Another commercial-product RFQ gone terribly wrong.

[FrankJon]

See RFQ no. M0026325Q0014 for t-shirts. Lots of obvious problems such as:

• RFQ is 53 pages long.
• Requires item identification for thousands of tees.
• SB set-aside but no reference to nonmanufacturer rule. 
• Refers to services throughout. 
• Lots of noncommercial clauses. 
• States both that it’s an RFQ and that a contract will result from government acceptance.

The evaluation methodology also appears to me to be fatally flawed, but I wanted to get the view of others here on this. 

Quote

(i)Price.

(ii)Other Factors: Contractor’s quoted supplies or services shall, at a minimum, meet the salient

characteristics, specifications, deliverables, or performance requirements outlined in the solicitation. In

accordance with FAR 13.106-2(b)(3), the government will conduct a comparative evaluation of quotations based on

price and other non-price factors. The Government will first eliminate unacceptable quotations; the remaining

quotations will be arranged from lowest price to the highest price. If there are more than two (2) quotes, the

Government will conduct a comparative assessment of at least the two (2) lowest price quotes. The award will be

made to the offeror’s whose quote is determined to have both a fair & reasonable price and to be the most

advantageous to the Government.

(iii)Past Performance: The apparent successful, prospective contractor must have satisfactory or neutral past

performance. Past Performance shall be evaluated in accordance with FAR 13.106-2. The Supplier Performance

Risk System (SPRS) application (https://www.sprs.csd.disa.mil) will be used in the evaluation of supplier’s past

performance in accordance with DFARS 213.106- 2(b)(i). a)

Stating that you’re going to conduct a comparative assessment but that you may not consider any quote beyond the 2 lowest priced quotes seems unfair to the rest of the competitive field and like a sure-fire loser if challenged. Is *arranging* prices from lowest to highest the same as *considering* prices? I don’t think so.  
I have vague recollection of seeing a GAO decision on a similar scheme but can’t recall the details. 

[formerfed]

Awful.  Plus I don’t understand why so many complicate source selection processes using simplified acquisition procedures.

[jjj]

Textiles for DoD?  One might think there should be some mention of the Berry Amendment.

[joel hoffman]

20 hours ago, FrankJon said:

See RFQ no. M0026325Q0014 for t-shirts. Lots of obvious problems such as:

• RFQ is 53 pages long.
• Requires item identification for thousands of tees.
• SB set-aside but no reference to nonmanufacturer rule. 
• Refers to services throughout. 
• Lots of noncommercial clauses. 
• States both that it’s an RFQ and that a contract will result from government acceptance.

The evaluation methodology also appears to me to be fatally flawed, but I wanted to get the view of others here on this. 

Stating that you’re going to conduct a comparative assessment but that you may not consider any quote beyond the 2 lowest priced quotes seems unfair to the rest of the competitive field and like a sure-fire loser if challenged. Is *arranging* prices from lowest to highest the same as *considering* prices? I don’t think so.  
I have vague recollection of seeing a GAO decision on a similar scheme but can’t recall the details. 

I don’t see a big problem with the stated evaluation criteria. Stressing price and compliance with the quality and qualification requirements. No need to evaluate higher priced quotes unless the two lowest priced quotes don’t meet the other non-priced requirements. 

[joel hoffman]

As for “Consider[ing] all quotations or offers” per 13.106-2 (a) (3), how does one do that, if using IFB like low bid procedures - which are allowed by 13.106-2(b) (1)?

How does one “consider all quotations or offers” in a lowest priced technically acceptable scenario - which is also allowable under 13.106-2 (b) (1)?

You could probably “consider” them too high, if they are beyond the two lowest priced, acceptable proposals.

I think that 13.106-2 (a) (3) is poorly worded.  “Consider” is undefined. This stated requirement appears to contradict 13.106-2 (b) (1) and (3).

The stated intent is to provide the KO “broad discretion in fashioning  suitable evaluation procedures” (b) (1) and “[ensuring] that quotations or offers can be evaluated in an efficient and minimally burdensome fashion” (b) (3).

The evaluation procedures stated here aren’t unfair to competing firms any more than a low bid, a lowest priced technically acceptable quotes or similar procedures would be.

”The rest of the competitive field” isn’t competitive, price-wise with the lowest competitively priced, acceptable quotes.

Im not commenting here on the stated concerns of @FrankJon and @jjj, which may be well founded. I didn’t download and read the whole solicitation.

Edit: The solicitation and evaluation procedures might have to be amended to comply with the Berry Amendment to require or give preference to US made clothing.

Edited March 11 by joel hoffman
Addressed jjj’s concern.

[joel hoffman]

I will say that while price is of major importance as a discriminator, the solicitation allows selection of other than the lowest priced technically acceptable proposal, similar to a trade-off with price as the most important factor. The solicitation suggests that the successful quote can be higher than the lowest,  reasonably priced quote, if it is “most advantageous to the government”, (whatever that means ?). Perhaps the rest of the solicitation requirements, which I didn’t read, would describe some quality differences between the products. The past performance evaluation standards don’t seem to be comparative between competitors.

[C Culham]

1 hour ago, joel hoffman said:

I will say that while price is of major importance as a discriminator, the solicitation allows selection of other than the lowest priced technically acceptable proposal, similar to a trade-off with price as the most important factor.

I would suggest you are reading this into the stated criteria and wonder how can you?  Or in other words the language of the RFQ is as FrankJon suggests "flawed".  

[General.Zhukov]

The usual culprit for really long solicitations.

 

52.204-7 System for Award Management

You must be registered in SAM.

52.204-13 System for Award Management Maintenance

You must keep your SAM registration current.

52.212-3  Offeror Representations and Certifications—Commercial Products and Commercial Services

If you are registered in SAM, which you must be, then all you need to do is verify your SAM registration is current, which it also must be.

But...in the event that you aren't registered in SAM, and thus non-compliant with two other provisions in this very same solicitation, here are another 15 pages of completely useless text that we must print in full text.  You can just skip it though, because if you need to fill it out, you're ineligible for award.

Do I have this right?

 

Also, were I buying 15,000 t-shirts, I would want a t-shirt to evaluate, rather than a NTE 20 pages of documentation about the t-shirts.

 

[C Culham]

No doubt there are reasons why not but  I wonder...Ability One or GSA Schedule 78?

[TippHill]

I'd really like to understand the purpose of selectively posting critiques of solicitations and contracts. Is there some sort of self-satisfaction gained by using the WIFCON Forum to comment on the quality of a particular acquisition, especially when the buying office, CO, and Contract Specialist are often identified by name? 

[C Culham]

31 minutes ago, TippHill said:

I'd really like to understand the purpose of selectively posting critiques of solicitations and contracts. Is there some sort of self-satisfaction gained by using the WIFCON Forum to comment on the quality of a particular acquisition, especially when the buying office, CO, and Contract Specialist are often identified by name? 

Did you read the "About" post in this topic?  If what specific concerns do you have about expressing comments about the Good, Bad Ugly acknowledging the solicitations are public knowledge?

[Vern Edwards]

34 minutes ago, TippHill said:

I'd really like to understand the purpose of selectively posting critiques of solicitations and contracts. Is there some sort of self-satisfaction gained by using the WIFCON Forum to comment on the quality of a particular acquisition, especially when the buying office, CO, and Contract Specialist are often identified by name? 

@TippHill I'll answer that, since I love to post critiques of dreadful solicitations. 

I look at solicitations at SAM.gov every single day, and regularly write critiques. I don't post all of them here. I write many for publications. Right now I'm writing critiques of two solicitations for multiple award simplified acquisitions procedure (SAP), FAR 13.303 BPAs, which are just awful.

I'm doing it to show how stupid the FAR 13.303 coverage is, and that COs do not understand SAP BPAs and recognize the long-standing flaws in FAR.

I do it to show just how incompetent the government can be and frequently is, and to warn prospective contractors of the dangers they face in government contracting.

I do it to show COs how not to do the job.

I do it to reveal competence deficiencies, which can lead to better education and training.

I do it out of professional disgust.

That's why, TippHill.

[FrankJon]

On 3/11/2025 at 12:35 PM, joel hoffman said:

I will say that while price is of major importance as a discriminator, the solicitation allows selection of other than the lowest priced technically acceptable proposal, similar to a trade-off with price as the most important factor. The solicitation suggests that the successful quote can be higher than the lowest,  reasonably priced quote, if it is “most advantageous to the government”, (whatever that means ?). Perhaps the rest of the solicitation requirements, which I didn’t read, would describe some quality differences between the products. The past performance evaluation standards don’t seem to be comparative between competitors.

@joel hoffman Even if the RFQ had stated explicitly that price is the most important factor, it doesn’t seem reasonable to me to potentially exclude consideration of some quotes when award will not necessarily be made to the lowest-priced quote. In this case how would the government even *know* which quote provides the best value unless they considered all? The evaluation scheme isn’t logical. (Note that the agency does not state *why* a higher priced quote might be excluded from consideration, like a a price that exceeds what the agency would ever be willing to pay for the items under any circumstance. It simply gives the agency carte blanche to throw out quotes following the two lowest priced quotes.)

Contrast this with LPTA, when  the government potentially has all the information it needs to make an award decision upon reviewing the lowest-priced quote. 

It probably doesn’t matter in the end. I assume this language - like the rest of the solicitation - is ripped straight from a template. It’s hard to imagine a scenario in which the end users wouldn’t want to evaluate all available options  

To answer your last question, no, I saw no indication in the RFQ as to what “the most advantageous” t-shirt looks like. The agency doesn’t need to say so either, although it would certainly make sense! But I agree with @General.Zhukov — if I were the CO, I’d sure want vendors to send me the tees for evaluation instead of a description! 

[FrankJon]

On 3/12/2025 at 3:23 PM, TippHill said:

I'd really like to understand the purpose of selectively posting critiques of solicitations and contracts. Is there some sort of self-satisfaction gained by using the WIFCON Forum to comment on the quality of a particular acquisition, especially when the buying office, CO, and Contract Specialist are often identified by name? 

This solicitation was actually brought to my attention through Reddit. An interested contractor asked how best to individually ID thousands of shirts. A number of COs chimed in that the agency probably doesn’t actually want this and that it’s likely an oversight. Some proceeded further to criticize various aspects of the RFQ, including some that I’ve raised here.
 

I posted to help other 1102s understand what not to do and to generate informed discussion about the evaluation methodology. If I’m being honest, yes, there’s also a public flogging element for me. As an 1102 who puts a lot of effort into my work, seeing something as sloppy as this irritates me. 
 

For better or worse, much of the work of an 1102 is available for public consumption and critique. That’s especially true since January 20. 

[FrankJon]

On 3/11/2025 at 6:14 PM, C Culham said:

No doubt there are reasons why not but  I wonder...Ability One or GSA Schedule 78?

Oh I doubt it very much!

[joel hoffman]

On 3/11/2025 at 7:35 AM, joel hoffman said:

I will say that while price is of major importance as a discriminator, the solicitation allows selection of other than the lowest priced technically acceptable proposal, similar to a trade-off with price as the most important factor.

 

On 3/11/2025 at 8:48 AM, C Culham said:

I would suggest you are reading this into the stated criteria and wonder how can you?  Or in other words the language of the RFQ is as FrankJon suggests "flawed".  

This is how I read what I said into the stated criteria:

On 3/10/2025 at 9:13 AM, FrankJon said:

If there are more than two (2) quotes, the

Government will conduct a comparative assessment of at least the two (2) lowest price quotes. The award will be made to the offeror’s whose quote is determined to have both a fair & reasonable price and to be the most advantageous to the Government.

After determining which quotes are technically acceptable,  the Government compares (at least) the two lowest priced quotes. Thus, price is of major importance to the government.

It follows then, that  award will be made to the offeror [assuming that the price is fair and reasonable] that is the most advantageous  to the government. Thus, the solicitation allows selection of other than the lowest priced technically acceptable quote.

On 3/11/2025 at 7:35 AM, joel hoffman said:

…while price is of major importance as a discriminator,

the solicitation allows selection of other than the lowest priced technically acceptable proposal, [I meant quote] similar to a trade-off with price as the most important factor. The solicitation suggests that the successful quote can be higher than the lowest,  reasonably priced quote, if it is “most advantageous to the government”, (whatever that means ?).

 

On 3/10/2025 at 9:13 AM, FrankJon said:

ii)Other Factors: Contractor’s quoted supplies or services shall, at a minimum, meet the salient

characteristics, specifications, deliverables, or performance requirements outlined in the solicitation

Award will only be made to a technically acceptable quote.

Since there is a comparative analysis of the two lowest priced, technically acceptable  quotes and doesnt have to be the lowest, reasonably priced quote, it works similarly to a trade-off with price as the most important factor. 

[FrankJon]

13 hours ago, joel hoffman said:

it works similarly to a trade-off with price as the most important factor. 

I don’t see how you can say this, Joel. Considering price as the most important factor doesn’t mean you can arbitrarily decide not to consider prices beyond the lowest two.

Imagine if the third-highest price were only marginally higher than the second - say a fraction of a percentile - but the agency arbitrarily decided not to consider the technical attributes of the third-highest quote. Wouldn’t that be an unreasonable decision on its face?

Maybe my initial assessment of this scheme as “fatally flawed” was hasty. The solicitation doesn’t state what the agency will do, only what it may do. But I do think they could get into trouble here if they’re not careful. 

[C Culham]

19 hours ago, joel hoffman said:

read what I said into

I would offer that you have not applied the standard stated in the RFQ.  That standard FAR 13.106-2(b)(3) as stated by the RFQ which paraphrased specific to this solicitation states -

Evaluation is based on Price, Salient Characteristics, specifications and deliverables and performance standards, and Performance Rating.    Once a quote is in hand then unacceptable quotes are eliminated.  To provide for evaluation the quoter is to provide documentation not exceeding 20 pages that the products meet all requirements of Section B presumably includes the PWS and a FAR Clause on unique identifier.   So are there salient characteristics or in reality everything must "meet". 

Once the Others Factors are determined and the performance is deemed satisfactory or equal then "at least" 2 quotes of lowest price will be compared and an award made.   

All said I do not believe you can read LPTA or Trade Off in to the wording as the effort by its own wording is a FAR 12/13 procurement not FAR 15.   It is a decision made based on fair and reasonable price (not low) and most advantegous (not to the other than lowest proposed priced quote or the highest technicallyrated offer) or stated otherwise there is no relative importance of other factors and subfactors stated and no relative importance of fair and reasonable price as compared to the other factors.   

 

[joel hoffman]

8 hours ago, FrankJon said:

I don’t see how you can say this, Joel. Considering price as the most important factor doesn’t mean you can arbitrarily decide not to consider prices beyond the lowest two.

Imagine if the third-highest price were only marginally higher than the second - say a fraction of a percentile - but the agency arbitrarily decided not to consider the technical attributes of the third-highest quote. Wouldn’t that be an unreasonable decision on its face?

Maybe my initial assessment of this scheme as “fatally flawed” was hasty. The solicitation doesn’t state what the agency will do, only what it may do. But I do think they could get into trouble here if they’re not careful. 

Frank Jon, yes actually the RFQ said “then "at least" 2 quotes of lowest price will be compared and an award made.” This indicates to me that price is of primary importance.

 That would allow consideration of other than only the two lowest priced quotes.

However, we have discussed other shortcut methods in the forum where the field of proposals evaluated have been reduced for sake of expediency, particularly where price is most important. 

On 3/11/2025 at 6:41 AM, joel hoffman said:

As for “Consider[ing] all quotations or offers” per 13.106-2 (a) (3), how does one do that, if using IFB like low bid procedures - which are allowed by 13.106-2(b) (1)?

How does one “consider all quotations or offers” in a lowest priced technically acceptable scenario - which is also allowable under 13.106-2 (b) (1)?

You could probably “consider” them too high, if they are beyond the two lowest priced, acceptable proposals.**

I think that 13.106-2 (a) (3) is poorly worded.  “Consider” is undefined. This stated requirement appears to contradict 13.106-2 (b) (1) and (3).

** Modifying my earlier statement - if they are beyond the two or more, closely priced group of lowest priced quotes.

EDIT ADD:  Non-competitive quoters aren’t discriminated against here. I don’t think that the RFQ mentioned a round of negotiations and selecting firms to negotiate with. It appears to state that a selection will be made from those lowest priced quotes. 

 

Edited March 16 by joel hoffman

[joel hoffman]

1 hour ago, C Culham said:

All said I do not believe you can read LPTA or Trade Off in to the wording as the effort by its own wording is a FAR 12/13 procurement not FAR 15. 

Carl, I never said that it is an LPTA procurement.

I was responding to FrankJon’s statement that all quotes must be considered per 13.206-2 (a)(3).

My initial reference to LPTA was to state that the requirement to consider all quotations or offers per FAR 13.106-2(a)(3) implicitly contradicts 13.106-2 (b) (1) which allows for IFB like low bid procedures or a lowest priced technically acceptable scenario.** 

“As for “Consider[ing] all quotations or offers” per 13.106-2 (a) (3), how does one do that, if using IFB like low bid procedures - which are allowed by 13.106-2(b) (1)?”

and 

“How does one “consider all quotations or offers” in a lowest priced technically acceptable scenario - which is also allowable under subsection 13.106-2 (b) (1)?”

13.106-2:  “(b) Evaluation procedures.

  (1) The contracting officer has broad discretion in fashioning suitable evaluation procedures. The procedures prescribed in  parts  14 and  15 are not mandatory. At the contracting officer’s discretion, one or more, but not necessarily all, of the evaluation procedures in  part  14 or  15 may be used.”

Carl, I didn’t say that it was a part 15 trade-off process either. I said it is “similar to a trade-off with price as the most important factor”

On 3/11/2025 at 7:35 AM, joel hoffman said:

…solicitation allows selection of other than the lowest priced technically acceptable proposal, similar to a trade-off with price as the most important factor. The solicitation suggests that the successful quote can be higher than the lowest,  reasonably priced quote