Jump to content

Search the Community

Showing results for tags 'Key Personnel'.

  • Search By Tags

    Type tags separated by commas.
  • Search By Author

Content Type


  • Instructions and Terms of Use
    • Terms Of Use
    • Before You Register, Before You Post, Instructions for Writing Your Question
  • Contracting Forum
    • What Happened?
    • Polls
    • For Beginners Only
    • About The Regulations
    • COVID-19 And Its Effect on Contracting
    • Contracting Workforce
    • The Good, The Bad, the Ugly
    • Recommended Reading
    • Contract Award Process
    • Contract Pricing Including CAS & Allowable Costs
    • Contract Administration
    • Schedules, GWACS, MACs, IDIQs
    • Subcontracts & Subcontract Management
    • Small Business, Socioeconomic Programs
    • Proposed Law & Regulations; Legal Decisions


  • The Wifcon Blog
  • Don Mansfield's Blog
  • Government Contracts Blog
  • Government Contracts Insights
  • Emptor Cautus' Blog
  • SmallGovCon.com
  • The Contractor's Perspective
  • Government Contracts Legal Forum


  • Community Calendar

Product Groups

There are no results to display.


  • Rules & Tools
  • Legal Opinions
  • News

Find results in...

Find results that contain...

Date Created

  • Start


Last Updated

  • Start


Filter by number of...


  • Start





Website URL







Found 6 results

  1. My agency currently evaluates resumes during a source selection for personnel/SETA contracts, however when it is time to award, those personnel may no longer be available. We are looking at other avenues to evaluate proposal without reviewing resumes. In your opinion, what is the best way to evaluate personnel/SETAs in a source selection without reviewing and evaluating resumes?
  2. I remember seeing somewhere, maybe in a GAO decision now lost, that the FAR requires an offeror to notify the agency of the unavailability of a proposed key personnel, even after submission of proposals. But I can't find this in the FAR (I was mainly looking through FAR Part 15 and FAR 52.215-___). Can anyone tell me where it says this in the FAR?
  3. We typically ask for offerors to provide resumes of key personnel with their proposals. But when it comes to designating what the key personnel positions are, should we dictate which positions are considered key personnel in the solicitation or should we leave it up to offerors to determine what the key personnel positions are? I've seen it done both ways.
  4. A solicitation is issued. It lists several Key Personnel positions. It just lists them, like it says the KP are "Contract Manager" and "Project Manager." But the solicitation does not give definitions for these Key Personnel. Nor does it list required duties, how much time each person must devote to certain tasks or responsibilities, etc. Section L required that, if submitting KP Past Performance Efforts, the proposed Key Personnel must have performed "the same" in the past as they are being proposed to perform in the future. An offeror's proposal is "dinged" for not proposing KP in the "same roles." Now this is an issue in dispute between the agency and the protester. Question: are there any Industry Standard definitions of what a "Contract Manager" is versus a "Project Manager"?
  5. A solicitation stated in Section L that offerors with no "Corporate" PP could submit, if they wanted to, "Key Personnel" PP. Section L further instructed that such KP PP references who filled out the PPQ's had to be a person who had "direct oversight" over that KP. Several offerors who are incumbents submitted KP PP. However, the POC reference they list is the agency CO who is the CO for the current recompete solicitation. For some reason, the offerors did not list the COR/COTR folks. The CO believes himself to have had no "direct oversight" over the KP, which is true, and in fact, he has never even met most, if any, of these people, except some email communications for contract administrative purposes. QUESTION: Can the CO choose to not fill out the PPQs? Or must the CO fill out the PPQ because this would be considered "too close at hand" information?
  6. The solicitation specified that the offerors were required to address in their proposals the "Key Personnel," which included the role of "Project Manager." What if a proposal comes in that offers to provide a "Program Manager." So the job title they are offering does not exactly match the job title specified in the solicitation. Also, assume that the Technical Evaluation Panel has chosen to NOT open discussions with offerors, and that their minds are closed on this. Can the TEP assign a rating of "deficient" on the Key Personnel Factor? Can the TEP seek clarification and just ask, Mr. Offeror, when you wrote "Program Manager" did you mean "Project Manager," without going into discussions to allow the offeror to revise its proposal? I could not find any GAO case law that met this fact pattern. If anyone knows of any, please share.
  • Create New...