FrankJon

Thanks, Vern.

Vern - Are you speaking of information on specific projects or responsibility-type data? I actually happen to be in a situation in which I'm procuring a service for which years of objective performance data are available. My customer said, "Past performance (i.e., talking to references) isn't useful to us so we don't want to evaluate it," and I responded, "The data you're requesting IS the past performance!" It was a revelation for them. But I'm not sure how I would do something similar for most common services. Can we flesh out an example? Let's say we're procuring IT Service Desk support services. We can ask other agencies and businesses how well the firm has performed similar work. We can look at the firm's underlying business data such as liquidity, bankruptcies, and terminations, which we would typically associate with contractor responsibility. What else can we look into to determine the offeror's success in performing the same or similar work?

Yes. "Should" consider the former to be relevant PP, "may" consider the latter to be relevant PP.

I agree that speaking to and questioning references improves the quality of past performance evaluation over merely relying on CPARS or Past Performance Questionnaires. I would further suggest that practitioners state in the solicitation that unsupported assertions will receive less weight than supported assertions for evaluation purposes. I think Vern is actually suggesting to go beyond accepting the word of references and to seek out underlying performance data and metrics.

As addressed by others, past performance and experience are distinct concepts in evaluation. However, your post is based on a misunderstanding. Before we consider past performance we must consider its relevance. This is what the bolded language is addressing. It's saying that for purposes of determining which past performance information is relevant, the Government should consider examples from the offeror's regular commercial dealings, and not limit consideration to the offeror's Government contracts (especially when the offeror likely wouldn't have any such contracts).

Or because they feel it will be done by others.

Yet the terms “Justification for Other than Full and Open Competition” and "Justification for an Exception to Fair Opportunity" remain and are required to be written on the documents themselves when using part 6 or subpart 16.5, respectively. It's inconsistent. I also just realized that the GSAM doesn't specify formatting or contents:

This isn't right. The SSAC has two distinct functions: So when using LPTA, the SSAC could still be useful to ensure the SSEB followed the evaluation criteria consistently. Or seek a waiver:

In reviewing RFO FAR subpart 8.4 and GSAM/R 538.71 yesterday, I observed two changes from the current FAR that I haven't seen discussed elsewhere: The term "limited source justification" is apparently being retired and replaced with simply "sole source justification." I think this is a mistake, as the former is a term of art that tells the experienced practitioner which procedures apply, and the latter is a generic term commonly used by practitioners to describe any justification for proceeding without competition regardless of the applicable procedures. There are no longer any designated approval authorities for sole source justifications exceeding the SAT. GSAM 538.7104-3(a) specifies that the CO is the approval authority for acquisitions that do not exceed the SAT, but 538.7104-3(b) is silent regarding acquisitions exceeding the SAT. I assume this is an oversight and that the approval authorities will eventually match those found in RFO subparts 6.1 and 16.5. But it would be a glaring oversight. Has anyone else here noticed these oddities? Does anyone have additional insights into them?

Can you provide an example? I don't think I've ever seen or heard of a FAR supplement prescribing the form that a price analysis must take.

Thanks, Vern. Apart from the FAR rewrite, do you have any specific events in mind?

Haha....Merry Christmas??

@KeithB18 in your earlier post you stated: This sounds like you're questioning the decision process itself. But apparently you were referring to things like: With the exception of Bullet 1, I have a hard time seeing how these impact the decision in ways that are unique. Bullet 1: Yes, the decision criteria are less malleable than what we find in pretty much any other life decision, but it's not true that they can't change. We would simply need to resolicit. Bullet 2: This isn't referring to a rule or custom. Agencies base decisions on the wrong information all the time just as private companies and individuals do. Bullet 3: Is this so different than telling family and friends what you value and asking for their input on a decision? Bullet 4: Purely an administrative requirement. It seems like you're really comparing the rigor applied to a Government source selection decision vs. that applied to other decisions. To that, I'll refer back to Decision Analysis, which advises that for important decisions, we ought to be applying greater rigor than most of us actually do. Instead, most of us utilize heuristics that don't always serve us well.

I think you have it right. One of Vern's favorites, Decision Analysis for Management Judgment (Fifth Edition), states the following on page 4: My takeaway is that, while AI can certainly help to elucidate our decision making processes in ways with which humans struggle, to protect the integrity of the process the value inputs and final decision must be human-determined. I'm curious to know what you mean by this. Boiled down to its essence, I'm struggling to think of anything that makes a Federal contracting source selection decision unique from any other decision involving tradeoffs.

Yep. And based on a Google search, even your Vox article (written in 2017) significantly underestimated amount of decline to today. Apparently primarily due to online banking. Makes sense. Oh well, @Voyager . I tried!

I understand the existential dread over AI, but I think one of the fundamental aspects of technology is replace or augment human abilities. Each generation looks back and laments the experiences that subsequent generations are missing out on. I don't know your age, but surely you can see how this happened with the advent of the internet age in the 90s and with the smartphone in 2007. Can those of us who've basically grown up with these inventions "think"? Depends on who you ask. Point is, whether these advances are fundamentally helpful or harmful, I see AI as more of the same trend. I'll leave you with a hopeful nugget I heard on a podcast yesterday: Apparently, when the ATM was invented, it was common wisdom that the bank teller profession would eventually be wiped out. Yet today, 60 years later, there are more bank tellers than ever before. Their scope of responsibilities just became much more sophisticated.

I learned a new word today. One which happens to summarize the state of Federal acquisition quite nicely. Thanks, Vern!

I disagree that this would be the common flow of events. The first logical question most agencies ask during market research is where the capable firms are (i.e., which, if any, contract vehicles cover the scope of work?). That leads to the applicable acquisition procedures and which firms might be available within the competitive field. The procedures and availability of firms tells us whether a set-aside is necessary or even within the realm of possibility.

There's the procedures that are used and there's the data that's reported (i.e., FPDS-NG). Generally, the FPDS-NG report for a task order will propagate the same set-aside information as contained in the report for the IDIQ. The 1449 will indicate a set-aside as well because it's generated from the master contract. But procedurally, in the situation you've described, there is no secondary set-aside for placing task orders. When the agency has a work requirement, it will do some level of market research to determine the acquisition strategy. Part of that research should be whether the work can and should be solicited under the multiple-award IDIQ in which your firm participates. If the agency decides to use that vehicle, the CO makes no set-aside determination because the solicitation is by default set-aside. The only available participants are certified SDVOSBs. Make sense?

So you're talking about a multiple-award IDIQ set aside for SDVOSBs. But why are you asking about set-asides at the task order level? Where in your scenario has this come up? In this scenario, there would be no subsequent set-asides for the reasons I described above. A total small business set-aside or SDVOSB set-aside would be entirely redundant. Literally, the competition wouldn't be "set aside" for anyone. Are you asking about a different type of socioeconomic set-aside, like HUBZone or 8(a)?

I'll start by attempting to clarify a couple of confusing aspects within your post. First, soliciting "full-and-open competition" is incompatible with order placement procedures. An agency seeking full-and-open competition is inviting the open market -- the entire universe of qualified businesses -- to participate. Existing IDIQ holders may also participate, but competition is not limited to them, and if they propose under the solicitation, the terms of their existing IDIQ contracts wouldn't apply. On the other hand, an agency seeking fair opportunity competition is limiting responses to IDIQ holders only, with the intent of placing an order in accordance with IDIQ terms. Second, awarding a task order via total small business set aside under a multiple-award IDIQ that was awarded via total small business set aside would appear to be a completely redundant and illogical action. It's not clear why an agency would do this or why an IDIQ holder would care. Pursuant to FAR 19.102(b)(1) and (2), agencies must select only one NAICS code per IDIQ contract until October 1, 2028, when they will have the option to select multiple NAICS codes. Per FAR 19.102(b)(3), any task order placed against an IDIQ with a single NAICS code must use the same NAICS code as that assigned to the IDIQ. Bottom line, until October 1, 2028, the agency in the scenario you describe would be querying the exact same group of IDIQ-holders for a task order whether or not the order is set aside. It's a distinction without a difference. I agree with Carl that more information is needed to provide a direct response. I'm assuming you meant fair opportunity instead of full and open, and perhaps you meant socioeconomic set-aside at the task-order level instead of small business set-aside. If this is the case, you may find FAR 19.504 to be informative: In other words, an agency may conduct socioeconomic set-asides under a multiple-award IDIQ awarded via small business set-aside.

The map is not the territory.

Good stuff. I agree with your position. Questions on my mind: Is there any precedent for this situation, in which the FAR reinterprets a longstanding statute so audaciously? I imagine COFC would be the appropriate venue for challenging this regulation. But what would happen if the GAO received the protest instead? Would it be within GAO's authority to disregard the FAR because they believe it runs counter to statute?

You're correct. My mistake. I didn't read far enough.

I'm wondering if you caught this bit in the Practitioner Album within your article, Don: Based on this, if I awarded a multiple-award IDIQ years ago without any contemplation of BPAs even being possible, I can now unilaterally change the contract to conduct a competition for BPAs and exclude the unsuccessful IDIQ-holders from further participation under the IDIQ. It really feels like the RFO drafters believe they've identified a gap in the existing body of Federal acquisition knowledge, and now they're merely pointing it out for others to exploit. I wonder if they have reason to be so confident... The irony here is that they may have been on firmer ground to make this sort of creative interpretation before SCOTUS overturned Chevron. Looking forward to the article!