Looking for Best Contract Type to Use Under an Aggressive Competition Time Frame

Can they issue an Invitation for bids for a single contract award - with price only factor(s) ? 

Also, does it have to be a single contract or can the government reserve the right to make one or multiple awards from the single solicitation? 

A task order would require multiple awards of a base contract then the task order(s). That doesn’t seem to be very practicable for such a short deadline.

lawyergirl said:

There are many parties interested in participating in the solicitation, so this will not be an easy task for the Government in terms of review.

Another reason to consider price only IFB and also to allow industry to bid on one or more than one bid schedule.

This might also facilitate effective price competition.

Can you provide more detail?  What is the contract for?  Estimated dollar value?  You mentioned BPA - is this under the SAP or covered by some contract vehicle? Is this for a commercial item?  I know you are on the contractor side but why the time crunch for receipt of offers and evaluation since there’s almost two months left in the FY?

lawyergirl said:

Our Government client

Thoughts I am guessing are too late but method of accomplishing the procurement including 8(a) setaside or GSA FSS may have also saved significant time.

joel hoffman said:

Can they issue an Invitation for bids for a single contract award - with price only factor(s) ?

FAR 6.401(a)(1) seemingly suggests that IFBs take longer than other contracting methods. Based on FAR 14.202-1(a), I agree.

”A bidding time (i.e., the time between issuance of the solicitation and opening of bids) of at least 30 calendar days shall be provided, when synopsis is required by subpart  5.2.”

You can do a faster version of a sealed-bidding styled solicitation under FAR part 13 or 15.

But see 5.203 (c) for commercial products (supplies) and services:

“c) Except for the acquisition of commercial products or commercial services (see  5.203(b)), agencies shall allow at least a 30-day response time for receipt of bids or proposals from the date of issuance of a solicitation, if the proposed contract action is expected to exceed the simplified acquisition threshold.

(d) Agencies shall allow at least a 30 day response time from the date of publication of a proper notice of intent to contract for architect-engineer services or before issuance of an order under a basic ordering agreement or similar arrangement if the proposed contract action is expected to exceed the simplified acquisition threshold.”

@lawyergirl Any Synopsis/pre-solicitation notice should amply precede your agency’s solicitation date. If possible, they could also publish a draft of the requirements/ preliminary solicitation, etc. for information only.

I will echo formerfed’s inquiry for more details - without any idea of the scope of what your client is planning to buy, we are mostly throwing darts at a huge target (universe of acquisitions)..

@lawyergirl Another suggestion is the requirements team could work overtime to expedite preparation and issuance of the solicitation.

Our USACE Division Commander once ordered Engineering Directorate to direct our Program A/E to work whatever overtime necessary to expedite designs for massive engineering change proposals. This was to minimize time/schedule and rework impacts to the active contracts for construction of large Chemical Weapons Disposal Plants.

Both Engineering and the A/E resented the overtime work but it was absolutely necessary. Both Engineering and the A/E had little understanding of the time impacts of ECP’s and were used to taking their sweet time in issuing designs and design revisions.

Your client might be very resistant to the idea of expediting the issuance of the solicitation or to providing advance notice/draft version for industry notice and familiarization.

Our A/E contract was cost reimbursement, long term (decades). The construction portion of the Systems contracts affected by ECP’s for the various plants were FFP, after previous CPFF contracts for the earlier plants of similar design.

This shift from CP to FP construction contracts in the on-going, evolving program required a massive mental shift and learning curve by all involved government agencies, including ours as well as the A/E and state regulatory agencies.

I have read and re-read the original post and have offered my thoughts.  I am  still struggling with contract type versus solicitation/acquisition method that accomplishes the award by end of Fiscal Year.  It would seem that the client has already determined the method (SB, competition, evaluation as not being an "easy task") which leaves me in a quandry.   If method is settled on what does type of contract have to do with it?   Or in other words, if the client has solicited, evaluated, made an award decision just sign the type of contract that was anticipated at the get go.  The one exceptioin available under FAR part 16 that might, and I say might strongly, help expedite award is a Letter Contract, yet considering all the facts to date one the reason for expediting  is award by end of fiscal year as opposed to award to get the contractor working right now, Letter Contract does not seem to fit.

Thanks for everyone's input!  Total contract value will be approx. $14.5M after 3 separate contracts are consolidated.  This is a services contract and scope deals with meeting critical requirements for security.  It includes IT asset management lifecycle and portfolio management support, governance and management support, cyber security support, senior leader support and contract support.    I mentioned BPA above just as an example of what I meant by contract type, but I guess I am interested in what solicitation type OR contract type we could suggest as being the fastest to meet the client's intense deadline.   For example, a multi award BPA won't be suitable if ppl have to further compete for task orders. The client did not provide insight as to why the timeframe is so aggressive, even though they have until FYE.  Any additional thoughts would be greatly appreciated!

Wow, this appears to be a technically challenging scope of work. The solicitation, short response and evaluation times don’t look reasonable to me.

i suggest expediting the preparation of the solicitation package. And, if possible, publicize a draft solicitation.

Hi Joel, our postings crossed.  See additional detail.  Thank you!

1. Can the services be ordered under an existing contract?

2. Do the services facilitate defense against or recovery from cyber attack? 

3. Assuming they proposed a fair and reasonable price, would any contractor that met general responsibility standards at FAR 9.104-1 be sufficient?

1. Can the services be ordered under an existing contract?  No.

2. Do the services facilitate defense against or recovery from cyber attack?  Yes.

3. Assuming they proposed a fair and reasonable price, would any contractor that met general responsibility standards at FAR 9.104-1 be sufficient?  Not sure what this means.  Can you please clarify?

lawyergirl said:

2. Do the services facilitate defense against or recovery from cyber attack?  Yes.

That's good. You can use SAP under FAR 13.500(c)(2). Is the client part of DoD?

lawyergirl said:

3. Assuming they proposed a fair and reasonable price, would any contractor that met general responsibility standards at FAR 9.104-1 be sufficient?  Not sure what this means.  Can you please clarify?

Let's say you have 10 prospective contractors that meet the general responsibility standards at FAR 9.104-1 and they have all proposed a fair and reasonable price, do you care which one gets the contract?

Hi Don:  Yes, client is DoD.  I don't think the client is particularly looking at FAR 9.104-1 as part of the evaluation process, at least not that I have heard.

lawyergirl said:

Hi Don:  Yes, client is DoD.

Good, now you only need HCA approval to use SAP (see DFARS 218.270(b)).

lawyergirl said:

I don't think the client is particularly looking at FAR 9.104-1 as part of the evaluation process, at least not that I have heard.

With very few exceptions, a precondition to any contract award is that the prospective contractor meets the standards at FAR 9.104-1. This is not about evaluation factors (although your answer will affect evaluation). If the client will be happy as long as the contractor meets the general standards of responsibility, then evaluation and award can be short and sweet. But if the client wants to apply criteria to determine which one of the multiple prospective contractors is best, then evaluation and award will take longer.

Don Mansfield said:

Good, now you only need HCA approval to use SAP (see DFARS 218.270(b)).

With very few exceptions, a precondition to any contract award is that the prospective contractor meets the standards at FAR 9.104-1. This is not about evaluation factors (although your answer will affect evaluation). If the client will be happy as long as the contractor meets the general standards of responsibility, then evaluation and award can be short and sweet. But if the client wants to apply criteria to determine which one of the multiple prospective contractors is best, then evaluation and award will take longer.

So are you saying approvals, process, etc. are more streamlined and efficient than going GSA FSS?  I am not looking for a why just a yes or no.

She said the services could not be ordered under an existing contract.

Don Mansfield said:

She said the services could not be ordered under an existing contract.

Got it.  Just wonder whose contract.

On 8/7/2024 at 2:38 PM, lawyergirl said:

[A]fter the RFP drops, the client is allocating 2 weeks for proposal submission and only 11 days for award... Does anyone know a contract type that might provide the most benefit and flexibility (e.g., single award BPA, single task order) given the aggressive time frame?  Any suggestions would be most appreciated!

Call me a skeptical pessimist, but I think that any DOD office that has to ask Wifcon Forum for suggestions about how to competitively award a $14M contract in 11 calendar days by any method permitted by FAR and DFARS has a snowball's chance in hell of doing so successfully.

It looks like the primary objective here is obligating funds rather than using prudent contracting strategies.

Just from a program perspective, there are lots of considerations.  There are three incumbents.  Are one of more considered valuable to the program?  If so, what are those merits? Will transitioning be significant and what will be the impact of a brand new contractor?  What are plans for minimizing transition risks and how will be play in contractor selection?  Is price the primary consideration?  If not what other factors are important including past performance?  What are the benefits of consolidation of the three contracts?  How about extending the three contracts until a new competitive procurement can be conducted in a more reasonable timeframe?

lawyergirl said:

Can the services be ordered under an existing contract?  No.

This adds to my own skepticism when considering all the available contracts out there in GWACs, GSA FSS, etc.   DOD's CMSS IDIQ even.

C Culham said:

This adds to my own skepticism when considering all the available contracts out there in GWACs, GSA FSS, etc.   DOD's CMSS IDIQ even.

Exactly.  The work seems to fit lots of contracts with PM and cybersecurity as part of scope.

Vern Edwards said:

Call me a skeptical pessimist, but I think that any DOD office that has to ask Wifcon Forum for suggestions about how to competitively award a $14M contract in 11 calendar days by any method permitted by FAR and DFARS has a snowball's chance in hell of doing so successfully.

"We Are Tackling Roadblocks..."

"We Are Bridging the Valleys of Death..."

🤐

On 8/8/2024 at 3:48 AM, joel hoffman said:

But see 5.203 (c) for commercial products (supplies) and services:

“c) Except for the acquisition of commercial products or commercial services (see  5.203(b)), agencies shall allow at least a 30-day response time for receipt of bids or proposals from the date of issuance of a solicitation, if the proposed contract action is expected to exceed the simplified acquisition threshold.

Or if curiosity, do you read that as an exception to FAR 14.202-1?

*Also, in addition to other requirements set forth in FAR 5.203, for acquisitions covered by the World Trade Organization Government Procurement Agreement or a Free Trade Agreement (see  subpart  25.4), the period of time between publication of the synopsis notice and receipt of offers must—generally—be no less than 40 days.

It’s apparently commercial services. So they can use simplified acquisition method under 13.5. They could probably seek bids or price only proposals/quotes if they don’t need to do a technical evaluation and instead rely on a responsibility determination under FAR 9.1 of the lowest price.

Am I correct about that?

I still think they ought to expedite the preparation of the solicitation to provide a longer lead time.

I have a feeling that it may be  it’s a “business as usual” effort.

On 8/9/2024 at 4:33 PM, Jamaal Valentine said:

the period of time between publication of the synopsis notice and receipt of offers must—generally—be no less than 40 days

Ok, so what? Publish the synopsis at least 40 days before the receipt of offers/quotes.

And why not publish a preliminary draft of the solicitation requirements with the synopsis stating that it is for preliminary information only and that there will be an expedited period for submitting offers after issuing the final solicitation.

This could include a statement encouraging interested parties to start organizing and seek team members, etc.

It may be out of the ordinary to maximize the opportunity to publicize the upcoming solicitation and critical schedule for offers and award. The agency might not be able to adapt anything other than doing “business as usual”.

EDIT:

See, for instance, FAR 15.201 “Exchanges with industry before receipt of proposals” for some ideas and methods to notify and communicate with and familiarize industry with upcoming solicitation and short periods for submission and award.

If using simplified acquisition procedures in FAR 12.202,  FAR 13.5, I don’t think that the KO is prevented from considering using applicable tools and methods described in 15.201.

joel hoffman said:

Ok, so what?

There’s around 52 days left and the question was presented to Wifcon…do you feel confident the team has time to understand, implement, get approval, and execute your plan? (“the client is allocating 2 weeks for proposal submission and only 11 days for award.”)

On 8/11/2024 at 12:48 AM, Jamaal Valentine said:

There’s around 52 days left and the question was presented to Wifcon…do you feel confident the team has time to understand, implement, get approval, and execute your plan? (“the client is allocating 2 weeks for proposal submission and only 11 days for award.”)

It shouldn’t take 11 days to award one or even three separate contracts if they only ask for price proposals under one solicitation. The extra time could be used for submission of bids/proposals.

Our COE District was receiving price only* year end proposals for multiple maintenance/repair and minor construction contracts in Panama in the 1990’s, which were advertised subject to availability of funds.

Many were within the last week of the fiscal year. US Southern Command couldn’t make funds available to the F&A office until they were able to determine that how many O&M funds were still available.

Our Contracting/F&A/legal offices were busy awarding contracts up to midnight on the last day of the FY. The contractor community was well aware and onboard with the situation every year.

This was prior to implementation of full electronic contracting and accounting systems

*OCONUS May use price only RFP’s.

On 8/11/2024 at 12:48 AM, Jamaal Valentine said:

do you feel confident the team has time to understand, implement, get approval, and execute your plan? (“the client is allocating 2 weeks for proposal submission and only 11 days for award.”)

I suggested the essence of this, including issuing the synopsis early and including a preliminary draft requirements portion of the solicitation package last mid-week. If there is no technical evaluation criteria and using simplified acquisition methods, why should it take eleven days to evaluate and award a contract (or three) for about $4 1/2 million total effort.

I don’t know if they could pull this off or if the OP has made this or any other suggestions to their client yet.

After all, the clock is ticking!!

I agree with you, @joel hoffman. Interesting times.

On 8/11/2024 at 4:19 PM, joel hoffman said:

If there is no technical evaluation criteria and using simplified acquisition methods, why should it take eleven days to evaluate and award a contract (or three) for about $4 1/2 million total effort.

I think she said $14.5 million. Fourteen, not four.

How can they not have "technical" (nonprice) evaluation criteria?

On 8/15/2024 at 9:23 AM, Vern Edwards said:

I think she said $14.5 million. Fourteen, not four.

Yes, I didn’t see the 1 in front of the 4.

On 8/15/2024 at 9:23 AM, Vern Edwards said:

How can they not have "technical" (nonprice) evaluation criteria?

See Don’s earlier questions concerning whether or not the government could accept a reasonable price from any of the offeror’s who meet the responsibility criteria. That’s why I said “if there were no technical evaluation criteria…” and if using SAP for commercial services.

EDIT: I should have said “no technical evaluation factors” [which will have associated evaluation criteria].

joel hoffman said:

Yes, I didn’t see the 1 in front of the 4.

See Don’s earlier questions concerning whether or not the government could accept a reasonable price from any of the offeror’s who meet the responsibility criteria. That’s why I said “if there were no technical evaluation criteria…” and if using SAP for commercial services.

I asked because it is not always clear what someone means by the phrase "technical criteria".

The phrase "technical evaluation criterioa" ("criteria") does not appear in FAR. "Technical criteria" appears in five places, but not in parts 7, 9, 12, 13, 14, or 15.

Does "technical evaluation criteria" refer to all "nonprice" criteria? Something less? Does it include responsibility criteria? Does it refer only to criteria concerning the offer itself, or the quote, or does it also refer to criteria concerning the offeror or quoter??

So I was not sure what you meant when you said:

Quote

If there is no technical evaluation criteria and using simplified acquisition methods, why should it take eleven days to evaluate and award a contract (or three) for about $4 1/2 million total effort.

That's why I asked my question.

I meant that only price related factors would be evaluated for reasonableness, in addition to the mandatory responsibility determination, “[if] any contractor that met general responsibility standards at FAR 9.104-1 [would] be sufficient.”

But based upon the stated scope of the intended contract, I doubt that they wouldn’t require and wouldn’t evaluate non-price factors or limit such to the responsibility determination of the lowest, reasonably priced offer.

Could they use an LPTA approach, announcing that the agency would evaluate only the technical acceptability and responsibility of the lowest reasonably priced offer under FAR 13.5? If not technically acceptable, then the next lowest reasonably priced proposal would be evaluated, etc.

This approach could potentially fail to result in an affordable contract within the compressed time limit for award.

But it would save time by not having to technically evaluate every proposal.

EDIT ADD:

However, there would have to be sufficient time allotted for industry to organize teams and prepare the “technical” (non-price) proposals.

By the way, the terms “technical proposals”, “technical evaluation factors”, evaluation criteria, etc. have been widely used over the course of several decades in solicitations to refer to non-price portions of proposals, regardless of whether the FAR has defined it.

I developed the term “performance capability” in circa 1990 to differentiate “technical evaluation factors” pertaining to such things as organization, management, key personnel, experience, past performance, scheduling capability, etc. from other “technical factors” for solicitations for construction and design-build source selections.

The other “technical factors” pertain to means, methods, materials, design features, etc.

That spread across the overall USACE and I’ve seen the term used outside of USACE.

We segregated the two types of technical factors into separate proposal volumes to facilitate proposal evaluation by the different evaluator teams. Often, there were only “Performance Capability” and “Price” proposal volumes.

But it’s like Sola Scripura I suppose. If it’s not in the FAR, it never happened/doesn’t exist.

Other than an outline of two-phase design-build selection process in FAR Part 36 (36.104 and 36.3), the FAR doesn’t even have any coverage for the unique aspects, revised roles, responsibilities and risk allocation of the contractor and government for D-B contracting. Anyone attempting to do D-B contracting is left on their own to figure out how to write a D-B contract or to actually use the process.

That’s another story that I’m directly familiar with.

@joel hoffman

The adjective technical is so widely and loosely used that it is almost meaningless in the context of government contracting and thus practically useless as a tool for making distinctions among various considerations. If anyone is going to engage in a discussion and intends to use the phrase "technical factors" then they should be prepared to explain what they mean.

The phrase "technical factor" has appeared in 3,219 GAO decisions since 1964. Here are some quotes:

• "The technical factor included two subfactors, technical approach and management approach."
• "Under the technical factor, the RFP required offerors to address their understanding of the technical requirements and approach to performing the work, including proposing individuals for the key personnel roles of program manager and medical director."
• "Under the technical factor, the RFP provided that the Navy would evaluate proposals to determine offerors' understanding of, approach to, and ability to meet the solicitation requirements; the evaluation would include an assessment of compliance with the solicitation requirements, as well as the risk associated with offerors' approaches."
• "Proposals will be evaluated under two factors, technical and price, and the technical factor consists of the following three subfactors: experience and past performance, accounting system, and facility clearance."
• Under the technical factor, the Army would evaluate offerors' staffing and management plans, organizational diagrams, and staffing and labor mixes.
• The technical factor consisted of three subfactors: (1) key personnel resumes; (2) understanding of the work; and (3) management approach.
• Award would be made to the vendor whose quotation was the most advantageous to the government considering price and two technical factors: ballistic kits and corporate experience.

My conclusion is that the adjective t__echnical is generally sufficient to distinguish price and nonprice factors, but that's about it.  Usage has broadened over the course of time with the growth in service contracting. Today, a technical proposal might include information about anything.

Here is the definition of the adjective technical from Chambers Disctionary:

Quote

technical /tekˈni-k(ə)l/ 

adjective

1. Relating to a practical or mechanical art or applied science
2. Industrial
3. Belonging to, or in the language of, a particular art, department of knowledge or skill, or profession
4. So called in strict legal or technical language
5. Being so by virtue of a strictapplication or interpretation of the rules
6. Caused by a mechanical problemor failure
7. Of or relating to a market whoseprices are influenced by internalfactors (such as supply and demand) rather than externalones (such as general economic conditions) (finance)

I could go on, but I think you get the idea. The phrase technical factors, without explanation, is meaningless for most practical purposes. This is a matter that the members of a true profession would sort out among themselves.

I have been as guilty as everyone else for careless use of the phrase in speaking and writing.

And all the while I wonder what advice @lawyergirl provided to her client?

Vern, one thing in common in the sample GAO decision quotes was that “technical factors” referred to  non-price/cost factors, which were defined in various ways in each solicitation.

I reviewed FAR 15.3, in particular 15.304 and 15.305 in detail to refresh my memory about  how the non-cost or non-price factors were described.

I’ll start with 15.304 because it specifically mentions “technical evaluation” , “technical proposal” and “the proposal factors”  for the technical proposal factors.

It is noted that past performance evaluation is listed separately from the technical evaluation. Both technical and past performance refer to an offeror's ability to perform the contract. Some of the GAO Decisions included.past performance in the “technical factors” applicable to those Decisions.

“15.305 Proposal evaluation.

(a) Proposal evaluation is an assessment of the proposal and the offeror’s ability to perform the prospective contract successfully. An agency shall evaluate competitive proposals and then assess their relative qualities solely on the factors and subfactors specified in the solicitation…

(1)  Cost or price evaluation…

(2)  Past performance evaluation.  (i)  Past performance information is one indicator of an offeror’s ability to perform the contract successfully…

(3)  Technical evaluation. When tradeoffs are performed (see  15.101-1), the source selection records shall include-

(i) An assessment of each offeror’s ability to accomplish the technical requirements; and

(ii) A summary, matrix, or quantitative ranking, along with appropriate supporting narrative, of each technical proposal using the evaluation factors.”

Every evaluation factor generally has “evaluation criteria” in order to accomplish the evaluation and rate the factor. 

In reviewing 15.304 , we find that the various non-price factors are grouped as the “quality of the product or service”, considering one or more “non-cost evaluation factors” such as those listed, including past performance. Then past performance is noted as generally a mandatory evaluation factor.

“15.304 Evaluation factors and significant subfactors.

(a) The award decision is based on evaluation factors and significant subfactors that are tailored to the acquisition…

b) Evaluation factors and significant subfactors must-

(1) Represent the key areas of importance and emphasis to be considered in the source selection decision;

(2) Support meaningful comparison and discrimination between and among competing proposals.

(c) The evaluation factors and significant subfactors that apply to an acquisition and their relative importance, are within the broad discretion of agency acquisition officials, subject to the following requirements:

(1)  (i) Price or cost to the Government shall be evaluated in every source selection [with certain exceptions]

(2) The quality of the product or service shall be addressed in every source selection through consideration of one or more non-cost evaluation factors such as past performance, compliance with solicitation requirements, technical excellence, management capability, personnel qualifications, and prior experience…

(3)  (i)  Past performance, except as set forth in paragraph (c)(3)(iii) of this section, shall be evaluated in all source selections for negotiated competitive acquisitions expected to exceed the simplified acquisition threshold…

(4) For solicitations, that are not set aside for small business concerns, involving consolidation or bundling, that offer a significant opportunity for subcontracting, the contracting officer shall include proposed small business subcontracting participation in the subcontracting plan as an evaluation factor…”

This just reminded me that I may have used the overarching terms “Quality Proposal” and “Price Proposal” Volumes consistent with 15.304.

For design build solicitations, the Quality proposal was further divided into Technical Design (Volume I) and Performance Capability (Volume II - all the other non-price Factors) for the separate evaluation teams.

When we evaluated the quality and/or technical aspects of proposed critical equipment choices or material selections on straight construction solicitations, Volume I would consist of that information.

@joel hoffman

joel hoffman said:

I reviewed FAR 15.3, in particular 15.304 and 15.305 in detail...

I'm surprised that you did not mention the confusion in these two sentences in 15.305(a):

Quote

[1] Proposal evaluation is an assessment of the proposal and the offeror’s ability to perform the prospective contract successfully. [2] An agency shall evaluate competitive proposals and then assess their relative qualities solely on the factors and subfactors specified in the solicitation.

On 8/16/2024 at 7:03 PM, Vern Edwards said:

@joel hoffman

I'm surprised that you did not mention the confusion in these two sentences in 15.305(a):

Are you suggesting that the second sentence might be ambiguous?

On 8/16/2024 at 7:03 PM, Vern Edwards said:

2] An agency shall evaluate competitive proposals and then assess their relative qualities solely on the factors and subfactors specified in the solicitation.

Does “assess their relative qualities” refer to the quality of an individual proposal relative to the specified, individual factor/subfactor criteria and applicable rating scale?

Or does it mean assessing (comparing)  the relative qualities between competitive proposals solely on the specified factors and subfactors?

I think here that it is referring to the evaluation of each individual proposal. The trade-off analysis is discussed separately but in very sparse detail. 

Maybe not. That detail wasn’t what I was looking for in my post though. I was focused on “technical”, as in “technical factors”, “technical evaluation” and “technical [evaluation] “criteria”.

The FAR 15.3 usage of the word “technical” isn’t consistent other than distinguishing between non-price and price factors.

On 8/16/2024 at 8:44 AM, Vern Edwards said:

I could go on, but I think you get the idea. The phrase technical factors, without explanation, is meaningless for most practical purposes.

One must define what the “technical factors” are in each solicitation.

EDIT:

That was done in each of the GAO decisions that Vern referenced.

And that should be evident by a reading of FAR 15.3 (15.304 and 15.305), for instance.

We don’t know here what, if any, “technical” (non-price) factors would be necessary using a simplified acquisition approach under 13.5**. That’s why I didn’t define “technical criteria” (should have said “technical factors” instead or better yet, “non-price factors”, though).

** Don asked @lawyergirl earlier IF a reasonable price from any responsible offerer, based solely on the responsibility criteria under 9.104-1, would be an acceptable approach to the agency.

On 8/17/2024 at 9:38 AM, joel hoffman said:

Are you suggesting that the second sentence might be ambiguous?

Ambiguous? No. Contradictory.

15.305(a):

Quote

[1] Proposal evaluation is an assessment of the proposal and the offeror’s ability to perform the prospective contract successfully. [2] An agency shall evaluate competitive proposals and then assess their relative qualities solely on the factors and subfactors specified in the solicitation.

First sentience: "Evaluation IS an assessment..." (evaluation and assessment are the same process)

Second sentence: "... evaluate AND THEN assess.." (evaluation and assessment are separate processes)

I think the contradiction was introduced by the FAR Part 15 Rewrite of 1997. Haven't checked.

When you get a chance, look up dictionary definitions of evaluate and assess.

This kind of thing is why the FAR does not work as a textbook or a procedural prescription. In any case, no one pays attention. No wonder that newbies get confused.

Vern Edwards said:

Ambiguous? No. Contradictory.

15.305(a):

First sentience: "Evaluation IS an assessment..." (evaluation and assessment are the same process)

Second sentence: "... evaluate AND THEN assess.." (evaluation and assessment are separate processes)

I think the contradiction was introduced by the FAR Part 15 Rewrite of 1997. Haven't checked.

When you get a chance, look up dictionary definitions of evaluate and assess.

This kind of thing is why the FAR does not work as a textbook or a procedural prescription. In any case, no one pays attention. No wonder that newbies get confused.

I agree with you, Vern. Yes evaluate and assess The second sentence, as written doesn’t make sense - unless the “and then assess” refers to a comparison between proposals.

But 1) the comparisons between proposals are discussed separately - after the evaluation,  in the trade-off process and

2. if they meant “compare”, they should have said “compare”.

So, what does evaluate “and then [evaluate]” mean? It doesn’t mean anything!! 

They also used the term “technical” in various ways.

In 15.304 (c)(2) it lists “technical excellence”  as one example of a non-cost factor for evaluating quality of the product or service.

15.305 (a) is Technical evaluation.

”When tradeoffs are performed (see  15.101-1), the source selection records shall include-

(i) An assessment of each offeror’s ability to accomplish the technical requirements; and

(ii) A summary, matrix, or quantitative ranking, along with appropriate supporting narrative, of each technical proposal using the evaluation factors.”

In one case it is an example of a quality factor. Next, the technical evaluation encompasses a technical proposal and evaluation factors to evaluate the offeror’s ability to accomplish the technical requirements…