Jump to content
The Wifcon Forums and Blogs


  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

0 Neutral

About Guardian

  • Rank

Profile Information

  • Gender

Recent Profile Visitors

1,185 profile views
  1. I have a copy of the PIL Boot Camp Workbook within close reach. I was considering the same approach. Thank you for reminding me.
  2. Q6: Page 61 states: “The Technical Evaluation Board (TEB) shall review and downsize the number of quotations to no more than twelve (12) of the most favorably evaluated quotations.” Is this based on technical or technical and price? [see page 2 Cyberdata Technologies, Inc.] Sounds to me like the GAO was calling the agency out for not making it clear that price would not be a factor in the down-select or downsizing of the pool. I think as long as we make it clear what we intend to do, then we are OK. What if we had the schedule contract holders submit their quotations in stages to sa
  3. This has always been my thinking. I still keep a copy of your Source Selection Handbook, one of my favorite reads. In fact, I think that every first or second year 1102 ought to be made to read it. I did not read until five years into my career and it made a lot more sense than so much of the unnecessary and insipid material I got throughout 40 to 80 hour classes. Because my understanding is that in a phased evaluation or a down-select, the CO should be evaluating the most heavily weighted factor(s) in the initial stage. Price is the factor with the least weight and experience is t
  4. Our intent is to award as many as eight BPAs. Last time we solicited, we received 68 initial quotations. Let's say we have 100 CLINs on this BPA. We would like to avoid comparing 100 items of pricing against GSA schedule for each of the 68, presuming we get back roughly the same number this time around. One of the biggest issues, as you are well aware, is dealing with the requests (demands) of our program office, their lack of market research and inflexible to do anything differently than they have done in the past.
  5. Vern, this was my understanding. This is also why I asked if anyone had an applicable case, as I recall reading something to this effect but cannot locate the case. You yourself use the phrase consider price or "price is considered" as opposed to evaluate price. Seeing you tend to be deliberate with your words, I thought there was a specific reason for this. "Note that price is considered in each step."
  6. FACTS: Our agency is issuing an RFQ to award multiple BPAs under the authority of FAR subpart 8.4. To promote efficiency, we propose conducting a phased evaluation, down-select if you please. In phase one, we would evaluate the most heavily weighted factor, relevant experience. We would down-select to phase two in which we would then evaluate 1) technical approach via oral presentations, 2) past performance and 3) price. QUESTIONS: Under 8.4, may we do a firm down-select (elimination of quotations) prior to phase 2 without first evaluating price in phase 1? Does anyone have
  7. I use to award contracts for alterations and repairs of eleven Government buildings. While GSA handled the actual "construction" projects, the leasing agency was responsible for most A&R. Since the items (supplies and services) were typically deemed commercial in nature and acquired on the open-market, I was primarily guided by FAR part 12 and the contract format therein. The services within these actions were subject to the Service Contract Labor Standards Act and required the incorporation of a DOL WD. Therefore, I was additionally guided by Part 22, Application of Labor Laws to Gove
  8. Joel, it's a service contract for professional services. Thanks Vern. Hope the antique printing press refurbishment is going well 🙂.
  9. I'm not sure what use of SAP has to do with contract type and even commerciality. FAR 13.106-1(a)(2)(iv)(A), states: (A) The contracting officer may choose not to include price or cost [emphasis added] as an evaluation factor for award when a solicitation... Yes, we may; the FAR does not preclude us from doing so.
  10. I am working with a program office that is using the term "disincentives" in their performance work statement for what equates to a penalty for late deliveries. I believe their use of the term "disincentives" is a misnomer. The dictionary definition of "disincentive," is to discourage a course of action by removing an incentive. Since this contract has no built-in incentives for early delivery or performance that exceeds our requirements, I do not believe "disincentives," in this case, is the proper term. Conversely, I would not say that these monetary penalties are liquidated damages eith
  11. Hi Folks, We are looking to award several BPAs and use the same RFQ [emphasis added] to then evaluate schedule contract holders (those selected for award of a respective agreement) and award an initial order as a means of consolidating the award processes. The evaluation criteria for the order would be similar to that of the agreement, but include key personnel as a factor. Again, this would be achieved through a single RFQ. Has anyone employed a similar two-step approach before? If so, might you have any tips or helpful references? Much appreciated.
  12. Thought I would share this brief article, which appeared this morning in VAO. I worked with the Procurement Innovation Lab (PIL) at DHS—a good group that despite all else, really care about federal acquisition, taking meaningful strides toward further streamlining and making practitioners' jobs easier. 3 Ways PIL’s Acquisitions Are Easy to Swallow https://www.gotovao.com/Documents/266d3514a0154cfd9baaf7c6067c4ec2?src=Email|Today'sAcquisitionNews|12-11-2020|{954013ED-5B6C-40E6-8890-32D24F0D7BE1}&token=4Y8vNBVI1WAYO81KfED5ATLlLKog1Q8NEK3WZZFEWB0078pRzwc8PrmbkQnkBeDskyK5XUu4OHzGYK
  13. Beyond the question of whether it is unduly restrictive, I am not convinced as to how we would accomplish this. The sentence above could be interpreted as "the subcontractor shall not...." It just seems to me that it is written using passive language, which makes it all the less clear and enforceable. Here it is again-- DO state that a firm may attend only one oral presentation, whether for itself as a prime offeror or as a subcontractor for another firm. If I translate that into something I can incorporate into a solicitation, preserving as much of the language as I can, then it
  14. Sure, in fact, when I brainstormed about this on my ride down the interstate, this was the other workaround I arrived at, which is to say, in addition to the "open-book" tech challenge approach. Without giving the PM either of the options, I highlighted my concerns. He immediately answered with "can't we give everyone the questions up front"? Being the consummate team-player and wise CO that I am, I figured I would let him think the idea was all his. To your point about the nature of the requirement and how many subcontractors are likely available within this marketplace--by my underst
  15. I am the CO assigned to a requirement for services. My program office has elected to conduct oral presentations. An evaluation plan with the following language was submitted to me-- DO state that a firm may attend only one oral presentation, whether for itself as a prime offeror or as a subcontractor for another firm. If by this language, we mean to say that a contractor (prime) competing for an award under this solicitation may not participate both in an oral presentation for itself and as a subcontractor for a competing contractor, then I am fine with this language.
  • Create New...