Jump to content

Sam101

Members
  • Posts

    149
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Reputation

0 Neutral

Recent Profile Visitors

The recent visitors block is disabled and is not being shown to other users.

  1. I don't remember, but maybe I seen some contracting officers compare B to C even when A is the awardee... is there a point of that? I don't see a point, unless the government wants to paint a picture as to how offerors were ranked, in terms of offeror B was next in line for award, making offeror C not an interested party, maybe, but other than that, I don't see a reason to compare B to C. ... Do most agencies compare B to C? Or only A to B and A to C?
  2. See this: https://comptroller.defense.gov/portals/45/documents/fmr/current/03/03_08.pdf Page 8-12 3.5 Recording Maintenance and Repair Projects Obligations... seems to be talking about Maintenance and Repair Projects only. Note that this only applies to DoD, and if they meant for this January 1st thing to be applicable to not only Maintenance and Repair Projects, 3.5 would be titled Recording Obligations for Services, but no, they titled it Recording Maintenance and Repair Projects Obligations.
  3. Quoter A: Sofa: Yes, on GSA Price List, $5,000 each Desk: Yes, on GSA Price List, $1,000 each Chair: No, not on GSA Price List, Open Market Item, $300 each ($90,000,000.00) Quoter B: Sofa: Yes, on GSA Price List, $4,900 each Desk: No, not on GSA Price List, Open Market Item, $800 each ($240,000,000.00) Chair: Yes, on GSA Price List, $300 each Quoter C : Sofa: Yes, on GSA Price List, $5,100.00 each Desk: Yes, on GSA Price List, $1,200.00 each Chair: Yes, on GSA Price List, $400 each $90 million and $240 million is above the FAR 13.5 $7.5 million threshold, so FAR 15. I hereby declare that FAR 8.402(f) officially means this going forward: a) Publish an RFP on SAM.gov as follows: This is a notice in accordance with FAR 8.402(f), quotations were received under a GSA RFQ, ABC24Q0005, open market items were proposed from quoters who are in consideration for award, please see attached SOW, this is the same SOW issued under ABC24Q0005, see sections L and M, all attachments are in section J. Procedures are FAR 15, best value will be determined via trade-off process. Only vendors who submitted quotes under ABC24Q0005 may submit proposals in response to this notice. Section L: Offeror shall price Desk and Chair, but not the Sofa, since the Sofa was already priced and all quoters had it on their GSA Schedule. Section M: Government will evaluate the price for reasonableness, the non-price factors were already evaluated as part of the quotations received under RFQ# ABC240005. b) Offers received. c) Competitive Range determination made. d) Discussions happen. e) Revised proposals received. f) Trade-off analysis made. g) Award made, a “G contract” Task Order, mapped to the offeror’s GSA Schedule, open market items highlighted.
  4. SOW: Sofa: Qty: 300,000 Desk: Qty: 300,000 Chair: Qty: 300,000 IGE: $5,000 per Sofa, $1,000 per Desk, $300 per Chair Total IGE: $1,890,000,000.00 Quoter A: Sofa: Yes, on GSA Price List, $5,000 each Desk: Yes, on GSA Price List, $1,000 each Chair: No, not on GSA Price List, Open Market Item, $300 each ($90,000,000.00) Quoter B: Sofa: Yes, on GSA Price List, $4,900 each Desk: No, not on GSA Price List, Open Market Item, $800 each ($240,000,000.00) Chair: Yes, on GSA Price List, $300 each Quoter C : Sofa: Yes, on GSA Price List, $5,100.00 each Desk: Yes, on GSA Price List, $1,200.00 each Chair: Yes, on GSA Price List, $400 each $90 million and $240 million is above the FAR 13.5 $7.5 million threshold, so FAR 15. So, a FAR 15 competition would need to be held for Quoter A for the Chair and Quoter B for the Desk? But Quoter A already has the Desk under its GSA Schedule, and what about the sofa? Anyways, only the original vendors who responded to RFQ# ABC24Q0005 would be able to submit proposals under this FAR 8.402(f) RFP? If a random new offeror (Offeror D) wants to compete, they can't, because this FAR 8.402(f) notice is only asking for Chair and Desk, not Sofa. And the Government doesn't want to award separate contracts, they want to award one large contract that includes all three items, chair, desk AND sofa. I know this is a simple example for furniture, to where you can say that it's easy to divide all this into more than one contract, but substitute something else for furniture, like IT or some other complicated requirement, to where the Government really does need ALL of the items under ONE contract.
  5. I know this thread is about publicizing, but what about competition requirements (part 6) and contracting methods (parts 13, 14, and 15), not to mention small business programs (part 19). RFQ# ABCQ240005 Quoter A: Sofa: Yes, on GSA Price List Desk: Yes, on GSA Price List Chair: No, not on GSA Price List, Open Market Item Quoter B: Sofa: Yes, on GSA Price List Desk: No, not on GSA Price List, Open Market Item Chair: Yes, on GSA Price List Publish this on SAM.gov?: The purpose of this notice is to comply with FAR 8.402(f), Chair and Desk required, only those vendors who responded to RFQ# ABCQ240005, which was not publicized on SAM.gov, are allowed to respond to this notice, this notice is an RFQ for Chair and Desk. FAR 15 procedures will be used, although the Government is confused as to why a quoter who has the Chair on their GSA Schedule would need to respond to this notice, and the one with the Desk on their GSA Schedule would need to respond to this notice. Why can't it be that during market research, if the Government can not determine that 100% all items are on at least 3 GSA vendors' GSA Price List, then procurement cannot be done via FAR 8.4 procedures and just go with FAR 13 or 15 and call it a day? Even if 99.9% of items are on at least 3 GSA vendors' GSA Price List and 0.01% is not? FAR 8.402(f) is confusing and doesn't make any sense. For the time being, until the FAR is updated to make FAR 8.402(f) make more sense, I'll just publish this: The purpose of this notice is to comply with FAR 8.402(f), Chair and Desk required, only those vendors who responded to RFQ# ABCQ240005, which was not publicized on SAM.gov, are allowed to respond to this notice, this notice is an RFQ for Chair and Desk. But what about this scenario?: Quoter A: Sofa: Yes, on GSA Price List Desk: Yes, on GSA Price List Chair: No, not on GSA Price List, Open Market Item Quoter B: Sofa: Yes, on GSA Price List Desk: No, not on GSA Price List, Open Market Item Chair: Yes, on GSA Price List Quoter C: Sofa: Yes, on GSA Price List Desk: Yes, on GSA Price List Chair: Yes, on GSA Price List What happens then? ... stupid FAR.
  6. This wifcon thread is a good supplement to this thread: So, the way I see it, there are 2 instances of price reasonableness analysis when a competitive range is formed: One for the competitive range formation, and one during trade-off documentation.
  7. But it's like that by default, isn't it? Even if the solicitation does not state that unacceptable offerors are not eligible for award, the definition of unacceptable (and probably marginal as well) in the solicitation likely means the same thing as if the solicitation does state that unacceptable offerors are not eligible for award, since the government cannot award to an unacceptable offeror (an offeror who cannot meet the critical requirements of the SOW, at least based on their proposal) by default, right?
  8. Emphasis added. Right, so, the way I see it, a firm being ineligible for award CAN become eligible AFTER discussions. And you need to consider pricing when forming a competitive range, so that's why this is true: When an offeror is unacceptable (un-awardable), the government must consider their price for the green text but not the red text: 1) When determining competitive range. 2) When documenting trade-off analysis. 3) When determining price reasonableness.
  9. So, in accordance with FAR 15.503(a)(1) Preaward notices of exclusion from competitive range. The contracting officer shall notify offerors promptly in writing when their proposals are excluded from the competitive range or otherwise eliminated from the competition. The notice shall state the basis for the determination and that a proposal revision will not be considered. Why is FAR 15.503(a)(1) titled "Preaward notices of exclusion from competitive range" when or otherwise eliminated from the competition means eliminated from competition even if a competitive range is not established? Such as an unacceptable rating but the government does not form a competitive range?
  10. That's what I thought too, but see Six3 Systems, Inc. - B-405942.4,B-405942.8: Emphasis added. But, actually, now that I'm re-reading the above quote from Six3 Systems, Inc. - B-405942.4,B-405942.8, I just realized that it's not about the solicitation's "statement that a proposal must meet the solicitation requirements to be considered for award adequately advised offerors that a rating of marginal may render a proposal ineligible for award", but rather the definition of marginal AND that statement COMBINED. But this is what bugs me about GAO cases, they confuse the reader... why couldn't they just simply state that the solicitation's definition of a marginal rating (which encompassed a failure to clearly meet solicitation requirements) ALONE makes it so that the government doesn't have to include the marginal offeror in the trade-off process? If the definition of marginal being un-awardable alone is enough, then this is true regardless of whether the solicitation has the above green statement: When an offeror is unacceptable (un-awardable), by the definition of Marginal OR Unacceptable in the RFP, the government must consider their price for the green text but not the red text: 1) When determining competitive range. 2) When documenting trade-off analysis. 3) When determining price reasonableness.
  11. Thank you all for walking me through this... but just so I'm clear, is this correct?: When an offeror is unacceptable (un-awardable), and the solicitation explicitly states that any rating below Acceptable is not eligible for award, the government must consider their price for the green text but not the red text: 1) When determining competitive range. 2) When documenting trade-off analysis. 3) When determining price reasonableness. When an offeror is unacceptable (un-awardable), and the solicitation DOES NOT explicitly state that any rating below Acceptable is not eligible for award, the government must consider their price for the green text but not the red text: 1) When determining competitive range. 2) When documenting trade-off analysis. 3) When determining price reasonableness.
  12. The way I see it there are three instances where the government considers competing offerors' prices: 1) When determining competitive range. 2) When documenting trade-off analysis. 3) When determining price reasonableness. When an offeror does not meet all requirements of the SOW, it doesn't hurt to consider their price for competitive range and trade-off purposes, but it may not make sense for price reasonableness purposes. The cases cited so far in this thread talk about competitive range and trade-off, but not price reasonableness.
  13. On a related note, regarding competitive range determinations, see Addx Corporation B-417804; B-417804.2; B-417804.3, https://www.gao.gov/assets/b-417804.pdf. Addx Corporation rated marginal but GAO still said that the government should have considered Addx Corporation's price during the competitive range determination. If the government states in RFP that "offerors who rate below Acceptable may not be considered for award and their price will not be evaluated", but then when performing the competitive range determination, the government "evaluates" a marginal offeror's price, by "considering" their price for competitive range determination purposes, how is that "offerors who rate below Acceptable may not be considered for award and their price will not be evaluated"?... Because the government is now evaluating the marginal offeror's price even though they said they wouldn't? I don't know if the solicitation in Addx Corporation B-417804; B-417804.2; B-417804.3 that "offerors who rate below Acceptable may not be considered for award and their price will not be evaluated". It probably should have, although I'm not sure if GAO differentiates "competitive range determination price comparison" and price analysis for price reasonableness purposes prior to making an award.
  14. And see this case: https://www.gao.gov/assets/830/826402.pdf The government properly made award to a marginally rated offeror. I wonder how the price reasonableness determination looked like for this award.
×
×
  • Create New...