FrankJon

24 minutes ago, Vern Edwards said:

@FrankJon

There is no such distinct category of information as "responsibility-type data." There is information about a company. Some of it may be used determine responsibility or to evaluate past performance and experience.

Let's assume you are conducting an important and non-routine procurement for some long-term onsite service.

To start, there is more to past performance than customer opinions obtained at arms length. There are sales and profitability data, which can suggest how well the company is run and the demand for its services. And you can ask the offeror for a list of current customers to which the offeror is providing same or similar service at the scale as you require, select two or three, and instruct the offeror to ask those customers to let visit and speak face-to-face with customer managers receiving the service. Why sit in your office reading stuff when you can go to the source? You can check court records for litigation with customers, which might tell you something. You can check for press reports. You can check any number of other business databases.

Thanks, Vern.

41 minutes ago, Vern Edwards said:

There is a world of organized business information out there if know how to find it, get access to it, and analyze it properly.

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?

On 1/31/2026 at 12:06 PM, formerfed said:

I think the bold portion reflects two seperate thoughts - consider past performance in the commercial market and past performance as a subcontractor.

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

58 minutes ago, joel hoffman said:

I reserved the right in solicitations to call references, when deemed necessary to confirm the quality of performance or an offeror’s role (specific experience) on claimed project experience. Those conversations could be very enlightening.

Occasionally, a reference would disagree with a firm’s claimed performance or extent of involvement on a cited project.

I also reserved the right of the government to contact or use other sources. Once, one member of my Source Selection Evaluation Board, an Air Force Captain, had less than satisfactory personal project experience with an offeror’s key personnel that were proposed for that source selection.

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.

1 hour ago, joel hoffman said:

Vern is correct. There was often (in my observation/experience) an aversion by many government contracting personnel to call references.

I think Vern is actually suggesting to go beyond accepting the word of references and to seek out underlying performance data and metrics.

On 1/27/2026 at 2:29 PM, cdhames said:

FAR 12.203(a)

(2) Past performance. Past performance should be an important evaluation factor for award. Consider past performance information from a wide variety of sources both inside and outside the Government. This may include reviewing performance information reported to the Contractor Performance Assessment Reporting System, as well as other sources of information. For some commercial products or services, such as emerging technology, this should include consideration of commercial market experience. Contracting officers may consider an offeror’s experience as a subcontractor.

I was always led to believe that experience was separate from performance. Are they now one and the same?

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).

1 hour ago, formerfed said:

because they feel their work will be overridden by others.

Or because they feel it will be done by others.

22 hours ago, C Culham said:

"Sole Source" is defined in the RFO at Part 2 so the term applies as defined throughout the FAR (RFO).

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:

538.7104-3 Sole source justifications.

...

(2) Content requirements. Justifications must be in writing and include sufficient detail and supporting rationale to support the exception used.

2 hours ago, FARSightedPro said:

but without a comparative analysis, there is no role for the SSAC.

This isn't right. The SSAC has two distinct functions:

1.4.3.3.2. The SSAC members shall: 1.4.3.3.2.1. Review the evaluation results of the SSEB to ensure the evaluation process follows the evaluation criteria and the ratings are appropriately and consistently applied. 1.4.3.3.2.2. Using the SSEB ratings, as well as their own expertise, perform a comparative analysis of the proposals against one another to assess which proposal represents the best value as defined in the RFP.

So when using LPTA, the SSAC could still be useful to ensure the SSEB followed the evaluation criteria consistently.

Or seek a waiver:

1.4.3.1.2. The SSA shall establish an SSAC for acquisitions with a total estimated value of $100 million or more unless a waiver is approved.

D.1 General Streamlining Tactics

...

Request waiver of requirement for a SSAC for non-complex procurements (see section 1.4.3.1.2 of these Source Selection Procedures).

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:

1. 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.
   

2. 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?

On 1/10/2026 at 9:35 AM, Joe Bernier said:

Your agency FAR supplement or local procedures should prescribe what form of price analysis documentation is required based on dollar thresholds and governing FAR part (e.g., Price Negotiation Memorandum (PNM) for part 15 vs. Price Fair and Reasonable (PFR) memo or other streamlined documentation for part 13).

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?

33 minutes ago, Vern Edwards said:

@FrankJon My man!!!

Someone has actually looked at a book I recommended. My professional life is not absurd, a la Sisyphus!

Seriously, Thank you! 

Haha....Merry Christmas??

@KeithB18 in your earlier post you stated:

21 hours ago, KeithB18 said:

I'm trying to understand what's really going on when procurement decisions are made, and adjust accordingly. Like, is there any other decision making context, in the entirety of human experience, that works like Federal procurement decisions do?

This sounds like you're questioning the decision process itself. But apparently you were referring to things like:

19 minutes ago, KeithB18 said:

• Set evaluation criteria that could not change?

• Ask for a written proposal from each house for sale without, potentially, even stepping inside the house yourself?

• Have 3, 5, 7, or more extended family members review each house against the evaluation criteria and make a recommendation to you, as the selection authority?

• Document the reasons you made your decisions and the tradeoffs you made?

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.

35 minutes ago, KeithB18 said:

So while it is superficially true that tradeoffs are made at the individual and government levels, the form those tradeoffs take is so significantly different that it constitutes a completely different thing.

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.

21 hours ago, KeithB18 said:

To delegate decision making to AI is a further dereliction of duty.

48 minutes ago, KeithB18 said:

The definition of "qualitative" via google is "relating to, measuring, or measured by the quality of something rather than its quantity." You can assign a number to quality, but I think the assigned number is, at least in part, an expression of the assigner's values.

I think you have it right. One of Vern's favorites, Decision Analysis for Management Judgment (Fifth Edition), states the following on page 4:

While we should not expect decision analysis to produce an optimal solution to a problem, the results of an analysis can be regarded as being 'conditionally prescriptive.' By this we mean that the analysis will show the decision maker what he or she should do, given the judgments which have been elicited from him or her during the course of the analysis. The basic assumption is that of rationality.

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.

19 hours ago, KeithB18 said:

Like, is there any other decision making context, in the entirety of human experience, that works like Federal procurement decisions do?

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.

8 minutes ago, Vern Edwards said:

If you are basing that on Eric Schmidt's claims, you might want to investigate.

https://www.vox.com/2017/5/8/15584268/eric-schmidt-alphabet-automation-atm-bank-teller

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!

2 hours ago, Voyager said:

I don't like leaving such depressing one-liners here. What can be done now by the current workforce to extend the life of corporate knowledge before we hand tasks requiring that prerequisite knowledge over to machines? I'm asking how to leave a legacy of thinking to people whom will not need to think.

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.

1 hour ago, Vern Edwards said:

stultifying

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

Thanks, Vern!

45 minutes ago, C Culham said:

Essentially the decision to setaside or not leads to the tool, process, method or whatever you want to call it to make the acquisition.

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.

5 minutes ago, InquisitiveSDVOSBer said:

Yes I agree it is confusing and probably sounds odd which is why I am asking, and apologize if the words I am using are incorrect; I am trying to be as clear as possible.

Yes the IDIQ was set-aside for SDVOSB and all of the awardees are SDVOSB. When a subsequent Task Order is competed amongst the IDIQ holders that are all SDVOSB, are you saying that there is no requirement in the FAR that the Task Order SF 1449 state "set-aside for SDVOSB" in the NAICS corresponding to the IDIQ?

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?

19 minutes ago, InquisitiveSDVOSBer said:

Thank you so much for responding! I am scanning the GAO Case this morning and will do a deep dive as well. I understand why it looks on the surface like this might have been what I was talking about because it sounds so similar, but it's not this case; but so far this is an interesting read. I want to make sure you have all the information as well so please see below to clarify the information for you and my question. I appreciate your insight and hopefully the below clarifies :)

The IDIQ was set-aside for small business only (SDVOSB) and awarded to small business only, and has just one NAICS code attached. It is a 5 year + 5 year. The Limitations on Subcontracting are NOT reviewed at the Task Order level, but rather on the main IDIQ level at the end of the 5-year POP, and instructions state to not include the LOS in the Task Orders.

The exact verbiage regarding Task Order Procedures: "Will follow Ordering Procedures Outlined in FAR 16.505. In accordance with FAR 16.505(b)(2) Contracting Officers will provide all awardees a fair opportunity to be considered for all awards which exceed the micro-purchase threshold, unless one of the exceptions in FAR 16.505 applies. Should one of these exceptions exist, the CO may execute the task order as a sole-source task order, seeking proper justifications in accordance with the FAR and agency procedures."

The IDIQ Contract Clauses Include the General 52.212-4 (December 2022) which includes the order of precedent, and as you referenced above yes it includes 52.216-18 (Aug 2020) that in the event of a conflict the IDIQ contract shall control.

So the questions are:

If all IDIQ holders/awardees are Small Business according the the Set-Aside of the Main IDIQ do ALL Task Orders that are solicited using this IDIQ have to also be set-aside for Small Business in that same NAICS code (and where in the FAR does it say that or where does it "not" say that).

Conversely, can a Task Order be competed amongst the IDIQ holders that is not Not Set-Aside for Small Business, even though the IDIQ WAS set-aside, and then awarded as "No Set-Aside Used" or "Unrestricted" on the 1449 (and where in the FAR does it say that).

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)?

On 12/27/2025 at 4:07 PM, InquisitiveSDVOSBer said:

Can anyone tell me if there is a specific regulation in the FAR that states IF a Multiple Award IDIQ is set-aside and for Small Business and ONLY awarded to Small Business that the resultant Task Orders do not need to be set-aside for small business and can just be "Full and Open".

Conversely, can anyone tell me if there is a specific regulation in the FAR that states IF a Multiple Award IDIQ is set-aside for Small Business and ONLY awarded to Small Business that the Task Orders must also be set-aside for small business.

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.

(b) Determining the appropriate NAICS codes for the solicitation.

(1) Unless required to do otherwise by paragraph (b)(2)(ii)(B) of this section, contracting officers shall assign one NAICS code and corresponding size standard to all solicitations, contracts, and task and delivery orders. The contracting officer shall determine the appropriate NAICS code by classifying the product or service being acquired in the one industry that best describes the principal purpose of the supply or service being acquired. Primary consideration is given to the industry descriptions in the U.S. NAICS Manual, the product or service descriptions in the solicitation, the relative value and importance of the components of the requirement making up the end item being procured, and the function of the goods or services being purchased. A procurement is usually classified according to the component that accounts for the greatest percentage of contract value.

(2)(i) For solicitations issued on or before October 1, 2028, that will result in multiple-award contracts, the contracting officer shall assign a NAICS code in accordance with paragraph (b)(1) of this section.

(ii) For solicitations issued after October 1, 2028, that will result in multiple-award contracts, the contracting officer shall–

(A) Assign a single NAICS code (and corresponding size standard) that best describes the principal purpose of both the acquisition and each subsequent order; or

(B) Divide the acquisition into distinct portions or categories (e.g., line item numbers, Special Item Numbers, sectors, functional areas, or equivalent) and assign each portion or category a single NAICS code and size standard that best describes the principal purpose of the supplies or services to be acquired under that distinct portion or category.

(3)(i) When placing orders under multiple-award contracts with a single NAICS code, the contracting officer shall assign the order the same NAICS code and corresponding size standard designated in the contract.

(ii) When placing orders under multiple-award contracts with more than one NAICS code, the contracting officer shall assign the order the NAICS code and corresponding size standard designated in the contract for the distinct portion or category against which the order is placed. If an order covers multiple portions or categories, select the NAICS code and corresponding size standard designated in the contract for the distinct portion or category that best represents the principal purpose of the order.

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:

(b) Orders under set-aside contracts—

(1) Orders under total set-aside contracts. Under a total small business set-aside, contracting officers may at their discretion set aside orders for any of the small business socioeconomic concerns identified in 19.000(a)(3) provided that the requirements at paragraph (a) of this section, 19.502-2(b), and the specific program eligibility requirements are met.

In other words, an agency may conduct socioeconomic set-asides under a multiple-award IDIQ awarded via small business set-aside.

2 hours ago, formerfed said:

Going back in this thread, here’s an interesting comment about tools to track I copied from another forum:

“And I can tell you, with absolute certainty, that there is almost zero correlation between a program marked "Green" on a PowerPoint slide and a piece of software that actually works for the mission.

This is the enduring flywheel of failure facing the Department of Defense (DoD) today. We are culturally addicted to Program Management—the administration of contracts, schedules, and compliance artifacts. But we are starving for Product Management—the relentless pursuit of value, quality, and user satisfaction.

We have built a system that rewards the perfect management of a failure, rather than the messy iteration of a success”

The map is not the territory.

25 minutes ago, Don Mansfield said:

FYI, this is what I wrote:

"Lastly, the authority to establish BPAs under multiple-award contracts could be problematic. Unlike ordering under Federal Supply Schedules, when ordering under multiple-award contracts there is a statutory requirement (41 U.S.C. §3302(c)(2)) to 1) notify all contractors of the intent to make an individual purchase (defined as a task order, delivery order, or other purchase) and 2) afford all contractors responding to the notice a fair opportunity to be considered for the individual purchase. Having said that, the RFO Practitioner Guide for part 16 states “Contracting Officers must create ordering procedures for the BPA that provide fair opportunity to all BPA holders, not all contractors under the IDIQ.” That doesn’t seem to comply with the statute—we may have to wait for a protest before we know for sure."

Good stuff. I agree with your position.

Questions on my mind:

1. Is there any precedent for this situation, in which the FAR reinterprets a longstanding statute so audaciously?
   

2. 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?

24 minutes ago, Freyr said:

In what way? If I understand the topic here (which I may not, I frequently misunderstand things), it's about adding the ability to issue BPAs under IDIQs. The link talks to them adding the ability to have BPAs under OASIS+ by the end of January.

GWAC Updates Coming in January

Beyond the MAS refresh, Stanton said similar updates are coming to GSA’s GWACs and other multiple award contracts in the coming weeks. Those updates will incorporate the same FAR deviations and policy changes now appearing in the schedule program.

“We’re also looking at our GWACs and our other multiple award contracts, such as Oasis+,” Stanton said. “All of those, you’re going to be seeing similar refreshes by the end of January.”

“I know that Alliant 2 already moved out on being able to add [blanket purchase agreements], so you’re already seeing some of the changes of FAR,” she added.

Stanton said other contracts, including Oasis+, will also have blanket purchase agreements by the end of January, telling stakeholders to “hang on for six more weeks.”

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

On 12/3/2025 at 12:00 PM, Don Mansfield said:

I'm covering the RFO for Contract Management magazine and wrote about this in the January issue. Thanks for bringing this up.

I'm wondering if you caught this bit in the Practitioner Album within your article, Don:

• Contracting officers for multiple award contract vehicles established prior to the effective date of this deviation, using part 16 procedures, are encouraged to modify existing contracts to allow for the establishment of BPAs (see 16.504-5(h)(2)).

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!