Don Mansfield

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?

@ji20874's pillow example is great. It illustrates that a tradeoff decision is a matter of judgment. The only thing I'd add is that when he decides whether to pay the extra $2 or not, what he said in his solicitation about the relative importance of price and softness is irrelevant.

I can't tell from the e-mail, either. If there's still a chance of you getting the work, then I don't think you should withdraw your protest just to be nice. But if the work is done, what do you have to gain? Did you have a lot of bid and proposal costs or attorney's fees? If not, what outcome do you want? A mischievous person in your position might request a written apology on DLA letterhead signed by the HCA and a DLA coin in exchange for dropping the protest.

A $12,000 job awarded in March? Are you sure the work isn't already completed? Or is your protest holding up the work?

For what purpose are you trying to classify the acquisition as a supply or service?

I like that.

The obvious answer for in-person meetings is to bring donuts. Govies will show if there are donuts. I'm not sure about virtual meetings.

This is a topic that's ripe for study. I worked for an agency 20+ years ago that closely monitored the amount of funds being sent to GSA by its program offices. There was a concern about becoming an "ordering office for GSA". The concern was political--not a result of cost/benefit analysis based on data.

Ok, so FAR 12.211 doesn't apply--correct?

Are you sure source code is technical data? The definition of "Technical data" at FAR 2.101 excludes software.

Assuming the cost principles at FAR subpart 31.2 apply, then see FAR 31.202(a): In the absence of a disclosure statement, what matters is consistency with past company practice.

What do you mean by that?

@Misty Are you with DoD?

No, it's not. What you're proposing is compliant.

Your proposed plan is not a new idea. Assuming that you are DoD, see DFARS 217.204(e)(i):

I think your proposal is fine. Instead of deciding now to re-compete after five years, you make that decision later when you have a better idea of whether a re-competition is in the Government's best interest.

In this episode, the Acquivores discuss President Biden's recent Executive Order on Improving the Nation's Cybersecurity.

The decision doesn't explain why SAM registration is necessarily a matter of responsibility, so I can't determine whether they are right or wrong. I didn't read any of the cited cases to support their position, though. I think the explanation that it's not a matter of responsiveness and should be viewed as a minor informality or irregularity makes sense. I don't know why they didn't leave it at that.

You deserved that.

@ji20874 wrote: and If you interpret @ji20874 as meaning that failure to register in SAM meant a bidder was "unqualified or ineligible" as used in FAR 19.602-1(a)(2)(i), then you are dishonest. Is there someone honest out there who can interpret what @ji20874 meant?

Right, and we're discussing the use of the word in the FAR. Maybe pay attention to the discussion before lecturing me?

No, I haven't reached any conclusions. There may be a way to avoid a delay. However, I'm not convinced by your reasoning. Your premise is that failure to register in SAM makes a bidder "unqualified and ineligible" as used at FAR 19.602-1(a)(2)(i). Given the definition of "ineligible" at FAR 2.101, I reject your premise. I don't know how to express myself more clearly. Sorry.

I don't think so. What is your point?