Patrick S

Wow! That is high praise and really good advice! Thank you! I appreciate you taking the time to review it and provide feedback, and we will definitely take your advice. Have a great weekend.

Hi, formerfed. I apologize for this issue. I have encountered the same problem before personally and I had to clear my browser cache to fix it. Or, as an alternative, if you normally use Chrome, you could try accessing the tool with the MS Edge browser (or vice versa). I will talk to my technical team to see how to avoid this in the future. Again, I apologize for the inconvenience. This is the kind of technical feedback I need to improve this prototype. Thank you.

Hi, All! We just posted new content on the Contract Protest Diagnostic Tool (CPDT) outlining protest grounds unique to orders under GSA Federal Supply Schedules contracting. In our research, we identified the following protest issues: 1. Allegations that the agency’s award is outside the scope of the awardee’s FSS schedule. 2. Challenges to establishing blanket purchase agreements (BPAs) under the FSS program. 3. Allegations that the agency’s communication exchanges were unfair. 4. Allegations that the agency unfairly limited sources for an FSS order or BPA. 5. Challenges to the agency’s small business set-aside decision under the FSS. 6. Responsibility determinations under GSA’s FSS Program. 7. Using the “highest technically rated offeror” (HTRO) approach for FSS procurements. 8. Challenges to the agency’s selection of a Special Item Number or specific schedule. 9. Challenges related to the use of contractor teaming agreements and joint ventures. 10. Applicability of FAR Part 12, “Acquisition of Commercial Products and Services” to FSS procurements. We also added a new Subcategory 6.4 - Certificates of Competency Program. Check it out at https://aida.mitre.org/protest-tool/. Click "Snorkel" and then Category 9.1. I hope you find it useful and please feel free to provide feedback if you see something that needs to be improved. Thanks!

Thanks much, formerfed! I really appreciate the positive feedback! Sometimes it's difficult to know if our content is useful. BTW, we are also getting ready to update 2 new categories in the Protest Tool this week: 9.1 - GSA FSS Schedules & 6.4 - Certificate of Competency. I'm hoping our deconstruction of these 2 topics will prove useful to the acquisition workforce. I know I could've used this info when I was a CO!

The Report. GAO recently provided its Annual Report on Bid Protests to Congress last week and the numbers are up this year. A major contributor to this increase is tied to the numerous sustained protests filed against the CIO-SP4 contract. However, even accounting for the high number of protests filed against the CIO-SP4 GWAC, the report shows an uptick in the number of sustained protests. This seems to be a good time to ask the question, “Is there anything we can do to help the acquisition community improve their contracting processes and potentially mitigate protest risk?” The Protest Tool. As a Project Leader for The MITRE Corporation, we have partnered with the Office of the Director of National Intelligence (ODNI) to develop the Contract Protest Diagnostic Tool (CPDT) to help agencies avoid sustained bid protests (or being forced to take corrective action). The tool is free and is designed to organize the many protest grounds and explain them in “plain English” for the federal acquisition workforce. The tool also allows one-click access to the published decisions from GAO, COFC, and the CAFC. The Analysis. After the GAO report was issued, we examined every sustained protest decision for Fiscal Year 2023. Our review shows that most sustained protest grounds are already addressed in our protest tool. These include, but are not limited to, protests that were sustained due to: Failing to follow the terms of the solicitation as applied to “self-scoring” (CPDT Subcategory 8.5). Awarding a task order that is outside the scope of an offeror’s GSA Federal Supply Schedule. (CPDT Subcategory 9.1). Failing to mitigate an Organizational Conflicts of Interest (CPDT Subcategory 7.2). Inserting terms into FAR Part 12 procurements that are inconsistent with “customary commercial practices.” (CPDT Subcategory 3.1). Failing to follow the evaluation factors set out in the solicitation strictly. (CPDT Subcategory 3.5). Improperly evaluating professional employee compensation plans under FAR Clause 52.222-46. (CPDT Subcategory 5.3). Evaluating proposals in a disparate manner. (CPDT Subcategory 3.5). Engaging in discussions that are not meaningful (CPDT Subcategory 4.2). Awarding a contract to an offeror that failed to meet a material requirement of the solicitation. (CPDT Subcategory 7.5). Performing an unreasonable past performance evaluation. (CPDT Subcategories 3.8). Drafting ambiguous solicitation terms. (CPDT Subcategory 2.3). Performing an improper price realism analysis (CPDT Subcategory 5.3). Check out the CPDT. We continue to improve the Protest Tool every day and it can provide you with valuable protest information right now! We are seeking feedback from the federal acquisition community on any aspect of our protest tool. Check it out and let us know what you think. Access the CPDT for free here: Contract Protest Diagnostic Tool (CPDT). Access the 3-Minute Intro Video here: 3-Min CPDT Intro Video Please reach out to me if your agency would like a demo!

Thank you, formerfed. I agree that there is a lot to read on the more complex protest topics. Unfortunately there is a significant amount of nuance in these opinions, which makes it difficult to skimp on the narrative, as you noted. We try to strike the right balance, but there is just so much info to consider. To address this, we use hot spots, tags, and sub-topics to make it more readable. It's definitely a challenge distilling hundreds of cases into a few paragraphs/pages. We're trying to save the contracting officer/contracting specialist a considerable amount of time without chasing them away with overlong content. I'm not sure if we're hitting the right balance, which is why this feedback is so important to us. Thank you again for your comments and feedback!

Thank you C Culham! You are correct. The “Sealed Bid” subcategory is Subcategory 9.8, but it is grayed out with an explanation of “research ongoing.” That is one of the subcategories that we are still working on. There are several others that are likewise grayed out with the “research ongoing” explanation. I agree, the attorney desk books (particularly the Army JAG School’s Contract Attorneys Deskbook) is an outstanding resource. I recognize that there are a lot of case citations in the protest tool, but we’re now breaking them all out under each “Hot Spot” within the subcategory. We didn’t do that originally, which we realized led the user to spend too much time searching for the decisions that support the explanation in the Hot Spot. If you click on the “snorkel” button and go to “self scoring,” (subcategory 8.5) you will see how we are trying to do this currently. Its hard to get around the fact that there are so many decisions out there, and we are concerned about cutting out cases that the user may find useful. Many of the decisions are cited in the text of the “Hot Spot,” so allowing the user to click on the drop down for the cases allows quick access to the actual decision cited in the Hot Spot. Yes, please keep looking and passing along your thoughts. We truly appreciate it! Thank you.

Thank you, formerfed. Good comments! We have been engaging with agencies outside of the IC community. We have provided demos to multiple agencies, including DAU, the Army JAG School, DHS, and recently gave a deep dive presentation to a packed audience at NCMA World Congress. That said, we are seeking to provide as many demos to government agencies as possible, so I again welcome any requests for a demonstration. Also, I hear you regarding increasing the number of case citations. We are expanding the case citations on the tool on a continual basis. That said, I recognize that some of the subcategories that were completed early on in this three-year process need to be expanded with more “Hot Spots” and corresponding case citations. The “self-scoring” subcategory is the most recent addition to the tool, and you will notice that it is more robust than some of the other subcategories. That subcategory is more indicative of the way that all of the subcategories will look in the end. In other words, I agree with you, and we are doing our level best to increase the substantive information in the tool. The Hot Spots are designed to be the “drill down” capability that you mention. We will be adding more and more as time goes on. Finally, please note that at the bottom of the protest tool’s homepage, there is a “feedback” button. I know that a lot of people believe that a “feedback” response will just go into the ether. That is not the case with this program. We are earnestly seeking feedback from experienced acquisition professionals (such as yourself), and we take all feedback comments very seriously. We really want to partner with the acquisition community on this project. After all, it is designed to help those who are dealing with these issues, so feedback is critical to the success of this program. Again, Thank you!

Good afternoon. My name is Pat Staresina and I am the MITRE project leader for the Contract Protest Diagnostic Tool (CPDT) ... and a long time WIFCON fan. I appreciate reading all of these comments regarding the Protest Tool. This tool is designed to help the acquisition workforce navigate around pitfalls connected to the complex universe of protest decisions from GAO, the COFC and the CAFC. Everyone talks about the "crawl, walk, run" approach to learning acquisition. This tool is designed to help with the "run" aspect by helping answer some of the hardest contracting questions. As stated earlier, this tool is 100% free, and we are not selling anything. (It is funded with federal research dollars as part of our FFRDC Charter). This idea started as part of MITRE's IR&D program and was then further developed in partnership with the Naval Postgraduate School via CRADA. It then went through a pilot program with contracting and legal communities in the Intel Community, which helped further refine it and is now being operationalized under contract with ODNI for the IC Acquisition Workforce. We also presented it at this year’s NCMA World Congress. Our goal right now is to make this capability better known (and used) by the acquisition workforce - and get through the so called innovation "valley of death" and achieve significant user adoption. It’s intended to be another tool in the contracting professionals tool kit. The tool is a “living document” so to speak, and we are always seeking feedback from users to keep improving it. We recently added subcategory 8.5 on “self-scoring,” which has been a hot topic lately. We are also about to add some additional extensive analysis on Federal Supply Schedule protest issues to help demystify protest grounds connected with FAR Subpart 8.4 contracting (i.e., exchanges, scope issues, responsibility determinations, mapping of labor categories, inclusion of open market items, etc.) . I'm happy to answer any questions on the Protest Tool and am very interested to see more comments on this thread. We're eager to spread the word! If you or your agency are interested in a demo of the tool, please contact me at pstaresina@mitre.org.