Search the Community
Showing results for tags 'procurement'.
Company has been approached by several DoD purchasers across agencies that are interested in purchasing its product. The product is a ubiquitous, low-tech component found in most government hardware systems. Government systems that require this manufactured component cannot function without it, and existing government hardware is obsolete technology and failing, raising national security concerns. Because this hardware is located in major & minor systems across the defense industrial base, the potential scope of work is daunting. The government lacks records containing specs for the currently installed product, requiring reverse engineering in many instances. The government also lacks an inventory database. It appears that the government officials who want to purchase the products are not sure how to design and scope this type of procurement and fund it. I am helping the Company think through procurement options for discussion with government officials. We would like to find an analogous situation that was successfully solved, thinking that this can't be the first time the government faced this problem. The Company is a small business. So, here's my question: Can you identify an example of a ubiquitous component in government property that was replaced with a new and improved product. Ideal examples would involve replacement of manufactured hardware components in the defense industrial base.
My supervisory CO has asked me to research how to do a "blind competition," which I understand is a process whereby companies interested in submitting offers do not use their own identity in their technical (and cost?) proposals. The purpose of the blind competition is to establish a true(r) objectivity on behalf of the technical evaluation committee. I have searched the wifcon pages and done a general online search, but have not found any guidance on how to set up a blind competition. I am looking for best ways to set-up/structure a blind competition, e.g. does it work better if offerors are instructed to write their technical proposals in such a way so as to not identify themselves or we ask them to register and then assign a number or other name to them? What are other lessons learned, best practices, guidance, pitfalls, etc.? Thanks in advance for any inputs!
http://oversight.house.gov/wp-content/uploads/2013/03/FITARA.pdf I was wondering if some of the senior members of this discussion board had any impressions of the proposed legislation. It is a bit different from the initial draft (Summary of changes found here: http://oversight.house.gov/wp-content/uploads/2013/03/FITARA_RevisionsSummary.pdf). One piece of the proposed legislation is the introduction of the "fixed-priced technical competition" that I thought would be of interest to some (Sec. 503). I know that some find IT acquisitions dry as dirt, but IT procurement is something that every agency procurement division manages in some form or fashion, and the implications of this legislation fall beyond IT procurement. Just interested in your impressions. Jon Johnson