Two suppliers were sent a competitive solicitation for an FFP Best Value criteria award. One was the best value winner. Program is asking to split the award at 75% to best value winner and 25% to the other supplier to add depth to the supplier pool. Since these are not IDIQ or Requirements Contracts and will be discreet purchase orders, instinct says that one PO is deemed competitive and the other PO is deemed non-competitive since they didn't "win". Program is asking for "where in FAR does it say I can't". I don't believe that exists in such blatant terms but looking for back up on why CCoPD should/would be requested of the non-winner. Or back up on where such a split award can count 2 of 2 suppliers as both competitive awards.

What is your question?

My question is, is it still competitive award for both suppliers or is it competitive award to the winner and non-competitive award for the non-winner.

Just now, DawnS said:

Two suppliers were sent a competitive solicitation for an FFP Best Value criteria award. One was the best value winner. Program is asking to split the award at 75% to best value winner and 25% to the other supplier to add depth to the supplier pool. Since these are not IDIQ or Requirements Contracts and will be discreet purchase orders, instinct says that one PO is deemed competitive and the other PO is deemed non-competitive since they didn't "win". Program is asking for "where in FAR does it say I can't". I don't believe that exists in such blatant terms but looking for back up on why CCoPD should/would be requested of the non-winner. Or back up on where such a split award can count 2 of 2 suppliers as both competitive awards.

Was the competition conducted pursuant to FAR Part 15? If not, what procedure was used??

In addition why is this posted under the Subcontracts and subcontract management discussion area?? It belongs under “contract award” or some other similar discussion area. 

14 hours ago, Vern Edwards said:

Was the competition conducted pursuant to FAR Part 15? If not, what procedure was used??

I will echo Vern’s question. 

Some more context is necessary.

14 hours ago, DawnS said:

Two suppliers were sent a competitive solicitation for an FFP Best Value criteria award. One was the best value winner…

…My question is, is it still competitive award for both suppliers or is it competitive award to the winner and non-competitive award for the non-winner.

 

15 hours ago, DawnS said:

Program is asking for "where in FAR does it say I can't “ I don't believe that exists in such blatant terms but looking for back up on why CCoPD should/would be requested of the non-winner. Or back up on where such a split award can count 2 of 2 suppliers as both competitive awards.

Whether or not you can even make a split award or a partial award to one of the vendors without further interaction with both firms would seem to be dependent upon what the “competitive solicitation” described as the basis of award.

That would seem to me to be applicable regardless of the type or size of the solicitation.

For instance, if the solicitation says something like “Award will be be to the [firm[ [offeror] [vendor] which provides the best value…”, to make a split award or a partial award of the scope is a modification of the initial basis of the solicitation initially sent to the two firms.

It would be a change to the ground rules of the competition

If so, then, as a minimum,  I’d think that you will  need to amend the solicitation to allow and describe a split or even a partial award.

It appears to me, based upon the limited information provided and your question, that what the program office is requesting is a modification to the scope and quantity of possible business that the initial solicitation described and/or was based upon.

Maybe one or both firms would not be interested in a partial, shared award for a smaller scope/amount/nature of business than you initially solicited. Or maybe their prices would be different (higher?/lower?).

[EDIT: Where does the original poster mention subcontractors in this thread]?

Edited June 5, 20241 yr by joel hoffman
Corrected quote of Vern’s question and other edits

I posted under Subcontracts as we are a prime contractor placing a subcontract and my Sourcing brain always defaults to Subcontracts. I apologize if this is the wrong place. The RFP was FAR 15 compliant and stated Best Value with schedule, past performance and price as the criteria. The subcontract administrator did state the possibility of split awards in the RFP and also requested range pricing from 1 each up to our actual needed qty each. The solicitation did not say what any anticipated split would be (i.e 75/25).   Supplier A had the best scores in all categories as well as best overall score. Supplier B wasn't too far behind in scores but wasn't the winner. Using the Program desired split would have Supplier B (non-winner) receiving an award over the CCoPD threshold. The competition exemption of CCoPD for the winner is clear. The competition exemption of CCoPD for the non-winner but receiving award is less clear (to me).

Well, this appears to be a completely different scenario than initially described. However, your solicitation mentioned the possibility of split awards. Prices were competitively obtained. I don’t see why there is a need for certified cost or pricing data from either firm. They would both be competitively obtained awards. 

Dawn, you seem to be focusing on whether you would need to get certified cost or pricing data from vendor B.  While there are several other issues with what you have written,  two questions immediately come to mind.  First, were you as the prime required to submit CCPD in regard to your contract under which this buy will be made?  Second, if you were, have you considered how FAR 15.403-1 impacts your situation?

17 hours ago, DawnS said:

Two suppliers were sent a competitive solicitation for an FFP Best Value criteria award. One was the best value winner. Program is asking to split the award at 75% to best value winner and 25% to the other supplier to add depth to the supplier pool.

Maybe I'm cynical, or maybe I'm just experienced. Either way, before doing anything I would thoroughly explore the ownership of the "losing" firm to see if there are any ties to the program personnel requesting the split.

Just now, here_2_help said:

Maybe I'm cynical, or maybe I'm just experienced. Either way, before doing anything I would thoroughly explore the ownership of the "losing" firm to see if there are any ties to the program personnel requesting the split.

That sounds like the voice of experience. 

20 minutes ago, here_2_help said:

Maybe I'm cynical, or maybe I'm just experienced. Either way, before doing anything I would thoroughly explore the ownership of the "losing" firm to see if there are any ties to the program personnel requesting the split.

Or just strong favoritism.  Maybe surprised that the liked vendor didn’t win.  Regardless something seems amiss. 

Just now, formerfed said:

Regardless something seems amiss. 

Maybe, but it could be that they saw something in the loser's proposal that sparked their interest and want to pursue it. I've seen that happen.

We were required to submit CCoPD at the prime. Program is trying to get away from too many typically sole source awards so opened this up to the incumbent and a competitor. Incumbent won the best value. Program wants to split the award to build depth into the sourcing options for future efforts so asked for a 75/25 split award.

4 hours ago, DawnS said:

I posted under Subcontracts as we are a prime contractor placing a subcontract and my Sourcing brain always defaults to Subcontracts. I apologize if this is the wrong place. The RFP was FAR 15 compliant and stated Best Value with schedule, past performance and price as the criteria. The subcontract administrator did state the possibility of split awards in the RFP...

DawnS,

Is your question about a government prime contract opportunity being split at award?  Or a subcontract opportunity being split at award?

This is a subcontract opportunity. USG contract is to us - we are placing subcontract to supplier.

So, you are a prime contractor, and you did a competition for a subcontract opportunity, and you want that competition to result in two awards?  If the prices are similar, I think I would call both awards competitive and the prices reasonable based on adequate competition.

On 6/5/2024 at 8:10 AM, DawnS said:

Using the Program desired split would have Supplier B (non-winner) receiving an award over the CCoPD threshold. The competition exemption of CCoPD for the winner is clear. The competition exemption of CCoPD for the non-winner but receiving award is less clear (to me).

The competition exemption from CCOPD can certainly apply to multiple awardees. The second firm is still “successful” in obtaining an award, just “not as successful” as the first one

However, if you (and/or the Gov’t. Program Office) aren’t satisfied with the second awardee’s prices, you could bargain with them for better pricing.

Since you weren’t sure whether or not CCOPD was required, you obviously would have the right under your issued solicitation to negotiate with one or both vendors, correct?.

And If you aren’t satisfied with the non-price portion of the second firm, could you also bargain for better performance under the terms of the subcontract solicitation? 

The CCOPD exemption under 15.403-1(b)(1) would still apply due to adequate competition.

Edited June 6, 20241 yr by joel hoffman

Thank you!

1 minute ago, DawnS said:

Thank you!

Sorry for my edits but please see my last edited reply…

It seems that this discussion has gone off the rails. The question was whether there was adequate price competition, presumably for determining whether the exception to COPD was met (although this did not come out until much later). This could have been answered from the very first sentence from the OP: "

On 6/4/2024 at 1:36 PM, DawnS said:

Two suppliers were sent a competitive solicitation for an FFP Best Value criteria award.

Both suppliers submitted proposals. Therefore the standards for the 'adequate price competition' exception were met: two or more responsible offerors submitted offers, and award will be made on a best value basis where price was a substantial factor. Whether there was one award or a split award does not change this; the exception is based on the existence of price competition, not the award decision. 

Side note: calling one PO "non-competitive" because it didn't win makes no sense. Of course there was competition. Just because you lost doesn't mean you didn't compete. 

Dawn, I think Joel and Fara have answered your question concerning CCPD.  However, based on your original post, I wonder if you believe that the FAR governs the way you award subcontracts?

3 hours ago, Fara Fasat said:

It seems that this discussion has gone off the rails. The question was whether there was adequate price competition, presumably for determining whether the exception to COPD was met (although this did not come out until much later).

The initial post seemed to indicate to me that the program office wanted to make a split award and wanted to know why it couldn’t be done. And it appeared that the Original Post was referring to split awards at the prime contract level.

We asked for more context.

DawnS then revealed that the solicitation was at the subcontract level and that the solicitation mentioned the possibility of split awards. This was the first mention of subcontracts…

The mention of certified cost or pricing data indicates that there would likely be negotiation involved with respect to the second vendor.

Why would one ask for CCOPD to determine whether a competitively submitted price is fair, reasonable and acceptable? 

Why would one ask for CCOPD unless they intend to negotiate a proposal?

Why would one ask for CCOPD to bargain/negotiate a competitively submitted price?

The bottom line is that there is an exemption to otherwise applicable CCOPD if you are negotiating competitively submitted prices with one or more firms for awards to those firms.  

True, we did have to do much reading between the lines and interpreting. Ultimately though DawnS was asking why they shouldn't have to get COPD from the "non-winner", which she deemed a "non-competitive award." This entirely missed the point, as the competition had already occurred; the type of award did not change that.

Yes FAR does influence and determine how we award subcontracts as the clauses in our prime are enforced upon us and many are required flowdowns. Our CPSRs are always referencing our primes for which clauses were included. 52.215-12 is in the prime and therefore without a valid exemption then CCoPD would be required. What was unclear to me was within a competition with only two competitors that awarding to the one that was not the evaluated winner would negate the exemption or not.