5 hours ago, ji20874 said:

Joel,

I think you are unnecessarily conflating two separate issues.

The question is whether listing relative order of importance in a solicitation is REQUIRED for fair opportunity considerations under the SAT.  The answer to that question is an unambiguous NO.

I insist on this answer because it is the correct answer, and because we need to help our readers understand that they don't have to use all FAR Part 15 procedures in their non-Part 15 acquisitions -- this is a real problem in our workforce, and we need to give factually correct answers.  The answer to the question at hand is NO.

You are answering the question of whether listing relative order of importance might make some sense sometimes.  That is a different question.  Sometimes, it will make sense -- sometimes, it isn't necessary.  But that is a different question.

I’m not arguing that it is necessary to identify the relative importance of all the factors. I think I explained to a professed “beginner” what is practically necessary.

i also disagree with someone telling a beginner to “keep in mind the ideal of minimal”. What the heck does that mean????? You give them enough information to know what to do to meet or exceed your objectives. 

14 hours ago, joel hoffman said:

I’m not arguing that it is necessary to identify the relative importance of all the factors.

 

Good!  🙂

If the government is not clear in what it wants it can lead to situations similar to one like this that I experienced.  Prior to contract award, there was government concern that the contractor did not fully understand the government's requirements for a firm fixed price contract.  The government's solution was to clarify what it wanted after award.