Jump to content
The Wifcon Forums and Blogs

REA'n Maker

Members
  • Content Count

    214
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

0 Neutral

About REA'n Maker

  • Rank
    Member

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Male
  • Location
    DC

Recent Profile Visitors

3,205 profile views
  1. I think the issue might be with your definition of "corporate experience", which typically refers to an offeror's corporate capabilities, not merely past projects. In my opinion, when viewed properly, corporate experience doesn't cross over any of your other factors. "Past customers liked that we marinated the steaks for 3 hours instead of for 2 hours..." isn't a corporate capability, it's a statement supporting an approach. Which you are free to ignore when evaluating corporate experience for all the reasons you mention. In fact, based on your examples, it's not a matter of "cross-over", i
  2. Because the incumbent will protest anything to profit from the CICA stay. The additional revenue from the bridge/extension more than pays for the 20 minutes it takes for a staff attorney to file a protest. Note how GAO almost never sustains on grounds of 'improper evaluation' alone. They don't. They guess. Some protests even invoke evaluation factors that never actually existed:
  3. By "Compartmentalizing" I mean treating the factors as being completely distinct and separate, e.g., expecting an offeror to discuss an approach without referring to their past experience with that approach. That's not a mortal sin. (Edit: including past experience to validate your approach is not a 'mortal sin'.) You should certainly evaluate PP and technical approach separately, but anything which imparts understanding should not be ignored or discouraged; that's not the same thing as relying on a PP reference in a technical approach to determine the PP factor rating. "We found th
  4. It sounds to me like the OP is focused on process and not outcome. How is compartmentalizing evaluation factors in the best interests of the government? If including past experience in a discussion of technical approach helps demonstrate understanding of the requirement, it is a good thing; if it doesn't, the offeror is just wasting valuable proposal space. That's on them. A CO's job is to practice good, consistent, business judgement, not just memorize regulations. As Duke Ellington used to say, "If it sounds good, it is good". It seems to me that many procurement professional
  5. "Logical follow-on" applies to one scenario only: when a contract is awarded to a particular vendor because it is not "logical" to award a phased effort to anyone else: It is definitely not a term used to describe a successor/continuation to an existing vehicle or requirement, nor does it describe a situation where the CO believes it's "logical" to keep requirements with one vendor because it's administratively cleaner ! I believe this thread is in for a do-over, with the discussion focusing on the LSJ and not a "logical follow-on".
  6. I, for one, welcome our Robot Overlords.
  7. FWIW, I think that is a great and usable definition, which can easily be mapped to acquisition scenarios. Subjective = I'm looking for intangibles; AKA, the "I'll know it when I see it" philosophy, which assumes that the proposal/quote will educate me on things or approaches of which I was not previously aware. Objective = I know what constitutes superior performance before I ever look at a single proposal. One of my concerns is that I have seen COs state that they are being "innovative" by having the prospective vendors provide oral presentations in response to silly on-the-s
  8. From my experience, the primary advantage of the SF-1449 is that the commercial clauses/provisions under 52.212-1, -4, & -5 can be incorporated by checking Blocks 27a and/or 27b. But if you're not under Part 12, it's not that useful.
  9. Honest assessment: that article could have been titled "Preparing for the Future of _____" and any random profession could have been inserted into the blank. NCMA once again meets its mission of Purveyors of the Incredibly Obvious (AKA, The FAR Restated, Only Much Longer and Lacking Any Noticeable Point).
  10. Karma always catches up with bad people. It may take years, but it always does. My story is about the person who accepted a job offer but never showed up, and then ghosted us. 4-1/2 years later, at a different agency, guess whose resume came across a colleagues desk? The name was stuck in my head like glue, so needless to say, the resume immediately went into the round file. And all was right with the world.
  11. I certainly get your logic in that context, and don't dispute it. A rental is definitely delivered in much the same way as a purchase, and the only real difference is that a rental comes with an end date. My perspective is based on how the 'thing' is procured (as quantities, or rates/time), rather than how it is delivered (the relative labor component required, or lack thereof), as well as the fact that Part 2 defines “Supplies” as "all property except land or interest in land".
  12. I believe DLA Defense Fuels took that over once kinetic operations* in Iraq concluded. And to your point, the contract in question was for restoring Iraqi oil production, not providing fuel. So the overcharging allegation was unrelated anyway. * Coolest. Term. Ever.
  13. Oral discussions? Do you mean oral (proposal) presentations? Discussions need to be memorialized and any outcome that affects the interests of other bidders needs to be promulgated equally in writing, so video and audio recording are not really viable (i.e., you wouldn't ever release a verbatim record of 'discussions' as defined in Part 15). Oral proposal presentations are memorialized by the presenter providing hard copies of the presentation. So the answer is that audio/video/transcripts aren't really useful or viable in either scenario; just take good notes and publicize any re
  14. The amazing thing is that even after 15 years, nothing she asserted has been shown to be remotely true, nor was there any actual professional attempt on her part at the time to support her belief that sole-source was not appropriate (i.e., market research). All that stuff about Haliburton overcharging for fuel (which was never substantiated) had nothing to do with her so-called objections to the original award strategy. The EEO settlement she received had nothing to do with the validity of her claims, but of course the media used their Jedi powers to conflate the two in the mind of the r
  15. The media reporting on this reminds me of how they lionized a former Army CO many years back because she had made notes in the margins about why a contract was improper and then obviously signed the contract. Of course, all they did was expose her as an incompetent fraud who failed to perform the most basic responsibilities of her job, but hey, it made the Bush administration look bad, so no worries! "She wrote that the original "emergency" contract should be limited to one year, with no options after that. She says when she got the final contract back, it was unchanged. So she wrote her
×
×
  • Create New...