Don Mansfield

Does the document that has the DPAS information have CUI markings?

I agree. However, I know of at least one contracting activity that doesn't perform the evaluation because it's listed under "Cost or Price Evaluation" in the DoD Source Selection Procedures (see 3.1.1.5). I suspect there are others.

When using the authority to issue multiple-award contracts without evaluating cost or price (FAR 15.304(c)(1)(ii)), how are agencies dealing with the policy for evaluating professional employee compensation at FAR 22.1103? Assuming the acquisition meets the conditions in the provision prescription, do they-- 1. Include the provision at FAR 52.222-46 in the RFP and say that it only applies at the order level? 2. Include the provision at FAR 52.222-46 in the RFP and require the submissions described in the provision as part of the proposal? 3. Not include the provision at FAR 52.222-46 in the RFP for the initial contract, but include it in solicitations for orders? 4. Not include the provision in either the solicitation for the initial contract or solicitations for orders? 5. Do something else? What do you think agencies should do?

I don't agree with that. FAR 52.216-22(b) states: What you're describing is a settlement when the Government doesn't meet this contract requirement.

I saw that, too. It seems SCOTUS is also under the impression that a FSS contract does not require the Government to purchase anything. I didn't catch that when the decision first came out.

Both the Ordering and Indefinite Quantity clauses are on that list, too. I checked the VA FSS solicitations and they state a guaranteed minimum and contain the Ordering and Indefinite Quantity clauses. Assuming these terms are contained in FSS contracts generally, it seems the Board didn't understand-- 1. FSS contracts do require the Government to make a purchase. 2. FSS contracts are valid contracts containing the Indefinite Quantity clause that permit the Government to negotiate discounted pricing for individual orders. The footnote was completely unnecessary. The case had nothing to do with FSS orders. It reminded me of the subreddit r/confidentlyincorrect.

Bob posted a link to RocJoi Medical Imaging, LLC, CBCA 6885, 7051, July 23, 2021 on the home page. In that decision, the Board stated the following: So far so good. However, in a footnote to this statement the Board stated: Aren't most FSS contracts IDIQ contracts? Don't they guarantee a minimum purchase and contain the Ordering clause (FAR 52.216-18) and the Indefinite Quantity clause (FAR 52.216-22)?

No, I don't.

Do you think that the Government can't pay people for participating in a survey?

If that is what they agreed to do in their subcontracts. Ask the contractor what the subcontractor billed for its indirect costs. I'm surprised they didn't provide that information with their request.

Did the subcontractor negotiate its final indirect cost rates for 2020 with the Government?

The statement of relative importance is commonly misunderstood to mean the relative importance the factors will have when making a tradeoff. The problem with this belief is that the factors that will be most important when making a tradeoff is unknowable until after proposals have been evaluated. Although the solicitation may state something like "nonprice factors are significantly more important than price", the evaluation could result in proposals that are equally valuable on nonprice factors--in which case price or cost would become the most significant factor when making the tradeoff decision. The statement of relative importance communicates the importance of factors in meeting the Government's acquisition objectives. It is supposed to help offerors in preparing responses to solicitations. (See @Witty_Username's post above).

COs are probably doing that to comply with FAR. What do those COs do when including a statement of relative importance is not required (e.g., SAP, FSS ordering, orders under multiple-award contracts < $6 million)?

Fair enough. Assume ji's pillow solicitation stated that softness was significantly more important than price, but he decides Pillow A is a better value. He trades off extra softness for a lower price. The offeror of Pillow B protests because their pillow was softer, the solicitation said softness was significantly more important than price, and the difference in price is only $2. In deciding such protests, the GAO has historically focused on whether the tradeoff decision is rational--not whether enough emphasis was placed on a particular factor in making the tradeoff decision. In "Relative Importance of Evaluation Factors: Much Ado About Nothing, 18 N&CR ¶ 30", Professor Nash analyzed several protest decisions where the protestor unsuccessfully tried to make an issue of the statement of relative importance not being consistent with the tradeoff decision. I can't find the article, but here's a response they provided to a letter they received criticizing their conclusion: The OP's question suggests they think that the statement of relative importance matters more in a tradeoff decision than it actually does.

Wouldn't that be governed by the terms of your contract with the prime?