July 1, 20241 yr comment_85146 It is a longstanding belief that effective competition yields best value contract pricing and quality. And it is generally believed that clear communication between buyer and prospective sellers is essential for effective competition. If those beliefs are true, then we must question whether the Government is getting effective competition and best value in its procurements. Let's consider a simple case. Please Read: Simplification, Reform, Streamlining, and Innovation: The Government Is Immune To Those Things by Vernon J. Edwards Report
July 1, 20241 yr comment_85148 Good article Vern. My initial reaction is why the Army didn’t use the streamlined solicitation process of FAR 12.603? Then I looked at what’s required in terms of posting by that process as well as FAR part 5, and it’s not so streamlined either. Report
July 1, 20241 yr comment_85156 I would have set up a Part 13 BPA and let the COR call for mowing, etc., when necessary. I don't know why they needed a one-year contract with five one-year options. According to the solicitation they wanted only 18 mowings per year. Report
July 1, 20241 yr comment_85158 A BPA makes the most sense. If the Army is concerned with price increases, they could always switch vendors. The company I worked for did lots of procurement reviews at different agencies. One shocking thing found is the number of contracts awarded instead of BPAs or POs because “we get more credit with contracts in workload assessments.” Report
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.