formerfed

We had an interesting experience in my last government job doing a source selection without use of ratings. The chief issue was getting the evaluation team to focus and succinctly state relative strengths, weaknesses, etc. of each offeror. From experiences they wanted to start with assigning a rating and work backwards with supporting narrative. The contracting officer spent a lot of time going over the evaluator findings and actually worked full time with them to ensure what was produced by the evaluators was what was needed.

Two unusual reactions. The lawyer reviewing the files asked where the ratings were? The CO had to walk him through the process. The Source Selection Official was very pleased and said it made his job very easy.

@sackanator  why not call or email Michael Jackson at GSA?  He’s easily accessible and very personable

On 12/5/2024 at 4:24 PM, Jamaal Valentine said:

First thing I noticed is that the thresholds were not increased by the same percentage. But, more importantly, what are the arguments for even higher thresholds?

Hopefully they receive a fair amount of meaningful comments that will result in less expensive and streamlined acquisitions. I’m surprised the acquisition community isn’t trained on leaving good comments and active participation.

@jamaal valentine, I think this answers most of your questions.  The Councils typically receive a large number of comments and it’s easy to submit.  Within the government it’s always a challenge for them to separate comments which reflect a specific agency position and individual agency employee comments.  I would be surprised if they received much in the way of negative ones on this change.
 

https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2024/11/29/2024-27851/federal-acquisition-regulation-inflation-adjustment-of-acquisition-related-thresholds

It’s now more true than ever, especially in todays Congressional environment, that any project moving forward has overstated benefits and understated costs.  PMs and senior management already have excuse stories at day I for overruns and less than promised results.

Bob, you are a blessing for all of us.  This forum adds so much to our profession and it’s something many of us check daily.  I’ve been a participant from the beginning.  When I started here and working for the government, I used my name, Stan Livingstone for posting.  I retired from the government and worked for a consulting company while continuing to post.   A government client saw my responses and said “why are we paying you to help us when we can get your answers for free on Wifcon?”  😁Since then I started using the alias of formerfed.

Why not?  It’s obvious the Biden Administration doesn’t know what they want out of procurement.  Why not select someone to maintain the status quo and not disrupt anything. 

That is an excellent exercise and should be part of training for everyone. Unfortunately the situation is a reality most of us will face at least once if not many times more.

The good part it doesn't happy everywhere. There are places where the contracting field is viewed as valuable and supportive and adds to the mission accomplishment. Those places are too few however. There are other agencies where contracting is viewed as an obstacle and CO's are obstructionists. That's where this exercise becomes reality because planning just doesn't happen. Program offices do their thing in isolation and then want the CO to rubber stamp and endorse their actions. When you face that work environmnet, that's usually a sign to move on.