Search the Community
Showing results for tags 'far part 15'.
Found 7 results
Source Selection Approaches- all of them?
Fairly New 1102 posted a topic in For Beginners OnlyFAR 15.101 describes how agencies can use different source selection approaches (or their combinations) to obtain best value. FAR 15.101-1 then describes the tradeoff process and 15.101-2 describes LPTA. The DoD Source Selection Procedures (which I personally find very confusing) describe VATEP (which I also find very confusing). My question is: Are there any other named/identified source selection procedures? (not including hybrids of ones already mentioned). Someone at work mentioned Highest Technical Rating at a Fair and Reasonable Price? Is that a viable approach where I work (Army)? It actually sounds closer to what our customers need than the others as they need highly experienced and specialized technical support people. thanks!
What is a procedure?
cdhames posted a topic in For Beginners OnlyI'm not new to federal contracting but I thought this would be a good place to ask this question, and hope that in some eyes, I'm not overcomplicating things. I've often ascribed the borrowing of FAR Part procedures as the borrowing of a section of a FAR but I've been asked whether that's accurate and didn't have a good enough answer. For example someone in my office wants to borrow 1 line from part 15 in a FAR Part 13 acquisition. My answer was that they're borrowing the evaluation procedure, not the evaluation sentence under FAR Part 15 yada yada. But then I'm asked what the definition of a procedure is and I didn't have an answer. It's not defined under FAR Part 2. So my question is, what is a procedure in the context of using a "combination of procedures" from any parts of the FAR to craft an acquisition?
I am a contracting officer assisting in the planning of a source selection for an ACAT system. As part of the source selection process, the customer is adamant about including significant field testing as part of the evaluation process. The system is highly sensitive in that just about everything could affect its performance including weather, time of day, harsh language, etc. As to be expected, everyone on my end, especially legal, is worried about risk of a protest from the losing offeror. Any ideas, useful guidance, prior examples... anything would be helpful and appreciated.
On my way into work this morning, NPR aired a segment on making better predictions (http://www.npr.org/2016/09/01/492203116/want-to-make-better-predictions-researchers-explore-where-we-go-wrong). The research (http://repository.upenn.edu/edissertations/1074/) was focused on predicting sporting events and in cases where more details were given or required to be assessed, individuals made (some) worse predictions. Disclaimer: I haven't completely read the dissertation (it's an EOFY work day and the dissertation is 200+ pgs...), but I couldn't help sharing due to its applicability to the contractor selection process, which is ultimately a predictive process itself. Assuming these issues/difficulties are also present in the contractor selection process, the large amounts information/data requested from contractors could not only be wasteful (in that it doesn't help the acquisition team make a better decision team) it might actually be harmful (in that it results in a worse prediction). Thoughts?
Hello All, I was doing some reading and trying to figure out more information on the "down-select process" (if there is one), and was reading Vern's “Competitive Processes in Government Contracting: The FAR Part 15 Process Model and Process Inefficiency." (http://www.wifcon.com/anal/analcomproc.htm#note4) Reading this left me with more questions on making the process more efficient than what it is now. Question 1) Is it appropriate to assume that the "down-select" process mentioned in this article and mentioned in other DoD websites (Ask a professor) is now the Advisory Multi-Step Process as detailed in FAR 15.202? I was reading through the references in Vern's article and the reference for the "down-select" definition points to The Government Contracts Reference Book (2nd Edition)(I have the third edition). The definition in this book states “A two-step procurement technique where, as a first step, the number of competitors are reduced by preliminary screening, and in the second step, a best value procurement is conducted between the remaining competitors. FAR 15.102 provides for the use of an advisory multi-step source selection when appropriate.” I have taken FAR Bootcamp and learned many lessons of not relying entirely on the information in the reference book, so I assume that the “down-select” process is the Advisory Multi-Step Process now covered in FAR 15.202. Based on your responses, I may have more questions to follow on this question. Question 2) Can a competitive range be established if the Government does not conduct negotiations or have communications etc.? For instance let’s say you have 200 proposals come in for a cost reimbursement acquisition conducted under FAR Part 15. About 100 of those proposals are technically acceptable; wouldn’t it be an absolute waste of tax payer dollars to do a full blow cost analysis on those proposals not found technically acceptable? Could a competitive range be put in place to afford the Government the opportunity to only do a cost analysis on those in the range (technically accptable)? The FAR only disuscusse when it should be used.
Exercise an unfunded Option?
mccoy1629 posted a topic in Schedules, GWACS, MACs, IDIQsI was assigned to administer an IDIQ contract with Options. FAR 17.202((2) says that an indefinite quantity contract can have options. We wish to exercise the IDIQ option. Since the IDIQ contract is unfunded as a whole (there are no funds required) does it follow that therefore we don’t need any funds to exercise the option? If there are no funds required on the base contract does this mean that there is no financial commitment on the IDIQ to verify funds for the option and that the Option is unpriced or $0? To exercise an unfunded Option appears to go against FAR 17.207©(1) and 15.403-2(a), which states that the exercise of an option must be at the price established at contract award or initial negotiation. Please clarify, is this correct?
LPTA AND PROPOSALS ABOVE IGE
krusem posted a topic in Contract Award ProcessHello All, I have been around Federal contracting for about 13 years, but unfortunately my skill set is somewhat weak in the source selection arena. I have researched this question on WIFCON, AAP, and the DOD SS Guide, but I think I have over-saturated my noggin and would like to see if I can get a straightforward answer from you fine folks. When utilizing LPTA under FAR 15, what recourse does a contracting officer have, if any, when all proposals exceed the government's estimate, and the government believes its estimate is valid (correctly priced). There is a reference in FAR 15.306(e)(3) that mentions that you can tell an offeror that their proposal is high in terms of price, but is that reason alone to enter into discussions? I am sure that I could ramble on with questions, but I will let you folks respond first. Thank you very much! Micah Kruse