How to respond to Lead Aggregator (GovTribe, BidClerk, CMD) RFI's?
Started by prodigalko · Aug 21, 2015 · 6 replies
- pOriginal post
prodigalko
Aug 21, 2015 · 10y ago
Since returning to the government a few months ago I have received a lot of emails from companies in the United States and abroad requesting information about solicitations on FBO that my office or I posted. The information requested has ranged from closing date on one end of the spectrum, to site visit attendance lists, and up to the proposals of the three lowest bidders on the opposite end of the spectrum.
I have typically referred them back to information in the solicitation when possible. When they requested information that is not required to be released I will respond to that effect with a reference. When contacted regarding proposals I referenced 41 USC 2102 prior to award, and 41 USC 4702 after award (Including specific cites to FAR 3.104).
My question is do contracting officer's have any responsibility under the FAR or elsewhere to assist individuals not bidding on contracts, but selling information about active solicitations? Under FAR 1.6 the responsibilities only lists contractors as a party that CO’s are responsible to (in addition to other responsibilities).
I have also looked to the definition of "interested party" in FAR 33.101.
From this research I do not think it is necessary to assist these companies because they are not actual or prospective contractors whose direct economic interest would be affected by the award of a contract or by the failure to award a contract.
Additionally, how could this be stopped? I could not find any prohibition on selling access to solicitations posted on FBO. As long as these companies do not violate any part of the FAR (specifically 3 and 9), and their customers do not, then there is no issue. (This is not including obvious violations such as subcontractors paying the prime for access through a third party, or the lead aggregator bidding on the work and then reverse auctioning the work off)
If the subject contract were a cost contract and the cost of the access were charged to the government I think that there may be an issue, but that is all that I could come up with. As far as how to avoid this through Instructions to Offerors or a legal remedy I am at a loss.
Thank you in advance for your help.
- a
apsofacto
Aug 21, 2015 · 10y ago
If what they offer is superior (for offerors) to FBO and they get you bidders/proposers, why not respond?
- G
Guest Vern Edwards
Aug 22, 2015 · 10y ago
My question is do contracting officer's have any responsibility under the FAR or elsewhere to assist individuals not bidding on contracts, but selling information about active solicitations?
Not really. They can ask you or anybody else for information and they can ask for information through FOIA, but you don't have to create or organize info for them. Refer them to the solicitation, FBO, and your website, if you have one. That's all you have to do. See FAR 5.002 and Subpart 5.1. Those are your obligations.
Additionally, how could this be stopped?
Why do you want to stop it? Because it annoys you? They have a right to engage in that type of activity for money.
- p
prodigalko
Aug 23, 2015 · 10y ago
I am not aware of the quality of what they offer.
The reason I would like to stop it is due to the possibility of fraud and lowering quality of contractors or work received by the government while also raising prices. My main experience with this business model is while I was deployed to Afghanistan. This was a constant issue there because lead aggregator companies would sell acess to our solicitations. They would also provide any assistance needed to vendors, for a fee. Frequently this included expert proposal assistance, usually in the form of professional engineers, electricians, or others that would review and revise proposals for compliance with solicitation requirements. Unfortunately, this expertise was only utilized for the proposal phase and was not in country or on staff to assist with project management. As a result we received proposals that were technically acceptable and awarded contracts only to find out that contractors were not capable during performance. Other activities included a range of fraudulent practices (bribes, subcontractor kickbacks, subcontracting 100% of the work).
Generally I am not in favor of mulitple tiers/steps between the owner (government) and general contractor performing the work. In my experience this can cause performance and administration issues due to: contractual risk transfer, lack of privity, and confusion regarding responsibility.
Perhaps my experience is not relevant in this situation and these companies add value.
- a
apsofacto
Aug 24, 2015 · 10y ago
I view this as a transaction cost reducing phenomenon- I don't think they add value in performing the work either. I think it will exist as long there are many FBO-like websites for various states, cities, etc.
The upselling is natural, and does not seem predatory. Maybe lame but not sleazy.
The fraud and ill-performing contractors are a problem, but I don't think you can get away from not responding to those companies. As Vern states, you don't have to give them 5-star customer service, but a basic response is in order . . .
- j
ji20874
Aug 24, 2015 · 10y ago
I think they do add value, from the perspective of their customers. A small machine shop, for example, might see it as a good business decision to pay a service to automatically send it daily extracts from FedBizOpps on certain NAICS codes, rather than having the company president do all the searching him- or herself.
But they don't get privileged access. Like Vern said above, refer them to the solicitation, the FedBizOpps website, and your own agency website. That's an easy response. They can read the answer themselves.
- K
KeithB18
Sep 16, 2015 · 10y ago
I have had small business call me and say that "Gov-win (I think that is the name) says this that and the other." Often the information is months old and not particularly accurate. My advice to them, if they ask, is to stop paying for access to bad information.
That said, when the aggregator companies call me, I'm truthful, but curt. Most often they want to know the day a particular solicitation is being released. Sometimes they want to know things that are already publicly available. In those cases, I direct them to the resources that can answer their question. Honestly, not enough of these jokers know the FDPS exists. It can answer a ton of their questions regarding the who, what when how and how much. Heck, I use it all the time to see what other agencies are paying for similar supplies/services.