Jump to content
The Wifcon Forums and Blogs


  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

0 Neutral

About NptAcq

  • Rank
  • Birthday 09/30/1964

Contact Methods

  • Website URL
  • ICQ
  1. Thanks. When/if I get to that point (RFP / Solicitation) I will issue an amendment listing all companies that expressed an interest and/or attended any pre-bid conferences.
  2. Not all interested vendors provide their contact information on this tab. Thanks for the comment
  3. Thank you for your response and maybe providing the information is not inappropriate. However I would feel more comfortable dissemintating the information to all interested parties rather than just providing to one or more offerors that request it.
  4. Thanks for your comment - I agree. But, I am only comfortable releasing the names of all potential offerors to all of the potential offerors. I still don't feel it is appropriate to provide the names of potential offerors to just one of the potential offerors. Thanks for your reply.
  5. I am looking for a FAR or some other regulation that prohibis the Govt from releasing the names of potential vendors for a particular procurement. I am at the market research/pre-solicitation stage of the procurement and I have a list of potential offerors (i.e. offerors that have responded to an RFI). I will not release the names of any of the companies that have responded to any of the other companies that have responded. Releasing the names of the potential offerors to another potential offeror can create an advantage because the potential offeor that received this information will know wh
  6. I think having the latitude to pricing for the 3rd phase was a great approach. I am going to consider this approach. If the requirement is truly a design/development/production effort, I don't see how a contractor can propose fixed prices for production items that they have not even designed or developed yet. Thanks for you input.
  7. Got it - thanks. I re-read the "development" definition in FAR and had the same thoughts as you. I appreciate you commenting and confirming what I thought to be an accurate interpretation of the definition of Development.
  8. Thanks for the information. So multiple contracts were awarded and there were individual procurement efforts for each phase - correct. This is a little different than my proposed approach of using one procurement and including options for each phase. I will consider the benefits of procuring each phase separate as opposed to using options. Your response is appreciated and very helpful.
  9. Hi vern, thanks for the information. I am doing some research on the GPS dual award contract. I am also attempting to confirm that my requirement truly is an R&D requirement. The technology may be proven (for the most part) but the design associated with packaging this technology to meet our requirements is what is driving this procurement. So is packaging proven technology really R&D - my first thought are "no'. Either way I am still considering multiple awards because I believe we will get the best product that meets our needs. R/ Npt Acq
  10. I believe including the "down selection" critieria would demonstrate the we are being fair in determining the best design alternative. The criteria I expect to use would include both subjective and objective criteria. Thanks for your comments.
  11. Can I award multiple contracts for a firm, known requirement (as opposed to an ID/IQ). The requirement consists of 3 phases. Phase 1 is the initial design, Phase 2 is the final design/development, and Phase 3 is limited production units. Phase 1 is the base requirement and Phases 2 and 3 are Option Items. Can I issue multiple contracts for the base requirement - the initial design. Then I would select one vendor to exercise Option 1, the final design, and Option 2, the production units. The RFP/contract would include criteria for selection of the vendor that is awarded Options 1 and 2. This
  12. Maybe "faulty" is the wrong term. The Government provided estimates were broken down by the contract year of performance and contract performance extends out 15 years. The estimate considered all the information available at the time and was an "estimate". The actual costs (on the previous contract) were escalated to calculate the estimate for the outyears - it appears a yearly increase of approximately 3% was applied to the actual costs. The calculations were correct. I do not have any information relating or supporing the use of a 3% yearly escalation. You are correct the costs turned ou
  13. My apologies for not getting back to everyone sooner. I value the comments. I provided some response and will check back soon to respond to anymore comments. The contractor and the Government just discovered the estimates for contract years 5/6 through 15, was faulty. We are currently in year 5 of the contract, so starting now through the end of the contract, the estimates are faulty. Although these costs represent an increase it will not result in a cost overrun as the contractor has succesfully managed the contract costs. The additional costs have not been incurred yet, but will begin
  14. Just responded to "Here to Help" and Vern. The contractor raised the issue 5 years after because the estimate was broken down for each year of the contract - years 1 to 15. The estimate for years 1 - 4 is valid, but the estiimate for years 6 to 15 is not valid.
  15. Yes - you have everything correct. Please comment further.
  • Create New...