Jump to content

govt2310

Members
  • Posts

    453
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Reputation

0 Neutral

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Not Telling

Recent Profile Visitors

10,798 profile views
  1. I am very grateful to Vern for sharing his wisdom with me and others on Wifcon all these years. Thank you so much, Vern! You are awesome!
  2. I apologize. Vern did not say an agency should adopt a Go/No-Go approach in Phase 1 of a Phased Evaluation. I was thinking of something Vern said in a 2015 thread on Wifcon. Here is link. On "page 2" of this thread, Vern wrote a comment on October 10, 2015: FARmer: Phased evaluation is simply progressive winnowing of the field of competitors through phased application of the evaluation factors. The idea is to start with the easiest factors to evaluate -- generally: legal acceptability, experience, and bottom-line price -- so that by the time you reach more difficult factors to evaluate you won't have as much work to do. There is no reason for the concept to be controversial, except to the eternally blockheaded. You must consider price in each phase before eliminating anyone. However, if your solicitation says that you are going to award without discussions, then you do not have to consider the price of any offeror whose proposal is ineligible for award as submitted. For example, you don't have to consider the price of any firm whose offer does not conform to any material term of the prospective contract as stated in the solicitation. I think what I was thinking of is not a statement by Vern, but various legal decisions (GAO, courts) where an agency didn't evaluate/consider Price in Phase 1, the agency eliminated an offeror, and it was ok because the offeror was technically unacceptable. It was ok to eliminate an offeror in Phase 1 without considering Price, based on a GO/NO-GO factor.
  3. I remember reading Vern Edwards' Source Selection Book years ago, how he recommended that, for FAR 15 and other procurements as well, if an agency does Phased Approach, then Phase 1 should be a GO/NO-GO, meaning that the agency would eliminate only the technically unacceptable proposals. Well, what happens if the agency, using FAR 8.4, issues a solicitation that has Phase 1 and Phase 2. Phase 1 includes only one factor: an Experience Factor. The agency can assign only one of 3 adjectival ratings to a proposal: High Confidence, Some Confidence, and Low Confidence. The solicitation states that there will be a "mandatory down-select" after Phase 1. The agency rates Offeror X's proposal as Low Confidence. Offeror X is eliminated from the competition and cannot move on to Phase 2. Offeror X files a timely protest at GAO. How do you think GAO would decide? The way I see it, the agency in this hypothetical didn't put any "technical" factors in Phase 1, so how can the agency find any proposal "technically unacceptable"? How is "Experience" a technical factor? And how is "Experience" something that could be deemed "technically unacceptable" if the solicitation's worst adjectival rating category for Experience is "Low Confidence"? Low Confidence is not No Confidence, see? This hypothetical is very similar to Central Care, Inc., B-420959.13 et al. (Jan. 11, 2024). GAO denied the protest, finding that it was ok for the agency to eliminate the "Low Confidence" protester after Phase 1.
  4. Looks like GPC dispute procedures is what needs to be done in the case I presented for this thread. Thanks everyone! Much appreciated!
  5. When I click your link, it brings me to the GSA link that I posted, and there is no SF 44 form to click on there.
  6. I'm trying to find Form SF 44. The only link I found is https://www.gsa.gov/reference/forms/us-government-purchase-order-invoice-voucher. But the form is not there. What happened to SF 44?
  7. ji20874, I see what you are saying. My scenario is dealing with a micro-purchase using the GPC, not a "purchase order." But still, while FAR 13.201(b) says the GPC "shall be the preferred method to purchase and to pay for micro-purchases," it also says at FAR 13.201(c) says purchases below the MPT "may be conducted using any of the methods described in subpart 13.3." So for next time, if we are doing a purchase that is below the MPT, but we do it using a Purchase Order instead of using the GPC, then FAR 13.302-4 applies (it brings in FAR 52.212-4 termination clauses), right? Note, FAR 2.101 Definitions defines "Purchase order" as Purchase order, when issued by the Government, means an offer by the Government to buy supplies or services, including construction and research and development, upon specified terms and conditions, using simplified acquisition procedures.
  8. FAR 13.301 Governmentwide commercial purchase card states that agencies are supposed to establish procedures for the use and control of the card. FAR 13.302-4 Termination or cancellation of purchase orders explains what to do regarding termination. It states, “If a purchase order that has been accepted in writing by the contractor is to be terminated, the CO shall process the termination in accordance with FAR 12.403 and FAR 52.212-4(l) or (m) for commercial products and commercial services,” or “FAR 49 or FAR 52.213-4 for other than commercial products or commercial services.” It seems that FAR 13.302-4 applies to all GPC purchases, including those below the MPT. What it sounds like is, if the services purchased are commercial, then, even if the amount is below the MPT, if the vendor has accepted in writing "the purchase order," and the CO needs to terminate, then the FAR 52.212-4 applies. Isn't this saying that FAR 52.212-4 is a "required" clause that, even if it is somehow left out, it will be read into the Contract pursuant to the Christian Doctrine.
  9. Sorry: I mean T4D not T4C. C Culham, thanks, I will look into the GPC program dispute process. Don Mansfield, the seller's terms are silent on partial cancellation. It is very sparse.
  10. Contractor has already charged the card. Contractor has already performed 2 of the 10 training sessions. Yes it is "2 and 2" that ji20874 asked. C Culham, thanks for the N&C cite, I will try to find it. We don't want a voucher, we want our money back. I'm surprised that there isn't a standard training practice out there, by any agency, that trains purchase card holders to put termination clauses that favor the Government into micro-purchases, just in case things go wrong. Or is there?
  11. Let's say the agency wants to do a Termination for Convenience. Assume the vendor's boilerplate agreement is silent as to termination. Assume the vendor has partially performed the service, and has already been paid in full. Say the vendor provides training sessions for federal employees, and there are to be 10 sessions, and the vendor has already done 2 of the 10 sessions. I see that Christian Doctrine doesn't work here. Well, it sounds like the agency would have to negotiate the termination clauses into the Micro-Purchase Contract then. Thoughts?
  12. For a micro-purchase, the FAR clauses on Termination for Default/Cause/Convenience are not required to be put into the Contract. What if a situation arises under which the agency needs to terminate? Is there a way to pull these clauses in using the Christian Doctrine? I believe there isn't, as Christian Doctrine involves pulling in required FAR clauses. Since these clauses are not required, they aren't read into the Contract. Any ideas on how to handle this situation?
  13. FAR 17.502-1 allows for Direct Acquisitions, where Agency A issues a task order solicitation directly off of Agency B's IDIQ contract. The only examples of this that I have seen are when Agency A issues a task order solicitation off of the FAR Part 8 GSA Schedule, and where Agency A issues a task order solicitation off of a GWAC. In both those scenarios, there is specific statutory authority for GSA and the GWAC Agency to do this. I have never seen a Direct Acquisition done where Agency A issues a task order solicitation directly off of Agency B's IDIQ Contract using only the Economy Act 31 USC Section 1535 as the statutory authority. Can this even be done? I realize FAR 17.502-2 addresses the Economy Act, but I would like to find out of illustrative examples of where this was done in the past.
×
×
  • Create New...