Jump to content
  • Search By Tags

    Type tags separated by commas.
  • Search By Author

Content Type

Forums

  • Instructions, Terms of Use, Q&A, Commentary, Opinions & Debates
    • Terms Of Use
    • Before You Register, Before You Post, Instructions for Writing Your Question
    • Q&A
    • Commentary, Opinions & Debates
  • Contracting Forum
    • WIFCON PODCAST
    • 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
  • Contest

Blogs

  • The Wifcon Blog
  • Don Mansfield's Blog
  • Emptor Cautus' Blog
  • SmallGovCon.com
  • NIH NITAAC Blog
  • The Contractor's Perspective
  • Government Contracts Legal Forum
  • Government Contracts Blog
  • Government Contracts Insights
  • NIH NITAAC Blog
  • High-Performance Track Systems | iAutomation

Calendars

  • Community Calendar

Product Groups

There are no results to display.

Categories

  • Rules & Tools
  • Legal Opinions
  • News

Find results in

Find results that contain...

Date Created

  • Start

    End

Last Updated

  • Start

    End


Filter by number of...

Found 1 result

  1. Nash & Cibinic in February talked about combining source selection procedures. In the recent case linked here, K-MAR B-411262, the Air Force's approach to best value is interesting. One the one hand the AF told offerors that past performance, evaluated qualitatively not pass/fail, is significantly more important than price. On the other other hand the AF essentially stated it would rank-order proposals by price and then evaluate past performance of only the lowest priced proposal and if that offeror was rated substantial confidence for past performance then the evaluation process would stop. The Air Force did just that and K-MAR protested because its proposal and its past performance wasn't considered. Protest denied. In a footnote the GAO notes that K-MAR failed to protest the RFP's evaluation scheme prior to the deadline for proposals. What if K-MAR had timely protested the RFP's best value evaluation process, do you think the GAO would have sustained that protest? Is it wise to use this AF approach that past performance is more important than price but then not consider other offerors' past performance? http://www.gao.gov/products/B-411262,B-411262.2#_ftnref5