not comply with some evaluation standard?

3. One should do either a price or cost reasonableness determination which is a mandatory evaluation requirement. The TOs are cost reimbursement.

A proposal would be submitted by the vendor in response to a TO Solicitation in each case. The IDIQ is for Professional type services. The TOs will be on a cost reimbursable basis not T&M.

Reasons to have TO eval criteria:

1. A responsibility determination should be made for each awarded TO which would also include evaluating a vendor?s proposal against the criteria of whether the procurement will provide best value to the government.

2. How does one have a basis to negotiate a sole source TO unless the vendor?s proposal does not comply with some evaluation standard?

3. One should do either a price or cost reasonableness determination which is a mandatory evaluation requirement. The TOs are cost reimbursement.

I don't see the use of evaluation criteria satisfying the reasons you cited.

1. The reasons why a company is responsible or not usually don't have anything to do with task order evaluation criteria. Take a look at FAR 9.104

2. You negotiate with a company on the work you need performed and price/cost. Again the criteria aren't relevant usually to how the work gets performed. You negotiate to get agreement on what you want done and for how much money.

3. Price/cost reasonablness has to always be performed. You're right - its like a mandatory requirement. However that's not an evaluation criteria.

I don't see the use of evaluation criteria satisfying the reasons you cited.

1. The reasons why a company is responsible or not usually don't have anything to do with task order evaluation criteria. Take a look at FAR 9.104

2. You negotiate with a company on the work you need performed and price/cost. Again the criteria aren't relevant usually to how the work gets performed. You negotiate to get agreement on what you want done and for how much money.

3. Price/cost reasonablness has to always be performed. You're right - its like a mandatory requirement. However that's not an evaluation criteria.

If you don't agree that the reasons I provided would requre eval criteria, are there any circumstances that you would recognize a need for eval criteria when issuing TO Solicitations against a single award IDIQ?

Georgeml,

FAR 15.002(a) states:

(a) Sole source acquisitions. When contracting in a sole source environment, the request for proposals (RFP) should be tailored to remove unnecessary information and requirements; e.g., evaluation criteria and voluminous proposal preparation instructions.

Italics added. Why do you think it says that?

Georgeml,

FAR 15.002(a) states:

a) Sole source acquisitions. When contracting in a sole source environment, the request for proposals (RFP) should be tailored to remove unnecessary information and requirements; e.g., evaluation criteria and voluminous proposal preparation instructions

Italics added. Why do you think it says that?

I beleive the clause could be read to remove "unnecessary evaluation criteria." For example: when there is no competition and the contractor is already performing, it may not make sence to evaluate past performance information in that case.

Are you interpreting 15.002(a) to say that "all" evaluation criteria are removed in every sole source negotiated procurement??

I beleive the clause could be read to remove "unnecessary evaluation criteria." For example: when there is no competition and the contractor is already performing, it may not make sence to evaluate past performance information in that case.

Are you interpreting 15.002(a) to say that "all" evaluation criteria are removed in every sole source negotiated procurement??

First, it's not a clause. Second, the implication in FAR 15.002(a) is that evaluation criteria are unnecessary in a sole source acquisition. To interpret FAR 15.002(a) as you suggest would clearly be incorrect.

I don't think that you understand what evaluation criteria are. Evaluation criteria are used to discriminate between and among competing proposals (See FAR 15.304((2)). In a sole source situation, there's no need for that. Of course, you need to determine that the price of a sole source contract is fair and reasonable. However, this doesn't mean that "Price" is an evaluation criterion.

First, it's not a clause. Second, the implication in FAR 15.002(a) is that evaluation criteria are unnecessary in a sole source acquisition. To interpret FAR 15.002(a) as you suggest would clearly be incorrect.

I don't think that you understand what evaluation criteria are. Evaluation criteria are used to discriminate between and among competing proposals (See FAR 15.304((2)). In a sole source situation, there's no need for that. Of course, you need to determine that the price of a sole source contract is fair and reasonable. However, this doesn't mean that "Price" is an evaluation criterion.

Thanks for the correction that it is not a clause I knew that, but was imprecise in my answer. Sorry about that error. There are also a few spelling errors in my postings that I appologize for. ;-)

I have reached out to a former member of the FAR Council and he did not agree with your intrepretation.

Is this a cut an dried situation? Do you not recognize any situations as discussed above that would warrent using eval criteria? How is the vendor to know how you will evaluate their proposal if you do not tell them in the Solicitation??

If you don't agree that the reasons I provided would requre eval criteria, are there any circumstances that you would recognize a need for eval criteria when issuing TO Solicitations against a single award IDIQ?

You could describe the conditions in which a task order is awarded - a proposal that fully complies with the solicitation requirements, establishment of a fair and reasonable price/estimated costs, and terms and conditions consistent with achieving the desired outcomes.

I don't see those as evaluation criteria but situations that must be achieved prior to acceptance on an offer.

Georgeml wrote:

Reasons to have TO eval criteria:

1. A responsibility determination should be made for each awarded TO which would also include evaluating a vendor’s proposal against the criteria of whether the procurement will provide best value to the government.

2. How does one have a basis to negotiate a sole source TO unless the vendor’s proposal does not comply with some evaluation standard?

3. One should do either a price or cost reasonableness determination which is a mandatory evaluation requirement. The TOs are cost reimbursement.

1. You do not have to make a responsibility determination prior to issuing a task order. See Advanced Technology Systems, Inc., Comp. Gen. Dec. B-296493.6, 2006 CPD ? 151. But you can do one anyway, if you want to waste time and government resources.

In any case, you do not understand the concept of "responsibility." Read FAR subpart 9.1 and Formation of Government Contracts, 3d ed., by Cibinic and Nash, Ch. 4, Sec. I, pp. 404-454.

2. The purpose of "evaluation criteria," as that term is normally used, is to provide a basis for comparing competing offerors. If you have a single-award IDIQ contract, you do not need evaluation critieria. Of course, that does not mean that you cannot waste time and government resources doing unnecessary things. Blockheaded, incompetent contracting officers are doing that every day, which is one reason why they think they are overworked.

When awarding a task order against a single-award IDIQ contract, simply tell the contractor what information you want in the task order proposal. Do you know what information you want? Yes? Then write that down and send a copy to the contractor with instructions about when and where to send the proposal. If you are not sure that they know what you want, call them up or meet with them before asking for the proposal and discuss the statement of work. Document your conversation and any agreements reached about methods, "approach," etc. If you are not sure that you know what you want, then stop what you're doing and sit down and think it over before you confuse everybody.

Once you are sure that you mutually understand the work and each other, ask them for their estimated cost and fee in whatever format and detail that you wish. Then perform a cost analysis. If the underlying contract does not stipulate fee, perform a profit analysis. Do any fact-finding that still needs to be done. Then negotiate.

3. You do not need "evaluation criteria" in order to conduct a cost analysis. You only need your brain, some knowledge about costs and fee, some knowledge about the work to be done, some knowledge about cost estimating, and some knowledge about profit analysis. Do you have some knowledge about those things? Enough to analyze a cost proposal and negotiate? If so, then get on with the negotiation and issuance of the task order.

Finally, if you are going to "reach out" to a former member of one of the FAR councils, don't reach out about things like this. Instead, ask them about something they ought to know something about, such as why the FAR is so badly written. Ask that, and when you find out, let us know what he or she said. If you want specific examples of badly written parts of the FAR, ask here, where I'm sure you'll get all sorts of responses. Former members of the FAR councils should not be advising anyone about operational matters; they should be busy doing penance for their professional sins.

Former members of the FAR council should not be advising anyone about operational matters, they should be busy doing penance for their professional sins.

Thanks for everyone's input. Let me know if anyone has additional guidance they would like to post.

Just because someone was on the FAR Council does not mean that they don't have operational contracting experience.

I was told before that the FAR is the lowest common denominator that the different agencies could agree on. I have also heard it described as a collection of 200 yrs of best practice. :-)

I've been out a few days but I agree with the advice givers.

A single award task order contract provides the vehicle for COMMUNICATION and streamlining T.O. issuance. For gosh sakes don't overcomplicate the damned process!!!!!!

FAR may be the lowest common denominator. It would be worse than ridiculous to say that it reflects 200 years of best practice.

As for former FAR council members, they may indeed have operational experience, but a person's experience as a policy scribe does not make their opinion about an operational matter especially valuable.

Georgeml,

Don't get hung up on semantics. Everyone who responded to you pointed out that the purpose of evaluation factors, as they understood them, was to discriminate between competing offerors, i.e. to guide the source selection decision. In your situation, the source selection decision has been made, so I, and others, don't understand the purpose of using "evaluation factors."

When you get beyond all of Vern's sarcastic put-downs, though, you'll find he has some good advice -- if there's something you want the contractor to know about how you will review and evaluate his T.O. proposal, by all means, tell him. I think that most readers here would agree with that, but would not consider such advice/guidance to be "evaluation factors," as that term is understood in the Federal contracting environment.

Navy:

You're going to confuse poor Georgemi. You say that he doesn't need evaluation factors. Then you say:

If there's something you want the contractor to know about how you will review and evaluate his T.O. proposal, by all means, tell him.

Emphasis on "evaluate" added. That's what poor Georgmi wants to do--tell the contractor the evaluation factors on which he'll base his evaluation, factors which you said he doesn't need. If he's going to "evaluate" the task order proposal, won't he need evaluation factors?

But here's the thing: In light of the fact that the source selection decision has already been made, as you say, does he really need to "evaluate" the proposal? Is "evaluate" the right word? Aren't you being inconsistent?

Is "evaluate" the right word? Aren't you being inconsistent?

Vern-

I should have known better than to think you wouldn't get hung up on semantics. Of course, you're right - "evaluate" was a poor choice for me to use in making the point I was trying to make, and, obviously, appeared inconsistent. A better term would have been "analyze."

Point taken.

Vern-

I should have known better than to think you wouldn't get hung up on semantics. Of course, you're right - "evaluate" was a poor choice for me to use in making the point I was trying to make, and, obviously, appeared inconsistent. A better term would have been "analyze."

Point taken.

Why is it that when you catch a person in some kind of misstatement they say you are "hung up on semantics"? Semantics is the branch of linguistics and logic concerned with meaning. What's wrong with being "hung up" on meaning? Doesn't meaning mean something? I'm always hung up on meaning. Half my life is devoted to meaning.

In a sole source negotiation in which the agency has issued an RFP that specifies its requirements and desired terms, the agency's objective should be (1) to determine whether the parties share a common understanding of the requirement and the prospective contract terms, (2) to reach agreement on the specified requirement and terms and on any other details that remain to be resolved and contractually stipulated, e.g., particular methods or "approaches," and (3) to reach agreement on price. Call that process what you will. I was taught to call it fact-finding and negotiation, and that still works for me. But what matters is that you know what you're doing and do it well.