Evaluation Factors

Courier services? Simplified acquisition procedures? Your scheme is too complicated. You'll get wrapped around the axle on Quality of Product/Service.

The only evaluation factor you need is price. Award to the low, responsive, responsible quoter. If you expect to have a large number of courier assignments, set a special responsibility standard for capacity.

I seriously doubt your submission requirements are consistent with customary commercial practice. Have you done any market research to determine how courier services are customarily bought and sold? Do other buyers in this market require the submission of "QCP/Contract manager's resume/complete package submitted/technical approach to performance" from potential sellers?

“Technical and past performance, when combined, are approximately equal to cost or price”?? 

This doesn’t make sense to me. 

Price is most important here and the technical must at least meet some minimum level.

Let me add that you have confused your process.  You state "SAP" but then in your 212-1 provision state LPTA and reference FAR Part 15.   SAP is contained in FAR Part 13, FAR Part 15 is Negotiated Procurement.

C Culham said:

Let me add that you have confused your process.  You state "SAP" but then in your 212-1 provision state LPTA and reference FAR Part 15.   SAP is contained in FAR Part 13, FAR Part 15 is Negotiated Procurement.

That's a great catch by Carl - if you are protested, you might be held to the more strict standards of FAR Part 15 instead of FAR Part 13.  I won't rehash the issue here, but see Vern's second post on the following thread:

Constricting Officer said:

The Government will award a contract resulting from this solicitation to the responsible offeror whose offer conforming to the solicitation will be most advantageous to the Government, price and other factors considered.

I agree with the others. Why state LPTA when you already said you're gonna pick the most advantageous offer? FAR 12.602(c) let's you select the most advantageous one and document your rationale. You're backing yourself into a corner here, and you're also in FAR Part 15 territory (you even referenced it).

I disagree with the others though on the technical piece. I think it's critical to have a good contract manager on a contract since they are your main POC for the contract. But I think looking at their resume isn't really going to tell you anything that past performance won't tell you. I've been burned before by looking at price alone, so I always want to look at some sort of technical data or past performance. But realistically, would you trade off for something you saw in a resume? I personally wouldn't. I would trade off for superior technical approaches or past performance though.

Constricting Officer said:

Technical and past performance, when combined, are approximately equal to cost or price.

This doesn't make sense, since you didn't list past performance as an evaluation factor.

I disagree with Mr Hoffman who said price is the most important factor -- this is dependent on previous contracts, how critical your service is, and market research and a variety of other factors. Just be sure to let them know, if price truly is the most important factor, state it that way. You could put a statement that says they're approximately equal, but as offers for Quality of Product/Service become similar, price becomes more important. I often do that to allow offerors to be innovative, but at the end of the day, if they all do the same thing, I'm going with the lowest price. If one does something that's superior to another, I determine if that approach is worth more money or not.

joel hoffman said:

Price is most important here and the technical must at least meet some minimum level.

Also, I wouldn't state some sort of minimum level. FAR 12.602(b) states "For many commercial items, the criteria need not be more detailed than technical (capability of the item offered to meet the agency need), price and past performance. Technical capability may be evaluated by how well the proposed products meet the Government requirement instead of predetermined subfactors."

So evaluate how well their technical approach/quality/etc meets your requirement. Don't state something weird like "If you reach "x" threshold you'll be better than others." Let the offerors give you their best deal. At award you'll document something along the lines of "Offeror A's offer best meets the Governments requirements because A, B and C, and their prices are fair and reasonable based upon competition. They are determined to have submitted the most advantageous offer to the Government."

The Original Poster (OP) described a scenario where award would be made to the lowest price that meets whatever technical criteria they consider to be acceptable (a “go”). That means “Lowest Priced Technically Acceptable” (LPTA).  The OP invoked Part 15 in the description. Here, it was stated that the tech criteria are rated either go or no go. There is no means to pay more to award to a higher qualified firm if a lesser but still qualified firm offers a lower price. To do so would involve some form of a trade-off, which wasn’t described here. 

This means that price is the  most important factor between offers or proposals which meet the criteria to be rated as a “go”.  You should not describe it as a weighted comparison or say that “price is more important”. That is already a given when the basis of award is “LPTA”.

That's a good point. I have no idea why I didn't put 2 and 2 together. I lost track of that critical piece of information-- FAR Parts 12/13 invokes a lot of personal preferences of mine so I tend to ramble and put my own spin on things and ignored that. Thanks for setting me straight!

ContractingCowboi said:

That's a good point. I have no idea why I didn't put 2 and 2 together. I lost track of that critical piece of information-- FAR Parts 12/13 invokes a lot of personal preferences of mine so I tend to ramble and put my own spin on things and ignored that. Thanks for setting me straight!

You are welcome. 😊

ContractingCowboi said:

I disagree with the others though on the technical piece. I think it's critical to have a good contract manager on a contract since they are your main POC for the contract. But I think looking at their resume isn't really going to tell you anything that past performance won't tell you. I've been burned before by looking at price alone, so I always want to look at some sort of technical data or past performance. But realistically, would you trade off for something you saw in a resume? I personally wouldn't. I would trade off for superior technical approaches or past performance though.

That's typical government bureaucracy thinking. Technical criteria my butt. I run a business and depend on Federal Express to deliver critical packages large and small all over the world. If they fail, I'm in serious trouble. They don't provide me with a "contract manager." I have no idea who their managers are and don't care. I have no idea what their "technical approach" is and don't care. As for their past performance, it's obvious by their success.

If the service is commercial and a company has been in that business for some time, and a reasonable investigation into their responsibility shows that they are capable and provide good service, that's all I need to know. Choose on price and responsibility. Criminy! You're not buying a bleeping Mars mission.

Government contracting personnel lack the simplicity gene.

But the thing is you're not going to know who is going to quote. Some up and coming guy might want to compete, and you've got to make sure they understand what they are doing. You could deem them not responsible, but the SBA could issue a COC and might be backed into a situation where you're forced into a bad contract.

I've had situations overseas where I considered price alone, and big companies like Lockheed and Booz Allen didn't know they didn't fall under the SOFA. Thank God we checked their technical approach, and this was a rather simple service.

A 3-5 page blurb of how the contractor intends to meet our needs isn't overly burdensome, as long as you keep it simple.

ContractingCowboi said:

A 3-5 page blurb of how the contractor intends to meet our needs isn't overly burdensome, as long as you keep it simple.

The problem with that approach is that you likely end up in what Vern's coined an "essay contest" because that "3-5 page blurb" probably contains zero promises.  Useful evaluation factors are those that either evaluate the promises of an offeror or their capabilities.  A "3-5 page blurb" of what an offeror could do is not a promise and does not demonstrate their capabilities (it only demonstrates what they think they are capable of...but most likely it merely parrots the SOW/PWS).

ContractingCowboi said:

But the thing is you're not going to know who is going to quote. Some up and coming guy might want to compete, and you've got to make sure they understand what they are doing. You could deem them not responsible, but the SBA could issue a COC and might be backed into a situation where you're forced into a bad contract.

But it's a commercial service. (Right?) If they are in the business and have been in the business for a while it is likely that they understand what they are doing. Establish a well-documented special responsibility standard (FAR 9.104-2) (GAO uses the term "definitive responsibility criterion") requiring specific experience, assets, and capacity.

What you want to do is conduct an essay contest. What would that prove? You wouldn't even know who wrote it.

Maybe you should tell us more about what you mean by "courier services."

The original poster for this thread was “Constricting Officer”. That scenario is what I was referring to in my comments. We are now apparently discussing another scenario with  respondent, “Contracting “Cowboi” . I didn’t notice this yesterday.

It's the same scenario as in the OP.

Vern Edwards said:

But it's a commercial service. (Right?) If they are in the business and have been in the business for a while it is likely that they understand what they are doing. Establish a well-documented special responsibility standard (FAR 9.104-2) (GAO uses the term "definitive responsibility criterion") requiring specific experience, assets, and capacity.

What you want to do is conduct an essay contest. What would that prove? You wouldn't even know who wrote it.

Maybe you should tell us more about what you mean by "courier services."

I want to know their approach and how they intend to meet the Government's requirement. For most simple services, I'd agree with you -- a plumber is a plumber and should know general plumbing techniques. Same could go for courier services. What you're saying makes sense. "Transport medical tests to a testing facility." Pretty straightforward. 

But there's some situations where you award a contract for a Pharmacist, which is a commercial service. Odds are, you're not going to award the contract to an individual, but to a company. I want to know how they retain personnel, or how fast they'll refill the position in the event of staff loss, because that tells me that there likely won't be a break in service, or if there is, it'll be minimal. You can tell me that in 1-2 pages.

I feel your approach works, and I feel that in LPTA it would work 9 times out of 10, but I think looking at technical information tells you "how well" the contractor can perform. Keep in mind, I'm not thinking LPTA in these scenarios, I'm thinking of simplified tradeoffs.

I often argue that if you're doing LPTA in simplified acquisitions, you might as well do sealed bidding.

ContractingCowboi said:

But there's some situations where you award a contract for a Pharmacist, which is a commercial service. Odds are, you're not going to award the contract to an individual, but to a company. I want to know how they retain personnel, or how fast they'll refill the position in the event of staff loss, because that tells me that there likely won't be a break in service, or if there is, it'll be minimal. You can tell me that in 1-2 pages.

Emphasis added.

What do you know about retaining personnel? What do you know about refilling positions? Have you ever done those things for a private firm, for a pharmaceutical services contractor, and for a living? If not, how will you judge what you read? Do you think you can really judge a one or two page description of those activities when you don't know anything about them? And if its the kind of thing that anybody can judge, even thought they've never done it, then maybe its the kind of thing that a good writer could describe for someone who might turn out to be not very good at it. Do you think a techncal description describes a good approach if it sounds good to you?

That's what cracks me up about the whole technical proposal thing: people who've never done something judging people who actually do it on the basis of something written by who knows who? And if it does not read well, might that be because people who do something for a living don't spend time writing about how to do it? What kind of account would you get from the typical framing carpenter about house framing? He or she does not spend their time writing about framing. Hell, they don't spend their time reading about framing. They spend their time framing. And a person who could write a good account of framing probably does not spend a lot of time framing.

The "technical" proposal approach to evaluating companies is one of the most absurd methods of choosing a contractor that has ever been devised.

Vern Edwards said:

What do you know about retaining personnel? What do you know about refilling positions? Have you ever done those things for a private firm, for a pharmaceutical services contractor, and for a living?

I know I'm Air Force and enlisted, and whoever is doing the opposite of them is probably doing it right.

In all seriousness, I know enough to be able to spot whether or not a company can or cannot do it, or if their plan is better. For example, I can tell that "We have a database of individuals fully qualified for this position in the event of staff loss. Once an employee leaves, we will either utilize that database, or relocate another already employed individual to the performance location, and can fill the position within 15 days" is a better plan than "Once an employee leaves, we'll immediately begin recruitment efforts."

That's why I like to use the phrase "Technical and Price are approximately equal. If technical approaches become similar, the importance of price increases." A lot of times I'll see exactly that; their approaches are similar. I don't mind if it's well-written or not, but I often find very important information in offers. An offeror will say something along the lines of, "If we lose revenue, we reserve the right to cancel the contract" on a firm fixed price contract. Or they'll take exception to some term in the contract, sometimes not on purpose, they didn't know what they were getting into.

I get what you're saying about house framing, and for me, I'd never personally make that judgement call. Would I rely on Civil Engineering for their technical expertise? Yes. 

Vern Edwards said:

That's what cracks me up about the whole technical proposal thing: people who've never done something judging people who actually do it on the basis of something written by who knows who?

Fair point. But if I'm going to sign my name to something, I want to make sure the contractor knows what they're doing. Because once they are awarded a contract, in my opinion, they are a reflection of me and my team.

I can ensure good performance with past performance pretty easily, but I feel that gives newer contractors a disadvantage. 

I'm curious to know what you think would be better data to look to determine a contractor could perform rather than a technical narrative?

No intent to hijack this thread or speak for Vern but.....

Specific to the idea of an acquisition of a commercial item, a pharmacist, how about your market research as THE data.  After all why does one pick CVS over Rite-Aid or Walgreens.   They sure don't ask for a one or two page document.

Remember we are talking about SAP and you have lots of latitude to make a decision even when it's only pricing you have received.

I'm not usually concerned about the individual. A pharmacist is a pharmacist. I'm typically more concerned with the company managing him. Losing a body in a position can shut down a whole clinic. I can ding them on CPARS all I need to, and maybe hit them with liquidated damages, but I'd rather have a smooth running clinic.

A pharmacist is a bad example in that case, but a pain management doctor is usually one-deep. Losing him would shut down the whole pain management clinic.

Also, no worries about hijacking the thread. I love this type of discussion. I've got 6 years experience, and in contracting terms, still a baby. I enjoy the different perspectives. And, without trying to sound like a brown noser, some of Vern's past discussions on this very topic have shaped the way I've done contracting. Not only him, but a lot of folks in this community. Which is why I keep asking questions. So the more perspectives, the better.

ContractingCowboi said:

"We have a database of individuals fully qualified for this position in the event of staff loss. Once an employee leaves, we will either utilize that database, or relocate another already employed individual to the performance location, and can fill the position within 15 days" is a better plan than "Once an employee leaves, we'll immediately begin recruitment efforts."

Is it? 

They could be equivalent, in the sense that the second company just didn't give as many details.   But they MIGHT be doing the same thing, the descriptions aren't contradictory.   One certainly provides more confidence; I get that.  

From the government's perspective, they ARE ultimately the same, in that neither provides a guarantee.   Now, if the first one promised they WILL fill the position within 15 days, and that becomes a part of the contract...that's a different offer.   Right? 

Don't get me wrong, I'm all for consideration of the company as a hedge against risk.   I'm just cautioning that even a pig can be described with flowery, detailed language that instills confidence.

ContractingCowboi said:

Fair point. But if I'm going to sign my name to something, I want to make sure the contractor knows what they're doing. Because once they are awarded a contract, in my opinion, they are a reflection of me and my team.

Well you're not convinced by Vern's framer example, so let's try this:  There is an entire business segment dedicated to writing proposals for companies seeking Government contracts (Google "Government Contract Proposal Writing Services").  The information you're "evaluating" in the technical narratives may not even be from that company and yet you're relying on it to assess whether the contractor knows what they're doing...

ContractingCowboi said:

I'm curious to know what you think would be better data to look to determine a contractor could perform rather than a technical narrative?

You should re-read FAR 9.104-1, there is a wealth of criteria there to consider when it comes to responsibility that a Contracting Officer can consider in order to avoid being bamboozled without needing a technical narrative:

Quote

To be determined responsible, a prospective contractor must --

(a) Have adequate financial resources to perform the contract, or the ability to obtain them (see 9.104-3(a));

(b) Be able to comply with the required or proposed delivery or performance schedule, taking into consideration all existing commercial and governmental business commitments;

(c) Have a satisfactory performance record (see 9.104-3(b) and Subpart 42.15). A prospective contractor shall not be determined responsible or nonresponsible solely on the basis of a lack of relevant performance history, except as provided in 9.104-2;

(d) Have a satisfactory record of integrity and business ethics (for example, see Subpart 42.15);

(e) Have the necessary organization, experience, accounting and operational controls, and technical skills, or the ability to obtain them (including, as appropriate, such elements as production control procedures, property control systems, quality assurance measures, and safety programs applicable to materials to be produced or services to be performed by the prospective contractor and subcontractors). (See 9.104-3 (a).)

(f) Have the necessary production, construction, and technical equipment and facilities, or the ability to obtain them (see 9.104-3(a)); and

(g) Be otherwise qualified and eligible to receive an award under applicable laws and regulations (see also inverted domestic corporation prohibition at 9.108).

Keep SAP Simple.

I love the idea of keeping SAP simple, but I keep getting the impression everyone thinks that simple means lowest-priced responsible offeror. Which is a fair argument. But in my example above with Lockheed Martin and Booz Allen, they hit all of those responsibility targets, yet still failed to meet a critical aspect of the contract. Awarding to them at their price without SOFA status would have resulted in cost overruns, and, most likely performance issues.

You could use "Assumptions made" as an evaluation factor, I guess?

Matthew Fleharty said:

Well you're not convinced by Vern's framer example, so let's try this:  There is an entire business segment dedicated to writing proposals for companies seeking Government contracts (Google "Government Contract Proposal Writing Services").  The information you're "evaluating" in the technical narratives may not even be from that company and yet you're relying on it to assess whether the contractor knows what they're doing...

This is true. So, what if you included in the solicitation that all terms offered in the quote/proposal shall be binding and incorporated into the PWS. Any terms such as "We will do X, Y, and Z" should then be binding, no? So while they may have a flashy proposal-writing team, the flashy terms they propose should then be binding.

jayandstacey said:

From the government's perspective, they ARE ultimately the same, in that neither provides a guarantee.   Now, if the first one promised they WILL fill the position within 15 days, and that becomes a part of the contract...that's a different offer.   Right?

It takes careful reading. I have seen quotes/offers that state "We will recruit with the goal of refilling the position within 30 days." That's not a promise at all, and I don't give them extra consideration. I have given consideration to companies that have stated "We will refill the position within 15 days."

ContractingCowboi said:

This is true. So, what if you included in the solicitation that all terms offered in the quote/proposal shall be binding and incorporated into the PWS. Any terms such as "We will do X, Y, and Z" should then be binding, no? So while they may have a flashy proposal-writing team, the flashy terms they propose should then be binding.

Vern made a comment on a different thread last week that I thought all contracting professionals should read and think about:

"You don't get "guarantees" with contracts.  You only get promises and there is no guarantee that you can enforce them, not even in court."

One of the biggest problems with an acquisition system that takes to long is that it robs the Government of the ultimate incentive for good performance: future work.  If we had an acquisition system that was fast, it would be easier for the Government to cut loose a poor performing contractor and move on to someone else - that would create a persistent incentive to perform well.  Simplified acquisitions could have that, but everyone over-complicates them by executing FAR Part 15 Source Selections instead of using FAR 13.5 or (pertinent to this discussion) assuming that we need to evaluate technical proposals in order to make sure we get a competent contractor (which lengthens the acquisition planning and evaluation processes).  It's unnecessary and it's created a vicious cycle that we can't break out of (because most of our training is OJT most people just do what was done last time and find reasons to explain why after the fact).

Here's a challenge for you - try what Vern and I and others are advocating for just once and see what happens - I think you'll be pleasantly surprised.

And check your PMs.

ContractingCowboi said:

This is true. So, what if you included in the solicitation that all terms offered in the quote/proposal shall be binding and incorporated into the PWS. Any terms such as "We will do X, Y, and Z" should then be binding, no? So while they may have a flashy proposal-writing team, the flashy terms they propose should then be binding.

We're trained to be flashy.   And non-binding.  

Matthew Fleharty said:

Vern made a comment on a different thread last week that I thought all contracting professionals should read and think about:

"You don't get "guarantees" with contracts.  You only get promises and there is no guarantee that you can enforce them, not even in court."

One of the biggest problems with an acquisition system that takes to long is that it robs the Government of the ultimate incentive for good performance: future work.  If we had an acquisition system that was fast, it would be easier for the Government to cut loose a poor performing contractor and move on to someone else - that would create a persistent incentive to perform well.  Simplified acquisitions could have that, but everyone over-complicates them by executing FAR Part 15 Source Selections instead of using FAR 13.5 or (pertinent to this discussion) assuming that we need to evaluate technical proposals in order to make sure we get a competent contractor (which lengthens the acquisition planning and evaluation processes).  It's unnecessary and it's created a vicious cycle that we can't break out of (because most of our training is OJT most people just do what was done last time and find reasons to explain why after the fact).

Here's a challenge for you - try what Vern and I and others are advocating for just once and see what happens - I think you'll be pleasantly surprised.

And check your PMs.

I responded. Thanks!

One of the things I pride myself on is conducting acquisitions quickly. The hard part is being able to conduct an acquisition quickly, but still make good business decisions. I sent you a link to our combo that we've created to streamline our acquisitions, and we've gotten to where we're able to do SAP procurements up to $7M within a month or two, the outliers being legal and clearances. So a maximum of 3-4 months.

But I think where I struggle, and still disagree, is the lack of a technical proposal/quote. I do feel it's needed, but I also understand when/why one wouldn't be needed. I'd like to share some of my solicitation documents that I've posted, but don't want to dox myself. So if anyone wants to see, PM me, and I'll take critiques.

ContractingCowboi said:

But I think where I struggle, and still disagree, is the lack of a technical proposal/quote. I

Then get one. There's nothing more to say.

Matthew Fleharty said:

There is an entire business segment dedicated to writing proposals for companies seeking Government contracts (Google "Government Contract Proposal Writing Services")

If I hire a good enough writer, I'm fairly confident I could win a contract for courier services.

"At DonCo, we have a database of individuals fully qualified couriers in the event of staff loss. Once an employee leaves, we will either utilize that database, or relocate another already employed individual to the performance location, and can fill the position within 15 days."

Don Mansfield said:

If I hire a good enough writer, I'm fairly confident I could win a contract for courier services.

"At DonCo, we have a database of individuals fully qualified couriers in the event of staff loss. Once an employee leaves, we will either utilize that database, or relocate another already employed individual to the performance location, and can fill the position within 15 days."

And if you fail to do so, negative CPARS rating it is. At least it's a plan as opposed to the other offeror.

Vern Edwards said:

Then get one. There's nothing more to say.

/thread. Wish you had more to add, there.

ContractingCowboi said:

And if you fail to do so, negative CPARS rating it is. At least it's a plan as opposed to the other offeror.

Really? What if I don't follow my "staffing plan", but I perform the contract successfully (everything delivered on time, nothing lost, etc.)? How would you justify a negative CPARS?

Let's try not to outsmart our common sense. If you perform successfully, why would I care whether or not you followed your staffing plan? Performance-based acquisitions are mandated by the FAR. I only want to look at outcomes, not the process. In a tech eval/solicitation eval, I'm only evaluating "how well" your process could produce the expected outcome.

You're speaking in technicalities.

If you're successful, I don't care what you do. But if you're failing, rely on what you said you'd do, or get a negative past performance rating. I share in that blame a little bit, because I thought it would work-- but I still pay you for a service, and I want that service. I'd justify a negative CPARS rating because you said you'd refill the position within X amount of days, and you didn't. I pay you for a service, if you don't deliver, I'll find a company who will.

The technical approach doesn't tell me whether or not you "will" do something. It lets me know the likelihood of whether or not you know how to respond to a certain situation and/or whether or not you will/will not react appropriately. 

You can't predict the future, ever. But you can gauge, based off of what offerors tell you, whether or not their plan could resolve future issues.

I want a successful contract. I'm paying for a service with taxpayer funds. I want the outcome that's expressed in the PWS/schedule.

How would you justify a negative CPARS rating if you didn't evaluate technical in the first place?

"There was no plan so, uh, even though they failed to perform, we can't hold them to anything?"

Take services out of the equation. Let's say we're looking for a brand name "or equal" product. Are we just going to rely on the contractor to provide an equal product? or should we look at technical data to ensure it does? "I need a fire suppressant system that is compatible with "x brand" suppressant system." 

I'm not a technically savvy person, but I'd love for the contractor to tell me how and why their system is compatible with the one I have in place.

Sell me your product. Tell me why it's the best solution for my problem. 

You make judgement calls in the commercial world. You may not be a technically savvy person on cell phones. I sure as heck can't tell you everything one brand vs another could do for me. I've definitely never built a cell phone, if we're holding ourselves to Vern's standards. But an iPhone works best for you vs a Galaxy for maybe a variety of reasons. So while you may not be a person who has never built a cell phone, ever, you can look at the technical data, or the phone plans, or the contracts that work best for your situation. So give me a brochure that tells me everything your product can do, and I'll decide whether or not it meets my needs.

There's a reason why there is competition in the commercial world. Not everyone goes with iPhone. Not everyone goes with Android. But somehow, they were sold on a particular product.

Going services-- not everyone goes T-Mobile. Not everyone goes AT&T. Not everyone goes Verizon. They pick the one that works best for them based off the technical data presented to them. It may not be a narrative, but it's technical data where they make a subjective decision on what works best for them.

If you decided to pick your cell phone provider without knowing what you're getting in return besides price, I'd say you're an idiot for signing a contract with them.

ContractingCowboi, 

So, what you're saying is that it really doesn't matter if I follow my staffing plan, what matters is that I comply with the contract terms, correct?

If you're going to respond, please don't ramble.

Don Mansfield said:

ContractingCowboi, 

So, what you're saying is that it really doesn't matter if I follow my staffing plan, what matters is that I comply with the contract terms, correct?

If you're going to respond, please don't ramble.

I'm saying your staffing plan gives me a decent understanding on whether you're capable of complying with the terms of the contract.

If you're going to respond, please don't twist my words.

ContractingCowboi said:

I'm saying your staffing plan gives me a decent understanding on whether you're capable of complying with the terms of the contract.

There are two problems with that assertion.

The first problem is that you presume that you know enough about the planned undertaking to recognize a good plan when you see one. But do you? How much do you know about staffing and the challenges that will be faced by the people who will have to do it? Have you ever done it yourself? How many times have you done it? Under what range of circumstances? What do you know about the labor market in the industry? What do you know about labor law in the state in which the contract will be  executed? What do you know about human resource practice? Would you know if the planner had proposed a course of actions that would be against the law in the state in which the plan was to be executed?

The second problem is that the ability to plan an undertaking is not the same as the ability to carry it out. Planning is one thing. Execution is something else. Here's a link to a Wharton School management essay entitled, "Three Reasons Why Good Strategies Fail: Execution, Execution..."

http://knowledge.wharton.upenn.edu/article/three-reasons-why-good-strategies-fail-execution-execution/

Some History 

The technical proposal approach to government contractor selection was developed in the late 1940s and in the 1950s and early 1960s for space and weapon system development acquisitions. The technical proposals described engineering and design concepts. The people who evaluated the proposals were scientists and experienced engineers (later, the government would have to resort to inexperienced engineers).

The technical proposal approach was adopted by agencies for more routine acquisitions after 1984, when passage of the Competition in Contracting Act (CICA) authorized agencies to conduct all kinds of acquisitions by means of competitive negotiation instead of sealed bidding. Soon we saw agencies asking prospective janitorial services contractors to write "technical" (or "management") proposals describing their "approach" to providing the service and then evaluating their "understanding of the work" and the "soundness" of their approach and awarding on the basis of a tradeoff analyses instead of the low responsive bid from a responsible bidder. By the way, one of the main reasons this method was adopted for such acquisitions is that the GAO had ruled in 1983 that use of a tradeoff process to choose the contractor allows an agency get around the SBA's certificate of competency program. See Anderson Engineering and Testing Company, B-208632, 83-1 CPD ¶ 99. Suddenly, "best value" was all the rage for even simple buys.

But how to do it? The new "best value" advocates knew only sealed bidding. They didn't know how to use the new method. Well, they turned to the experts---the space and weapon system people---and they came to believe that "technical" and "management" proposals were now essential for buying stuff that had long been bought successfully through sealed bidding. (Before CICA, the lowest-price technically-acceptable method of negotiated procurement had been used primarily to buy hardware, and technical acceptability meant conformity to specifications. Technical proposals were hardware specifications. LPTA competitive negotiations were simply streamlined approaches to what we now call "two-step sealed bidding, formerly called two-step formal advertising---one step instead of two.)

I defy anyone to produce empirical proof that adoption of the tradeoff approach for simple, nontechnical acquisitions has produced better contracting outcomes overall than sealed bidding. (And I don't give a damn for anyone's anecdotes.)

Conclusion

So now people like you, Cowboy, have learned to ask for "technical" or "management" proposals in simple procurements as the basis for determining offeror capability, when there is only one real way to know whether a company can do something or not---find out whether they've done it before and done it successfully.

The result of this kind of thing? Contractor selection takes more time and more human resources than necessary and competing for contracts costs more than it has to. And yet people ask how they can speed up the source selection process!!! Want to see idiots at work? Read this protest decision: Finlen Complex, B-288280, 2001 CPS ¶ 167, which was for meals, lodging, and transportation. Read it, and know that I claim that I could have done that source selection in a week with the help just a single NCO and no technical or management proposal whatsoever.

Want to see an outcome from some people who knew what they were doing? Read CORVAC, Inc., B-244766, 91-2 CPD ¶ 454. Note what they were buying, and note that the only "technical" evaluation factor was past performance.

Learn something: compare and contrast Finlen and CORVAC.

Yeah, go ahead and ask for your one or two page staffing plan. One or two pages won't cost much or take too much time. But ideas about source selection like the ones in your head are costing us all a fortune.

Question: What are you people going to do when cranky old guys like me, who lived through and know all this history, are gone---gone, or just no longer want to waste time trying to teach you what we learned the hard way?

I am honestly concerned about this thread and even confused about it.  I have tried writing a post a bunch of times and have finally settled on this.  Hopefully better late than never!

For the OP – You have not identified the value of nor type of courier services needed which would make a difference for a detailed response.  

The  quick thoughts on your approach are that you have confused process for SAP (FAR Part 13) and Negotiated Procurement (FAR Part 15) and have not considered guiding principles of FAR Part 12.  If you truly want to use FAR Part 15 (LPTA) then redo your 52.212-2 to better align with FAR Part 15, FAR 15.204-5, 15.304 especially. Also if you do so make sure you clarify what you really want to do with past performance as its use as an evaluation factor is not clear.  Also you need to consider how you might tailor FAR 52.212-1 if you head the FAR Part 15 way.  You did not provide an example of what your instructions (52.212.-1) are going to be but they must be aligned with how you plan to evaluate or in other words tell offerors what you need to evaluate the offerors.   As you consider how you might tailor 52.212-1 please read  FAR 12.205(a) and 12.302 and really think about what you want from the offerors based on customary market practices used to select a courier.  

If you want to use FAR Part 13 SAP then read and re-read the linked discussion that Matthew provided.    And again if you decide to really make it simple then do not forget FAR 12.205(a) and 12.302 and think about what you will need from the offerors to keep it simple and again tailor 52.212-1 to fit what you need to evaluate offerors simply based on market practice.

 For Contracting Cowboi – You really are all over the place.  If you would have stopped at your first response you would be close on concerns about the OPs post but as noted to the OP please consider 12.205(a) and the scenario offered by the OP only.  The rest of the stuff you have brought in to the discussion is good for conversation but might have been better presented in a different thread.

Vern Edwards said:

So now people like you, Cowboy, have learned to ask for "technical" or "management" proposals in simple procurements as the basis for determining offeror capability, when there is only one real way to know whether a company can do something or not---find out whether they've done it before and done it successfully.

I wholeheartedly agree with this. That's the best way.

C Culham said:

For Contracting Cowboi – You really are all over the place.

Yeah, you're right.

On ‎4‎/‎20‎/‎2018 at 9:33 AM, Vern Edwards said:

But it's a commercial service. (Right?) If they are in the business and have been in the business for a while it is likely that they understand what they are doing. Establish a well-documented special responsibility standard (FAR 9.104-2) (GAO uses the term "definitive responsibility criterion") requiring specific experience, assets, and capacity.

What you want to do is conduct an essay contest. What would that prove? You wouldn't even know who wrote it.

Maybe you should tell us more about what you mean by "courier services."

Emphasis Added:

These courier services involve the transportation of lab specimens (any test you can have done in a lab), from 6 locations, to a central location for testing. The requirements calls for pick-up, twice daily from each location, within a 30 minutes window.

Concerning the acquisition of commercial supplies/services, it is not overly complex. The reason I have set it up this way is to keep a protest down. This is protested almost each time it is solicited. I will go through the forum and try to answer/reply to post related.

On ‎4‎/‎19‎/‎2018 at 2:21 PM, Don Mansfield said:

I seriously doubt your submission requirements are consistent with customary commercial practice. Have you done any market research to determine how courier services are customarily bought and sold? Do other buyers in this market require the submission of "QCP/Contract manager's resume/complete package submitted/technical approach to performance" from potential sellers?

Don,

The governmental side of the house does this consistently (past procurements I have examined). Most commercial entities have their own employees and vehicles for the service or they have the ability to complete the test on-site at each location.

On ‎4‎/‎19‎/‎2018 at 2:27 PM, joel hoffman said:

“Technical and past performance, when combined, are approximately equal to cost or price”?? 

This doesn’t make sense to me. 

Price is most important here and the technical must at least meet some minimum level.

Joel,

The provision found at "52.212-2 Evaluation - Commercial Items" send the CO to FAR 15.304(e)(1) through (3) to fill this line in the provision.

Only three statements are allowed and are as follows:

"(e) The solicitation shall also state, at a minimum, whether all evaluation factors other than cost or price, when combined, are --

           (1) Significantly more important than cost or price;            (Trade-Off Process)

           (2) Approximately equal to cost or price; or                        (LPTA)

           (3) Significantly less important than cost or price (10 U.S.C. 2305(a)(3)(A)(iii) and 41 U.S.C. 3306(c)(1)(C))."       (Low Price)

I have always consider the use of these three best for the underlined area. Am I incorrect to assume this usage?

You’re getting too hung up on the VA’s electronic contract management system, the instructions it gives at each provision/clause fill in, limitations associated with that system, and what the FAR tells you do.

When I worked at the VA we contracted for courier services as you described and we went low price, made a responsibility determination and called it good.

In my experience at the VA, I agree with your statement that these almost always get protested. Search GAO’s website for crosstown courier service and you’ll see they protest often and rarely successful, and they’re not the only ones protesting these. So, your effort to keep a protest down would be best by simplifying how you’ll evaluate quotes.

 13.106(a)(2) - That's it. Do what Vern says in his first post and be done, make your life easier. 

Quote

(2) When soliciting quotations or offers, the contracting officer shall notify potential quoters or offerors of the basis on which award will be made (price alone or price and other factors, e.g., past performance and quality). Contracting officers are encouraged to use best value. Solicitations are not required to state the relative importance assigned to each evaluation factor and subfactor, nor are they required to include subfactors.

I once awarded a courier services contract for DOD. It was a sole source award under the 8(a) Program, made to the protégé of the incumbent 8(a) firm under the Mentor-Protégé Program. We evaluated only on price.

The first year or two of performance were rough. The customer was not happy. One of the problems was that the Government insufficiently described the requirement. The other problem was that the contractor did not allocate sufficient resources to meet the requirement, and was reluctant to allocate more.

If I were to solicit this requirement on a competitive basis, my evaluation factors would be Price, Corporate Experience, and Past Performance. I would at least want to know that the contractor has successfully performed similar work of similar size and complexity before.

Constricting Officer said:

I have always consider the use of these three best for the underlined area. Am I incorrect to assume this usage?

Yes. Those are bad assumptions. When you're evaluating based on LPTA or price alone, that does not in itself infer anything regarding the value you place on price or technical factors. For instance, if I am using LPTA, I can set the bar for acceptability very high (indicating those factors are very important) or very low (indicating they are not).

Provision 52.212-2 can be modified to suit your needs (read the prescription); do not abide by it rigidly, forcing yourself to fit a square peg into a round hole. If you're using LPTA or just evaluating on price, state that. Write it in a way that makes sense. Delete the "relative importance" language.

On ‎4‎/‎20‎/‎2018 at 8:27 PM, ContractingCowboi said:

How would you justify a negative CPARS rating if you didn't evaluate technical in the first place?

It seems to me that you're overlooking a major component of performance-based contracting: performance standards. Per FAR 37.601(b)(2) you need: "Measurable performance standards . . . and the method of assessing contractor performance against performance standards."

In contracting for courier services, I don't need to know the details of how the work will be done. But I will absolutely have objective, enforceable metrics in the PWS pertaining to areas such as timeliness and accuracy (you really only need a handful of metrics for this type of work). Now, whether the COR enforces them is another matter.

How will you measure technical excellence. 

I believe you need a standard (between 12 and 14 inches) and a measure (inches), and a way to implement that measure (with a ruler).

For courier services you might can create a standard (likely time based).  Be careful that it is appropriate though, and think of how it can be gamed.

And think of how you will measure results against the standard.

Constricting Officer said:

Don,

The governmental side of the house does this consistently (past procurements I have examined). Most commercial entities have their own employees and vehicles for the service or they have the ability to complete the test on-site at each location.

The fact that the Government consistently requires submission of plans, etc., does not mean that doing so is consistent with customary commercial practice. What you want to find out during market research are the customary practices under which commercial sales of services are made. Do sellers customarily have to provide "QCP/Contract manager's resume/complete package submitted/technical approach to performance" to potential buyers in order to make a sale? Or is this just something that Government buyers ask for?

As a Government buyer, you have baggage. When you are buying a commercial item, you need to minimize your baggage as much as possible.

On ‎4‎/‎21‎/‎2018 at 1:22 AM, ContractingCowboi said:

I'm saying your staffing plan gives me a decent understanding on whether you're capable of complying with the terms of the contract.

You're not being responsive to my question. Let's try this:

True or False: For purposes of evaluating my performance under the contract, it really doesn't matter if I follow my staffing plan--what matters is that I comply with the contract terms.

lotus said:

How will you measure technical excellence. 

I believe you need a standard (between 12 and 14 inches) and a measure (inches), and a way to implement that measure (with a ruler).

For courier services you might can create a standard (likely time based).  Be careful that it is appropriate though, and think of how it can be gamed.

And think of how you will measure results against the standard.

It's simple. The problem is that requiring offices like to use too many metrics and metrics that are unmeasurable in practice. 

Go back to basics. What factors are most important to achieving ideal performance? What amount of variance can you tolerate? What's a plausible way to measure success (hint: probably not by using percentages)?

Off the top of my head, for courier services, I want pick-up to be regular and timely, and I want delivery to be prompt and accurate. Those might be my primary metric areas. 

So for regular and timely pick-up, you might state something like: "No more than one missed pick-up window per week." This is just an example. Ultimately, it depends on the circumstances of the specific situation. But the metrics do not need to be numerous and measurement does not need to be complex for most service contracts.

Don Mansfield said:

True or False: For purposes of evaluating my performance under the contract, it really doesn't matter if I follow my staffing plan--what matters is that I comply with the contract terms.

True.

Follow up question, though. Why can't a staffing plan, which could be part of a quality control plan, be incorporated into the contract?

My argument is that the technical information lets me know who is likely to both understand and perform the contract. 

Maybe I'm misinterpreting what folks in here are saying, but why wouldn't something in a quote/proposal be binding? Barring some wordsmithing (i.e, "we'll try to refill a position" or "our goal is to fill a position") why wouldn't those terms be binding?

ContractingCowboi said:

Follow up question, though. Why can't a staffing plan, which could be part of a quality control plan, be incorporated into the contract?

It could, but that would be the antithesis of performance-based acquisition, which is defined as:

Quote

“Performance-based acquisition (PBA)” means an acquisition structured around the results to be achieved as opposed to the manner by which the work is to be performed.

If I'm concerned about outcomes as opposed to manner of performance, what would be the point of making the staffing plan binding?

Also, it may not be consistent with customary commercial practice to make a "plan" binding.

ContractingCowboi said:

Why can't a staffing plan, which could be part of a quality control plan, be incorporated into the contract?

Wait a minute. Conceptually, a plan is a guide to future action. It is a statement of intentions. But departures from plans are expected. How does that fit in with the concept of contract as promise. Intentions are not promises.

Constricting Officer said:

Joel,

The provision found at "52.212-2 Evaluation - Commercial Items" send the CO to FAR 15.304(e)(1) through (3) to fill this line in the provision.

Only three statements are allowed and are as follows:

"(e) The solicitation shall also state, at a minimum, whether all evaluation factors other than cost or price, when combined, are --

           (1) Significantly more important than cost or price;            (Trade-Off Process)

           (2) Approximately equal to cost or price; or                        (LPTA)

           (3) Significantly less important than cost or price (10 U.S.C. 2305(a)(3)(A)(iii) and 41 U.S.C. 3306(c)(1)(C))."       (Low Price)

I have always consider the use of these three best for the underlined area. Am I incorrect to assume this usage?

Yes, you are incorrect.  

See 15.101-1 Trade-off process, paragraph (b) and subparagraphs thereunder. This process uses both technical and price comparisons between proposals to select the awardee(s). This is where the relative importance of price and quality are applicable. Thus, all three of the statements that you referenced apply to the trade-off process. The winner of the trade-off decision could fit under any of three scenarios you described. 

Quote

15.101-1   Tradeoff process.

(a) A tradeoff process is appropriate when it may be in the best interest of the Government to consider award to other than the lowest priced offeror or other than the highest technically rated offeror.

(b) When using a tradeoff process, the following apply:

(1) All evaluation factors and significant subfactors that will affect contract award and their relative importance shall be clearly stated in the solicitation; and

(2) The solicitation shall state whether all evaluation factors other than cost or price, when combined, are significantly more important than, approximately equal to, or significantly less important than cost or price.

(c) This process permits tradeoffs among cost or price and non-cost factors and allows the Government to accept other than the lowest priced proposal. The perceived benefits of the higher priced proposal shall merit the additional cost, and the rationale for tradeoffs must be documented in the file in accordance with 15.406.

See 15.101-2 Lowest price technically acceptable source selection process , paragraph (b) and subparagraphs thereunder.  This process doesn’t allow trade offs or comparisons of the non-cost or non-price factors between proposers. Award is simply made upon the basis of the lowest evaluated price of proposals meeting or exceeding the acceptability standards for non-cost factors.

You aren’t allowed to pick a higher priced proposal that meets or exceeds the acceptability standards or that exceeds the capability or quality of the LPTA proposal. 

Quote

15.101-2   Lowest price technically acceptable source selection process.

(a) The lowest price technically acceptable source selection process is appropriate when best value is expected to result from selection of the technically acceptable proposal with the lowest evaluated price.

(b) When using the lowest price technically acceptable process, the following apply:

(1) The evaluation factors and significant subfactors that establish the requirements of acceptability shall be set forth in the solicitation. Solicitations shall specify that award will be made on the basis of the lowest evaluated price of proposals meeting or exceeding the acceptability standards for non-cost factors. If the contracting officer documents the file pursuant to 15.304(c)(3)(iii), past performance need not be an evaluation factor in lowest price technically acceptable source selections. If the contracting officer elects to consider past performance as an evaluation factor, it shall be evaluated in accordance with 15.305. However, the comparative assessment in 15.305(a)(2)(i) does not apply. If the contracting officer determines that a small business' past performance is not acceptable, the matter shall be referred to the Small Business Administration for a Certificate of Competency determination, in accordance with the procedures contained in subpart 19.6 and 15 U.S.C. 637(b)(7)).

(2) Tradeoffs are not permitted.

(3) Proposals are evaluated for acceptability but not ranked using the non-cost/price factors.

(4) Exchanges may occur (see 15.306).

Constricting Officer, I hope that this clarifies to you that you dont use weighted comparisons between price and non-price for LPTA.

Constricting Officer said:

Joel,

The provision found at "52.212-2 Evaluation - Commercial Items" send the CO to FAR 15.304(e)(1) through (3) to fill this line in the provision.

Only three statements are allowed and are as follows:

"(e) The solicitation shall also state, at a minimum, whether all evaluation factors other than cost or price, when combined, are --

           (1) Significantly more important than cost or price;            (Trade-Off Process)

           (2) Approximately equal to cost or price; or                        (LPTA)

           (3) Significantly less important than cost or price (10 U.S.C. 2305(a)(3)(A)(iii) and 41 U.S.C. 3306(c)(1)(C))."       (Low Price)

I have always consider the use of these three best for the underlined area. Am I incorrect to assume this usage?

The Provision at 52.212-2 is not mandatory.  The KO “may use” it,  where appropriate.  See also the prescription for the Provision at 12.301 (c)  (“May” insert...).  It’s not necessary or appropriate for LPTA.

Once again -  FAR 15.101-2 tells you what to tell proposers to explain the basis of award when using the LPTA procedures.

[Edit:

I looked up the FAR version as of Jan 1, 1996, which was prior to the Sep 1997 - rewrite of Part 15 to incorporate FAC 97-02. The term “Best Value” wasn’t in FAR then but that term was being used outside of FAR to describe the trade-off process. Reference: Definition of "Best Value" in The Government Contracts Reference Book, 2nd Ed., by Nash, Schooner, and Obrien-Debakey, GW University, 1998)

The concept of awarding to the lowest priced proposal that meets the government’s minimum requirements  stated in the solicitation was only mentioned twice in subpart 15.6, “Source Selection” in the FAR as of 1 January 1996. 

FAR 15.602  (a)(1) stated that source selection may be based upon...

Quote

“...cost or price competition between proposals that meet the Government’s minimum requirements stated in the solicitation”.

15.605 Evaluation factors and sub factors under 15.605(d)(2) , in part, said that

Quote

“The solicitation may state that award will be made to the offeror that meets the solicitations minimum criteria  for acceptable award at the lowest cost or price.”

The applicable wording concerning describing the relative importance of price and non-price factors that is now in 15.304 was similar in the old version.

The “LPTA” process was named, described and became part of the “best value continuum” in the Sep 1997 rewrite. Reference, Definition of "Lowest Priced Technically Acceptable" in The Government Contracts Reference Book, 2nd Ed. The distinction is described in 15.101. 

However,  the wording concerning describing the relative importance between price and non-price wasn’t also clarified in 15.304.  That language really refers to the three choices for stating the relative importance between price/cost and quality for the trade-off process. 

The current version of Part 15 at 15.101-2 specifically describes the LPTA as a procedure under the Best Value Continuum, and instructs the KO on what to include in the solicitation.  

 At any rate, Part 12 (prescribed in 12.301(c)) does not mandate use of the Provision at 52.212-2 nor does it limit you to the three choices, that only discuss relative importance for trade-off, in my opinion. ]

Don Mansfield said:

The fact that the Government consistently requires submission of plans, etc., does not mean that doing so is consistent with customary commercial practice. What you want to find out during market research are the customary practices under which commercial sales of services are made. Do sellers customarily have to provide "QCP/Contract manager's resume/complete package submitted/technical approach to performance" to potential buyers in order to make a sale? Or is this just something that Government buyers ask for?

As a Government buyer, you have baggage. When you are buying a commercial item, you need to minimize your baggage as much as possible.

Emphasis Added

Don,

Makes perfect sense. Thank you

joel hoffman said:

At any rate, Part 12 (prescribed in 12.301(c)) does not mandate use of the Provision at 52.212-2 nor does it limit you to the three choices, that only discuss relative importance for trade-off, in my opinion. ]

Joel,

Thank you for your in-depth response and it has given me a deeper understanding of that language. Being part of an entity that does little in the "Trade-Off" area of acquisition, I have neglected looking into that deeper.

Question, the provision is not required (nor do I like how it is written), but where would you suggest placing evaluation language/criteria?

Vern Edwards said:

Wait a minute. Conceptually, a plan is a guide to future action. It is a statement of intentions. But departures from plans are expected. How does that fit in with the concept of contract as promise. Intentions are not promises.

I think you've finally gotten through to me... I was going to say "what about quality assurance plans?" But then I saw FAR 12.208 -- Contracts for commercial items shall rely on contractors’ existing quality assurance systems as a substitute for Government inspection and testing before tender for acceptance unless customary market practices for the commercial item being acquired include in-process inspection.

The more I think of it, you're right -- price/past performance will tell you a lot more than some plan or approach.

ContractingCowboi said:

I think you've finally gotten through to me... I was going to say "what about quality assurance plans?" But then I saw FAR 12.208 -- Contracts for commercial items shall rely on contractors’ existing quality assurance systems as a substitute for Government inspection and testing before tender for acceptance unless customary market practices for the commercial item being acquired include in-process inspection.

The more I think of it, you're right -- price/past performance will tell you a lot more than some plan or approach.

Success!  Now spread the goodness to your colleagues 

ContractingCowboi said:

I think you've finally gotten through to me... I was going to say "what about quality assurance plans?" But then I saw FAR 12.208 -- Contracts for commercial items shall rely on contractors’ existing quality assurance systems as a substitute for Government inspection and testing before tender for acceptance unless customary market practices for the commercial item being acquired include in-process inspection.

The more I think of it, you're right -- price/past performance will tell you a lot more than some plan or approach.

Don't think in terms of regulations! Think in terms of concepts and principles. FAR 12.208 has nothing to do with what I've been trying to tell you, and there is no logical connection between what it says and the conclusion that you reached. Close your damned FAR and THINK!

Vern Edwards said:

Don't think in terms of regulations! Think in terms of concepts and principles. FAR 12.208 has nothing to do with what I've been trying to tell you, and there is no logical connection between what it says and the conclusion that you reached. Close your damned FAR and THINK!

That's extremely hard to do when you've got clearances, legal reviews, etc., where you've got to justify every decision you make. There's too many hands on too many acquisitions and in order to do things in a simplified manner, you've got to justify it somehow.

I mean, look how much push back I've given, and I'm a front-line CO. Briefing these thought processes to a 30-year branch chief, flight chief, or commander would be nearly a guaranteed stonewall. If I have a regulation to back me, they don't have much of a leg to stand on.

I used FAR 12.208 as an example because QCP's are another thing we typically evaluate. But it just enforces the argument that there's not much of a need to evaluate them.

Stop and consider, does it matter to you if a person does this?  If somebody has 8 eyed 16 armed robot and can turn out the results, is that okay with you?

Do you really need a QCP/Contract manager's resume/.../technical approach?  

Remember, Input -> Process -> Output.  Specify the output that you want and the input that you will give to the contractor. He will figure out a process, and you pay him for the output.

ContractingCowboi said:

in order to do things in a simplified manner, you've got to justify it somehow.

On 4/24/2018 at 8:24 AM, Constricting Officer said:

Joel,

Thank you for your in-depth response and it has given me a deeper understanding of that language. Being part of an entity that does little in the "Trade-Off" area of acquisition, I have neglected looking into that deeper.

Question, the provision is not required (nor do I like how it is written), but where would you suggest placing evaluation language/criteria?

Just edit the provision.

jayandstacey said:

This is sad to read.   It's the stuff of $600 hammers.

I'm thinking more along the lines of the $7M simplified acquisition.

joel hoffman said:

Just edit the provision.

Constricting - Hopefully Joel does not mind the clarification but I would offer that you do not edit the provision.   If in fact you want to use your own language supported by evaluation criteria you would create your own provision.  I have provided a sample of the title and starting language on the way I would go about it below.  I say this noting the following language of the FAR.

12.602(a) "When evaluation factors are used, the contracting officer may insert a provision substantially the same as the provision at 52.212-2, Evaluation-Commercial Items, in solicitations for commercial items..."

My example -

Evaluation of Offers - Commercial Items - In lien of FAR 52.212-2 the following provision is inserted.  (and then go from here.)

On 4/24/2018 at 6:15 PM, Vern Edwards said:

Don't think in terms of regulations! Think in terms of concepts and principles. FAR 12.208 has nothing to do with what I've been trying to tell you, and there is no logical connection between what it says and the conclusion that you reached. Close your damned FAR and THINK!

I'm reading Steven Kelman's (former OFPP Administrator) book "Unleashing Change" about his procurement reforms in the mid 1990s and this comment reminded me of some of his remarks in the second chapter (emphasis added):

Quote

...the most important problem with rules was not what they contained but what they left out.  Nothing in the rules prohibited people from looking for better ways to do business in areas the rules did not address.  Most rules involved processes people needed to follow...No rule admonished "Get a good deal for the government," if for no other reason than that such a "rule" would provide insufficient guidance and hence would not fill the role rules are supposed to fill.  Furthermore, when rules regulate most parts of a person's job, it is natural to conclude that the job consists only in following the rules.  So a rule-based system sent a signal to focus on process rather than results.  Put another way, a rule-based system, by delineating minimally acceptable behavior, easily slides into delineation of maximum performance...An organization cannot put blinders on its personnel and then expect peripheral vision.

C Culham said:

Constricting - Hopefully Joel does not mind the clarification but I would offer that you do not edit the provision.   If in fact you want to use your own language supported by evaluation criteria you would create your own provision.  I have provided a sample of the title and starting language on the way I would go about it below.  I say this noting the following language of the FAR.

12.602(a) "When evaluation factors are used, the contracting officer may insert a provision substantially the same as the provision at 52.212-2, Evaluation-Commercial Items, in solicitations for commercial items..."

My example -

Evaluation of Offers - Commercial Items - In lien of FAR 52.212-2 the following provision is inserted.  (and then go from here.)

Carl, I don’t disagree with you. I don’t know the limitations or restrictions of whatever  electronic contracting system that the original poster is using.  However it appeared from the quoted  language in the original post that the provision at 52.212-2 is editable.

Obviously, a  contracting specialist will have to  include a description of the basis of award and any evaluation criteria somewhere in every solicitation.