How do incorporated FAR provisions affect Part 13 - potential protest

In a simplified acquisition, FAR part 13 only requires the agency to furnish a supplier “a brief explanation of the basis for the contract award decision,” not an actual “debriefing.”  The provision at FAR 52.212-1 does not promise a debriefing.  If you have a basis for a post-award protest, it is due 10 days after notice of award (not after the alleged debriefing which really was not a required debriefing).

It appears that you already objected to the contracting officer's e-mail (after quotes were received) to all responders to submit their experience information on a particular form.  You filed an agency protest, and lost that protest.  You did not follow-up with a GAO protest.  This matter is probably untimely for protest now (being more than ten days since you learned).  Even if not untimely, you would have to show that you were prejudiced by the contracting officer's action, but it seems as though everyone was treated equally.

So, what is left?  You and the winner rated equally on experience and its price was lower.

In Turner, B-400421, the RFQ did not include the provision at FAR 52.212-1, so I don't think it makes the point you think it does.  If the winner submitted its experience form by the new time set by the e-mail to all responders, it wasn't late (in essence, the contracting officer's e-mail was a solicitation amendment).  Besides, you don't know whether the winner submitted up front (like you did) or later (as all respondents were allowed to).  Even if the latter is true, I don't think a protest attempt on your part to disqualify the winner's experience submission will be successful (all responders were treated equally, e-mail was effectively an amendment, and you were not prejudiced).

I'm with ji. There are long-standing precedents allowing retroactive amendments and extensions; agencies are granted a lot of discretion to amend their solicitation.

Even if your beliefs were true, GAO would likely permit retroactive amendment and extension to accommodate multiple otherwise-late quoters/offerors to correct their error (omission) and/or increase competition.

Hi Ji20874,

In Turner it states "FAR provisions in Parts 14 and 15, governing the late delivery of bids and proposals, generally do not apply to the late delivery of a quotation. However, where as here the RFQ contains a late submission provision that quotations must be received by a stated deadline to be considered, quotations cannot be considered if received after the deadline. See Data Integrators, Inc., B-310928, Jan. 31, 2008, 2008 CPD para. 27 at 2."

In my instance, such provisions were made by the incorporation of the listed 52s in my original post... at least that is my argument.  It seems supported by Turner wherein the inclusion of such provision changes the rules of the RFQ as it did in Turner where the protestor was considered late in their quotation.  As you stated, late submissions are typically allowed but Turner points out that the rules are modified by provision in that case.

This is why I have the question if the incorporation of 52.212-1, without modification, qualifies as a provision that changes the rules of an RFQ as it did in Turner, for instance.

As I drill down through the citations in Turner, etc... I get to M.Braun, Inc., B‑298935 wherein it states:

Quote

Generally, late quotations may be considered up to the time of issuance of
the order, because an RFQ, unlike a request for proposals (or an
invitation for bids), does not seek offers that can be accepted by the
government to form a contract. Rather, the government's purchase order
represents an offer that the vendor may accept through performance or by a
formal acceptance document. DataVault Corp., B-248664, Sept. 10, 1992,
92-2 CPD para. 166 at 2. Moreover, we have found that language in an RFQ
requesting quotations by a certain date does not establish a firm closing
date for receipt of quotations, absent a late submission provision
expressly providing that quotations must be received by that date to be
considered. Instruments & Controls Serv. Co., B-222122, June 30, 1986,
86-2 CPD para. 16 at 3. Here, however, the RFQ incorporated the standard
"Instruction to Offerors -- Commercial Items" FAR clause, which expressly
limits the agency's consideration of a late submission. See FAR
sect. 52.212-1(f).

Again, I see a trend of support that incorporation of 52.212-1 becomes a modification to the general rules of an RFQ.... Unless I am misunderstanding what I am seeing.  I am not a lawyer.

PD, I think you are missing the point that ji made and that is the other offeror's quote would not have been late in this situation because the government changed the due date.

Retreadfed said:

PD, I think you are missing the point that ji made and that is the other offeror's quote would not have been late in this situation because the government changed the due date.

The due date was not changed.  All bidders (but only those bidders) who submitted by the due  date, were allowed to send the missing information.  While yes, this would normally be allowable under an RFQ/Simplified Acquisition, it appears that there are many examples of where that rule was changed by language inserted (often inadvertently) by the CO.  I say inadvertently because in some of those cases, the COs thought they were correct in allowing late submissions while the GAO ruled otherwise.

Edit to add: M.Braun, Inc., B‑298935.2, May 21, 2007 seems to rule that the incorporation of 52.212-1 changes the rules of an RFQ and any late submissions are to be considered late.

A search also finds, among others, a more recent decision that seems very clear that incorporating 52.212-1 does change the rules for late submissions, etc, in Peers Health, B-413557.3

The Government considered your experience and the winner's experience as the same.  You haven't disagreed with that finding.

Your price was higher than the winner's price.

Sounds to me like the Government selected the right contractor.

I see no fatal error in the Government's conduct of the acquisition, based only on your explanation of the facts.  

Three of us have explained our opinions based on our own past experiences -- I hope this has been helpful to you.

Have you filed your protest yet?  Please share the outcome when you get it -- this is how we all learn for the future.

ji20874 said:

The Government considered your experience and the winner's experience as the same.  You haven't disagreed with that finding.

Your price was higher than the winner's price.

Sounds to me like the Government selected the right contractor.

I see no fatal error in the Government's conduct of the acquisition, based only on your explanation of the facts.  

Three of us have explained our opinions based on our own past experiences -- I hope this has been helpful to you.

Have you filed your protest yet?  Please share the outcome when you get it -- this is how we all learn for the future.

Maybe I didn't clearly explain the primary point I was trying to make.  Other bidders only submitted their experience after the due date.  This was allowed by the CO who thought it wasn't clear enough in the bid but decided this a couple days after the bids were due.  My point is that the incorporation of 52.212-1 into the RFQ has changed the rules and now anything submitted after the due date cannot be accepted.  As I have been doing more and more research, this seems to be how the GAO sees it too.

This is my position... whether I am right or wrong remains to be seen of course. lol

PD - Your thinking regarding 52.212-1 and "late"  is sound but as noted by others your research now needs to move to other facts.  Such as-

Can the agency amend the RFQ casualy as they did which negates the view of late?

Do you have standing to protest now to GAO based on the timeliness standard for such protests?

These are primary matters now if you are still contemplating a protest to GAO.

And as an aside should you decide to protest I hope you use terms like RFQ, quote, quotes, etc. Exacting terms related to your specific situation will matter.

Experience is a traditional responsibility factor,  right? Why couldn't the government ask for specific responsibility related information after the due date?

See Chags Heath Info. Tech., LLC, B-413104.30 et al., Apr. 11, 2019, where GAO explained that “responsibility and technical acceptability are distinct matters” and that “[r]esponsibility may be satisfied at any time prior to award, as opposed to technical acceptability, which must be satisfied based on a common proposal deadline.”

On 5/26/2019 at 10:38 AM, C Culham said:

PD - Your thinking regarding 52.212-1 and "late"  is sound but as noted by others your research now needs to move to other facts.  Such as-

Can the agency amend the RFQ casualy as they did which negates the view of late?

Do you have standing to protest now to GAO based on the timeliness standard for such protests?

These are primary matters now if you are still contemplating a protest to GAO.

And as an aside should you decide to protest I hope you use terms like RFQ, quote, quotes, etc. Exacting terms related to your specific situation will matter.

I still have a couple days in which to file with the GAO.  Getting a useful debriefing, however, has been difficult and unfulfilled.  Thank you for pointing that out because I do understand how important that is.

As for them amending the RFQ, it was done after the due date and after all relevant offers had been received.  I don't know if that is a worthwhile distinction between late and allowable but I'll put my money on late, with fingers crossed.

Excellent point on keeping the terminology correct.  I will pay close attention to that.

Thank you for the great insights and advice.

On 5/26/2019 at 6:27 PM, Jamaal Valentine said:

Experience is a traditional responsibility factor,  right? Why couldn't the government ask for specific responsibility related information after the due date?

See Chags Heath Info. Tech., LLC, B-413104.30 et al., Apr. 11, 2019, where GAO explained that “responsibility and technical acceptability are distinct matters” and that “[r]esponsibility may be satisfied at any time prior to award, as opposed to technical acceptability, which must be satisfied based on a common proposal deadline.”

I'm not sure if I understand you completely.  I would think that responsibility would deal with one's ability to complete an awarded project or to supply the necessary documentation, etc, to complete the project.

Experience, especially if stated as a factor of award (quotes will be evaluated on price and experience), is a technical factor and I would think it should be required prior to the due date.

I do wonder if forgetting to include experience (or not realizing it should be included), in this case, would cause the entire quote to be rejected if only that portion was late... or if it would simply mean that the late portion (experience) could not be considered in the evaluation.  In this RFQ, near the top it stated that the evaluation factors are in Section M.  In Section M it simply stated: 

(a) 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. The
following factors shall be used to evaluate offers:
(i) Price
(ii) Relative Experience
Technical and past performance, when combined, are approximately equal to cost or price.

But in Section L it stated:

The offeror’s proposal shall include the following elements to be considered for award:
1. Section J – Contractor Cover Sheet.
2. SF 1449 – Filled out by the offeror for:
3. Block 17a
4. Section B – To include the price for all Contract Line Item Numbers (CLINs).

Each of the above uses the word "shall" which in legal terms means that it is required. So I suppose the argument can be made that if Section L requirements were received in time, the quote could be considered without any points for experience if experience wasn't submitted in time.  However, section L does not state that ONLY those items are required and therefore Section L could be viewed as minimum requirements.  Any modification after the due date would still be late under 52.212-1 and might still cause the entire quote to be considered late.

This does lead me to a follow up question... Let's assume for easy math that my bid was 150k and the awardee was 100k.  I have submitted my experience in a timely fashion and the other bidder did not.  Would the "approximately equal" factor for experience be enough to bring me to the award?  This is assuming their bid could be considered without the experience factor.

Ok, here's an update!  The CO did just supply me with the requested info from my debriefing request.

The results are that only one bidder, out of nine total, was lower than me and that lower bidder is not the current awardee.  

I am 21% higher than that low bidder on base bid and 23% higher on the entire bid including all options.

As for the evals on the relevant experience, the only "grades" I see are "very relevant" and "not relevant".  Both I and the lower bidder are listed as "very relevant".  I don't know how that grading scale works from an internal perspective.

I suppose my only question now is whether there is any value in protesting the award since it seems like if I am successful, I will just be handing the award to the one lower bidder that is in compliance.  Unless there is something that might disqualify that lower bidder... but is that a worthwhile gamble?

If you filed a protest, what would be your argument?

ji20874 said:

If you filed a protest, what would be your argument?

I can argue that three of the bids ahead of me in price should not be considered.  I am 99% confident in that argument.

However, I do not have enough info yet to figure out if the single bidder ahead of me in price is legitimate.  What if there is a reason they cannot perform or be entered into a contract with?  Is it worthwhile on that chance to file the protest and put myself in second place ... or maybe first if something works out that way?

Well, based on what I’ve read in this thread, I don’t think it would be worthwhile for you to file a protest.

On 5/23/2019 at 8:30 PM, PD216ohio said:

The other aspect of this matter is the evaluation of the submissions.  They are price and experience with experience being nearly equal to price.  Is there a formula that might make this more clear?  Let's assume that none of the others submitted experience in time but that does not mean their bid is considered non-responsive or late (they just don't have the benefit of experience added into their score for award), how much does experience bear in the overall score aka how much higher can I have bid if I am the only one with experience?

One of the advantages of simplified acquisitions in FAR Part 13 is that the government need not create a formula or state evaluation factors in terms of relative importance. This means the government has greater flexibility and a lesser burden of showing the procurement was reasonable. This means you, the contractor, has a lesser chance of winning a protest. See FAR 13.106-1(a)(2).

Your theory that the government has waded into the pool of more complex contracting via inclusion of certain clauses has merit. From PepeTheFrog's memory, there have been GAO cases where the government uses too many FAR Part 15 terms, concepts, processes, clauses, provisions, etc. while maintaining that the procurement is under FAR Part 13. Sometimes, the GAO recommends that the procurement be treated under the higher standards of FAR Part 15, despite the FAR Part 13 label and intent (favoring substance over form). 

However, as ji20874 and others wisely pointed out, you don't seem to be next-in-line to win this award, even if you can convince the GAO that the government fumbled. 

PepeTheFrog would not spend five or six figures to protest this one, but a curious person might scratch off a simple protest that was filed pro se (without an attorney) at minimal expense. That is your decision. Of course, you should consult an attorney or someone knowledgeable about these issues. 

FAR 13.106-1(a)(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."

PepeTheFrog said:

Your theory that the government has waded into the pool of more complex contracting via inclusion of certain clauses has merit. From PepeTheFrog's memory, there have been GAO cases where the government uses too many FAR Part 15 terms, concepts, processes, clauses, provisions, etc. while maintaining that the procurement is under FAR Part 13. Sometimes, the GAO recommends that the procurement be treated under the higher standards of FAR Part 15, despite the FAR Part 13 label and intent (favoring substance over form).

Finlen Complex, Inc., B-288280, October 10, 2001

DIGEST

1. Notwithstanding statement in solicitation that simplified acquisition procedures were being used and authority at Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) Sec. 12.602(a) not to disclose the relative weight of evaluation factors when using simplified procedures, an agency's failure to disclose the relative weight of evaluation factors was unreasonable because basic fairness dictated disclosure of the relative weights where the agency required offerors to prepare detailed written proposals addressing unique government requirements. 2. Protester's contention that an agency's decision to assign a weight of 5 percent to a solicitation's past performance evaluation factor violates FAR Sec. 12.206 (providing that past performance should be an important element of every evaluation) is denied as the FAR provision is discretionary, not mandatory. 3. Even in a commercial acquisition using simplified procedures, where an agency requests detailed written proposals, a selection decision is improper where it lacks a rationale which sets forth a basis for the tradeoffs made, including an explanation of any perceived benefits associated with additional costs.

https://www.gao.gov/products/407353

Hi Pepe,

I just received some final clarification on the debriefing.  It does appear that the one vendor ahead of me is in full compliance. 

I am also very confident that the 3 others ahead of me would be removed if a protest ensued.

I am sure the COs hate me by now.

If I were to file the protest, I would do so pro se.  Cost would be minimal.  I am just not sure if there is any value in doing so.  The benefit would be that I would be next in line in the event that the remaining bidder could not perform for whatever reason.... but I suspect that chance is minimal.  I don't know who that bidder is so I cannot alert them to their potential good fortune if they were to file.

I would consider your opinion strongly if you thought there were any value in filing.  I have until Thursday.  Otherwise I can let this go and be fifth in line instead.  Again, I am tossed on if there is any perceivable value in filing.  For the record, I have lost a countless number of bids.  I don't have a problem with that.  However, this situation was a clear mess up on the governments part so it took me this far into it.

Also, I feel there is a decent chance I could be awarded compensation for my filing fee and perhaps time spent in filing the protest since it is of clearly meritorious grounds.

napolik,

Do you read the acquisition being discussed in this thread as one “where the agency required offerors to prepare detailed written proposals addressing unique government requirements”?  I don’t.

ji20874 said:

Do you read the acquisition being discussed in this thread as one “where the agency required offerors to prepare detailed written proposals addressing unique government requirements”?  I don’t.

I was responding to the Awesome Amphibian's post:

 4 hours ago, PepeTheFrog said:

Your theory that the government has waded into the pool of more complex contracting via inclusion of certain clauses has merit. From PepeTheFrog's memory, there have been GAO cases where the government uses too many FAR Part 15 terms, concepts, processes, clauses, provisions, etc. while maintaining that the procurement is under FAR Part 13. Sometimes, the GAO recommends that the procurement be treated under the higher standards of FAR Part 15, despite the FAR Part 13 label and intent (favoring substance over form).

napolik,

Thank you.

It’s hard to declare quotes or proposals deficient when the government didn’t even ask for submission of experience until after the cutoff date.  Maybe I missed it in Section L. 

To me nothing in the solicitation was coordinated. 

As for the OP’s chances in a protest, he doesn’t have standing if he would be second in line for award with no evidence that the next in line should be disqualified.

joel hoffman said:

It’s hard to declare quotes or proposals deficient when the government didn’t even ask for submission of experience until after the cutoff date.  Maybe I missed it in Section L. 

To me nothing. In the solicitation was coordinated. 

As for the OP’s chances in a protest, he doesn’t have standing if he would be second in line for award with no evidence that the next in line should be disqualified.

I am an interested party and, not to be silly, there is no guarantee that the one remaining lower bidder would be able to accept or complete the project.  Any number of things could potentially happen between now and 100 days from now.

@PD216ohio You can file the protest and see if your thinking was correct...that's worth a lot, right? You raise several points and can find out if they are with or without merit. Probably the least expensive, reliable government contract training you can find.

Also, if you truly believe the office messed up, isn't there value in accountability?

PD216ohio said:

Experience, especially if stated as a factor of award (quotes will be evaluated on price and experience), is a technical factor ...

What is this assertion based on? Case law? The solicitation language?

GAO has routinely stated that experience is a traditional responsibility factors such as those listed in FAR 9.104-1. When used as an evaluation factor it remains a responsibility-type factor.

Do you know if the experience was a pass/fail or comparative evaluation factor?

Jamaal, the GAO has said that the government could set a requirement for some minimum amount of experience as a technical requirement.  It has also said that the government could use it as a comparative factor. 

Regardless of all that, where did the original solicitation say to submit any experience information? And did anyone raise the issue prior to the original response deadline? It would seem that the government would HAVE TO amend the solicitation,  after receiving quotations without the necessary experience information.

The original solicitation was jacked up.

joel hoffman said:

Jamaal, the GAO has said that the government could set a requirement for some minimum amount of experience as a technical requirement.  It has also said that the government could use it as a comparative factor.

I understand that. Are you saying that when used as a technical requirement, experience is not a responsibility-type factor?

PD216ohio said:

I am an interested party and, not to be silly, there is no guarantee that the one remaining lower bidder would be able to accept or complete the project.  Any number of things could potentially happen between now and 100 days from now.

You’re not an interested party unless you can establish that you are next in line for award or can establish that the next in line for award is deficient. You have no evidence or inkling of whether or not the next lower priced firm meets or doesn’t meet the experience or other criteria.

Jamaal Valentine said:

I understand that. Are you saying that when used as a technical requirement, experience is not a responsibility-type factor?

Jamaal, what is your point or application with respect to this particular acquisition?  It appears that you are saying that the government can consider experience in the responsibility determination, separate from the technical factor, which the OP thinks experience was supposed to be evaluated .

Also - the OP said that the government provided a form to fill out after the due date but didn’t say that anyone was eliminated for lack of experience.

joel hoffman said:

Also - the OP said that the government provided a form to fill out after the due date but didn’t say that anyone was eliminated for lack of experience.

The solicitation originally stated that price and exeperience were the evaluation factors in section M. Section L listed the things that a quote must contain to be evaluated, experience was not included there. 

Now, I suppose a quote could be considered without experience but it wouldn't fare well. 

The CO has stated that it intended to include an experience form but forgot to... So they remedied it by sending out the experience form after the due date (which is prohibited since they included all of 52212-1 in the solicitation). 

The entire situation is a cluster. 

I suppose I could protest and simply ask that the remedy be a resolicitation. Not sure if that's even an option but that might be my better opportunity given the facts thus far.

joel hoffman said:

Jamaal, what is your point or application with respect to this particular acquisition?  It appears that you are saying that the government can consider experience in the responsibility determination, separate from the technical factor, which the OP thinks experience was supposed to be evaluated .

Also - the OP said that the government provided a form to fill out after the due date but didn’t say that anyone was eliminated for lack of experience.

Joel, you didn't answer my question. Are you saying that when used as a technical requirement, experience is not a responsibility-type factor?

My points are exactly as previously written.

Under GAO case law, proposal documents relating to a contractor’s responsibility may be submitted any time prior to award, regardless of contrary statements in the solicitation. GAO confirms that agencies are required to evaluate responsibility documents received after the proposal deadline and before award or earlier down-select evaluation.

I am not sure what your point, if any, is in stating the following:

joel hoffman said:

Jamaal, the GAO has said that the government could set a requirement for some minimum amount of experience as a technical requirement.  It has also said that the government could use it as a comparative factor.

Okay, you restated my previous comments regarding GAO and experience. Now, what is your point? Can you gather how experience was used in this case? Does the OP know?

I don't know...I'm just laying out the rules that may be relevant and possibilities since it's an unclear post in the beginners forum.

joel hoffman said:

Jamaal, the GAO has said that the government could set a requirement for some minimum amount of experience as a technical requirement.  It has also said that the government could use it as a comparative factor.

Quote

Under the SBA’s COC program, authorized pursuant to the Small Business Act, 15 U.S.C. § 637(b)(7), and implementing regulations, 13 C.F.R. § 125.5, see also FAR subpart 19.6, agencies must refer a determination that a small business is not responsible to SBA if the determination would preclude the small business from receiving an award. 15 U.S.C. § 637(b)(7); 13 C.F.R. § 125.5; FAR subpart 19.6. In this regard, the Small Business Act provides that it is the SBA’s duty to certify to government procurement officers with respect to all elements of responsibility (including capability, competency, capacity, credit, integrity, perseverance, and tenacity) of any one or a group of small business concerns to receive and perform a specific government contract. 15 U.S.C. § 637(b)(7)(A). Further, SBA’s regulations specifically require a contracting officer to refer a small business concern to SBA for consideration for a COC when the contracting officer:

Refuses to consider a small business concern for award of a contract or order after evaluating the concern’s offer on a non-comparative basis (e.g., a pass/fail, go/no go, or acceptable/unacceptable) under one or more responsibility type evaluation factors (such as experience of the company or key personnel or past performance) . . . .

Cascadian American Enterprises, B-412208.3; B-412208.4, Feb 5, 2016

https://www.gao.gov/assets/680/675014.pdf

Quote

COs should be aware that FAR 15.101-2 does not state the full rule. As can be seen from the above quotation from Nomura [Nomura Enterprises, Inc., Comp. Gen. Dec. B-277768, 97-2 CPD ¶ 148], the requirement to permit an offeror to obtain a Certificate of Competency from the SBA when there is a go/no-go evaluation applies not only to past performance but to all “traditional responsibility factors.” This means that almost all evaluations of the capability of the offerors are subject to the same rule. This would include experience, the capability of key personnel, the availability of necessary equipment, and financial capability among other factors. If COs want to evaluate such factors without subjecting the procurement to the Certificate of Competency process, the factors should be made comparative evaluation factors.

See Alternative Procurement Strategies: An Obscure Aspect Of The FAR, The Nash & Cibinic Report, May 2001.

Yes, it is a responsibility criteria. Yes, I won’t argue that the government might have to refer elimination of a small business for lack of experience to the SBA. However, I have seen Decisions which upheld the right of the government to require certain minimum amount of experience where that was determined to be a reasonable requirement. 

For instance, we had a small DB business set-aside for an Air Force airfield pavement project (C130 concrete pavement parking ramp). We required the firm that actually was to perform the concrete pavement construction portion of the contract (subcontract) to have recent concrete paving experience for either airfields or street/highway projects, involving paving lanes.

The overall basis of award was LPTA and every factor was go-no go. 

The second lowest proposer was awarded the contract, although the minimum paving experience wasn’t the reason.

The lowest priced team was a clear “front” for the paving subcontractor; the JV agreement was a sham; the project superintendent was going to be “on loan” to the DB prime; the sub had final say over JV decisions; the bid bond was defective, etc. 

They submitted an agency protest but it was denied. They could have protested that we didn’t refer the matter to the SBA but didn’t.

joel hoffman said:

However, I have seen Decisions which upheld the right of the government to require certain minimum amount of experience where that was determined to be a reasonable requirement.

In the decision, the small business was found to be unacceptable, and the basis for the award was LPTA? Please identify the decision.

Will do some searching and when I have some time.

You can check out WIFCON listings under requirements unduly restrictive of competition, many of which involve qualifications and/or specifically experience. Some are small business set-asides. Some are trade-off. It where proposal was unacceptable. Some were LPTA. 

I found these under a Google Search on my iPhone. 

https://www.gao.gov/assets/700/693532.pdf

Small business set-aside: https://www.gao.gov/assets/690/688697.pdf

   https://www.gao.gov/mobile/products/B-408685.18

The above Involves experience in a mentor-protégé arrangement. 

https://www.gao.gov/assets/690/681976.pdf. Involves a small business ID/IQ pool. 

/legacy/a/7492d03e4246b3dc.pdf Small business

Wife told me to “Get off WIFCON”...

joel hoffman said:

I found these under a Google Search on my iPhone

The last 2 URLs yield nothing. The first 2 yield copies of protests against solicitations, not against source selections.

My point is that one can use "responsibility" eval factors for source selection and avoid the requirement for a COC if one is using a tradeoff vice an LPTA.

napolik said:

My point is that one can use "responsibility" eval factors for source selection and avoid the requirement for a COC if one is using a tradeoff vice an LPTA.

That's right; provided, the responsibility-type factors are evaluated comparatively rather than pass-fail.

But I wonder how we got here in this thread -- we're far away from the original posting.

Wandering minds wander. Particularly as one ages.

PD216ohio said:

The CO has stated that it intended to include an experience form but forgot to... So they remedied it by sending out the experience form after the due date (which is prohibited since they included all of 52212-1 in the solicitation).

What in 52.212-1 prohibits this?  Why do you think that 15.206 is not applicable here?

Retreadfed said:

What in 52.212-1 prohibits this?  Why do you think that 15.206 is not applicable here?

(f) prohibits late submissions.

Why do I think 15.206 does not apply?  Because the solicitation already stated that evaluations are based on price and experience.  After quotes were received, the CO made a decision to allow people to add their experience to their quote because they didn't feel that was clear somehow.  This isn't the same as saying, "oh, we think we should have asked for experience" after quotes were received and the due date had passed.

@PD216ohio wasn't there a de facto solicitation amendment to require submission of a specific experience form? The experience form wasn't required initially, correct?

napolik said:

The last 2 URLs yield nothing. The first 2 yield copies of protests against solicitations, not against source selections.

My point is that one can use "responsibility" eval factors for source selection and avoid the requirement for a COC if one is using a tradeoff vice an LPTA.

Well, what happens if the firm doesn't meet the minimum requirement in a tradeoff, i.e., "has no recent or relevant experience" What's the difference between that and "no recent or relevant experience" in an LPTA?  

Assume,in both cases that the experience requirement is reasonable and justifiable.  

As an example, the firm that is performing the airfield paving portion of  contract for concrete aircraft parking ramp must have recent experience on concrete paving project of some magnitude and scale, involving airfield or highway paving lanes with a concrete paving train.

I think that you're alluding to situation where one firm has a higher rating than another firm but isn't considered unacceptable under an experience factor. I agree that the COC referral wouldn’t be applicable in that situation. 

However, in either an LPTA or tradeoff, the factor would likely have criteria for minimum acceptability. If the proposer/quoter doesn’t meet the minimum, the result would be unacceptable. I’m guessing that the SBA  wouldn’t override the agency where the requirement is valid and reasonable. 

Regardless, the topic has no relevance to the instant situation. The office that put together the solicitation didn't coordinate sections L and M. It didn't even ask for information concerning experience, which was necessary and supposedly important in the basis of award. Thus the extent of experience would be compared in the trade off. Treating experience only as an element of responsibility but not as an important discriminator would be inconsistent with the stated basis of award, which involved determining,  then comparing the extent and quality of experience, not simply meeting a minimum responsibility requirement. I don’t remember seeing minimum acceptability criteria mentioned here, either. 

Here, the government apparently discovered its goof up after receiving quotes. It had to correct the error.  

Funny that industry didn't notice the error/inconsistency in section L and inquire - indicates that the firms competing don't know much about the process either. Appears that this was probably a small dollar, simplified, commercial acquisition.

I wonder if those who  prepared the solicitation were simply cutting and pasting from multiple other previous examples without coordinating L and M.

joel hoffman said:

Well, what happens if the firm doesn't meet the minimum requirement in a tradeoff, i.e., "has no recent or relevant experience" What's the difference between that and "no recent or relevant experience" in an LPTA?

So far, it appears that an unacceptable proposal of a small biz determined to be unacceptable based upon an LPTA evaluation of a responsibility related criterion (e.g. experience) must be referred to the SBA for a COC. However, it does not need to be referred if the small biz failed to provide documentation required by the solicitation:

Quote

As for the protester’s contention that the agency was required to refer Sea Box’s unacceptable proposal to the SBA, we disagree. Where an agency finds the proposal of a small business to be unacceptable under a responsibility-related factor, that is, a factor pertaining to its ability to perform, such as whether it has adequate corporate experience or production equipment and facilities, the determination is essentially one of nonresponsibility, meaning that referral to the SBA, which has the ultimate authority to determine the responsibility of small business concerns, is required. Tyonek Worldwide Servs., Inc.; DigiFlight, Inc., B-409326 et al., Mar. 11, 2014, 2014 CPD ¶ 97 at 12. Where an agency rejects a proposal as technically unacceptable on the basis of factors not related to responsibility, however, referral to the SBA is not required. Id. Likewise, where an agency rejects a proposal as technically unacceptable on the basis of a factor that is arguably responsibility related, but the finding of unacceptability is based on the offeror’s failure to submit specific documentation required by the solicitation, referral to the SBA is not required. AttainX, Inc.; FreeAlliance.com, LLC., B-413104.5, B-413104.6, Nov. 10, 2016, 2016 CPD ¶ 330 at 5.

Sea Box, Inc., B-414742, Sept 6, 2017

/legacy/a/2d2d8220ef2a02c3.pdf

joel hoffman said:

Well, what happens if the firm doesn't meet the minimum requirement in a tradeoff, i.e., "has no recent or relevant experience" What's the difference between that and "no recent or relevant experience" in an LPTA?

Also, take a look at this blog:

http://www.berenzweiglaw.com/sba-helps-on-responsibility-type-evaluations/

I suggest reading this decision referenced in the blog: Competitive Range Sols., LLC, B-413104.10, Apr. 18, 2017.

https://www.gao.gov/products/B-413104.10#mt=e-report

Quote

The solicitation advised offerors that the government would evaluate proposals in two phases.  Id. at M-1.  During phase 1, the government would evaluate the proposals based on four “Go/No-Go” requirements.[2]  Id. at M-3, M-4.  As relevant here, factor 2, management approach, subfactor 1, domain-specific capability in a health-related mission, was one of the go/no-go requirements to be evaluated during phase 1.[3]  Id. at M-4. 

__________________________________________________________________

As relevant here, the solicitation stated that under this subfactor the government would evaluate whether the offeror “demonstrates an inherent domain-specific capability in a health-related mission . . . . This capability can be demonstrated through experience examples or internal resources with substantial relevant experience.”  Id. at M-8.  The solicitation also stated that health-related missions were “broadly defined as those that contribute directly to human health and may include corporate expertise in fields such as healthcare, health-related/biomedical research and health science, clinical analytics and intelligence, health policy, health-related grant making, and regulation of health industries.”  Id.  The solicitation warned that proposals that fail to demonstrate domain-specific capability in a health-related mission would be deemed unacceptable and ineligible for further consideration for award.  Id.

The agency received 552 proposals, including a proposal from CRS.  Agency Report (AR), Contracting Officer Statement of Facts (COS) at 2; AR, Memorandum of Law (MOL) at 4.  The agency evaluated the protester’s proposal under the service-disabled veteran-owned small business (SDVOSB) grouping.[4]  AR, MOL at 4. 

As relevant here, the agency found CRS’s proposal unacceptable under the management approach factor, domain-specific capability in a health-related mission subfactor.  See AR, Tab 7, Go/No-Go Assessment, Factor 2, Subfactor 1- Domain Specific Capability in a Health-Related Mission Socioeconomic Group:  SDVOSB, at 4, 10.  Specifically, the agency found that the examples CRS provided in its proposal all involved “provision of IT services and solutions, which [was] not sufficient to demonstrate inherent capabilities in health-related missions.”  Id. at 10. The agency also noted that CRS’s proposal also did not demonstrate that it possessed the requisite capability through “internal resources with substantial relevant experience.”  Id.  As a result, the agency found CRS’s proposal ineligible for further consideration for award.  Id.

_______________________________________________________________________________

Here, the solicitation provided that in phase 1 of the evaluation, proposals were to be evaluated on a go/no-go basis, i.e., non-comparative basis.  See RFP at M-3, M-4.  The solicitation further provided that if rated unacceptable under any factor in phase 1, the entire proposal would be rendered unacceptable and ineligible for award.  See id. at M-4.  Further, the record provides no support for the agency’s argument that CRS’s proposal was eliminated because it was not responsive to the solicitation.  Contrary to the agency’s arguments, the record shows that the agency found that the examples provided by CRS in its proposal were “not sufficient to demonstrate inherent capabilities in health-related missions” and that CRS’s proposal did not demonstrate that it possessed the requisite capability through “internal resources with substantial relevant experience.”  See AR, Tab 7, Go/No-Go Assessment at 10.  On this record, we find that the agency’s conclusion relates to CRS’s capability to perform the contract, not simply the adequacy or completeness of its proposal submission.  See 22nd Century Team, LLC--Costs, B-412742.4, Dec. 15, 2016, 2016 CPD ¶ 369 at 6.  Accordingly, the Small Business Act requires that the agency should have referred CRS to the SBA for a COC review in accordance with 13 C.F.R. § 125.5(a)(2)(ii).  Cascadian Am. Enters., B-412208.3, B-412208.4, Feb. 5, 2016, 2016 CPD ¶ 29 at 7-8.

In sum, the agency evaluated the small business offerors on an acceptable/unacceptable basis, as opposed to a comparative basis, with respect to relevant experience, a responsibility-type evaluation factor, and found CRS’s proposal unacceptable under that factor.  See 13 C.F.R. § 125.5(a)(2)(ii).  As such, rejection of CRS’s proposal based on its rating of unacceptable under the management approach, domain-specific capability in a health-related mission subfactor, without first referring the matter to the SBA for a COC determination, was improper.  Accordingly, we sustain the protest.

PD216ohio said:

(f) prohibits late submissions.

Why do I think 15.206 does not apply?  Because the solicitation already stated that evaluations are based on price and experience.  After quotes were received, the CO made a decision to allow people to add their experience to their quote because they didn't feel that was clear somehow.  This isn't the same as saying, "oh, we think we should have asked for experience" after quotes were received and the due date had passed.

Assuming that you have standing, to prevail on your protest, you will have to show that the government's actions were not consistent with 15.206 so that the later submissions were late and could not be accepted.  If you are successful in this, you will have to show that you were harmed by the government's actions.  From what you have written, I think you have a slim chance of being successful.

Given that the outcome, if I win, is that another bidder will be the awardee... I do not think it is worthwhile to file and cause such a disruption to the project.  I might be a pain in the butt, but I'm not a complete jerk, lol.

I do feel rather confident that I would win the case but lose the award.

FWIW, I just completed a project that was protested against my award, GAO ruled in favor of the award (it was a pretty clear cut case but still took around 90 days to resolve).

PD216,

It seems you are the only participant in this thread to feel confidence in your protest victory.  I think real learning would occur, either for you or for us, if you did protest.  But regardless, I think letting go is the best answer, and I wish you well in future opportunities.

napolik said:

Also, take a look at this blog:

http://www.berenzweiglaw.com/sba-helps-on-responsibility-type-evaluations/

I suggest reading this decision referenced in the blog: Competitive Range Sols., LLC, B-413104.10, Apr. 18, 2017.

https://www.gao.gov/products/B-413104.10#mt=e-report

Napolik, I don’t disagree with the Decision.  And tHe evaluation criteria was judgemental :  “internal resources with substantial relevant experience. “.  

That is different than: “where an agency rejects a proposal as technically unacceptable on the basis of a factor that is arguably responsibility related, but the finding of unacceptability is based on the offeror’s failure to submit specific documentation required by the solicitation, referral to the SBA is not required.”  Sea Box, Inc., B-414742, Sept. 6, 2017.”

On 5/30/2019 at 12:22 PM, ji20874 said:

PD216,

It seems you are the only participant in this thread to feel confidence in your protest victory.  I think real learning would occur, either for you or for us, if you did protest.  But regardless, I think letting go is the best answer, and I wish you well in future opportunities.

There are a lot of people here that don't realize that the full incorporation of 52212-1 into an rfq changes the rules of simplified acquisition. This fact has been decided so in numerous GAO cases. It seems to be a common mistake (or careless) to incorporate it and not understand what the effect is.

We fully understand the federal acquisition process.  But you erred in failing to allow that a contracting officer may update/amend a solicitation, even after receipt of quotes -- and it appears that this is what happened here.  The contracting officer treated everyone fairly.  You lost because your quote didn't provide the best value (your price was too high).

No one here supported your protest plan, and you think we're all stupid?  No.

ji20874 said:

We fully understand the federal acquisition process.  But you erred in failing to allow that a contracting officer may update/amend a solicitation, even after receipt of quotes -- and it appears that this is what happened here.  The contracting officer treated everyone fairly.  You lost because your quote didn't provide the best value (your price was too high).

No one here supported your protest plan, and you think we're all stupid?  No.

You said yourself that you think another firm would win if you prevailed. You have no evidence that the next firm would be disqualified.

So how would you have standing as an interested party  to win a protest?

I've been troubled with this topic--not the responses by any member.  Assume that the agency intended this to be an RFQ.  Then why is FAR clause 52.212-1 in this solicitation with all the references to offer and offeror?  I shave my head so I can't pull my hair out.

Forget that any possible protest is late for now.  Earlier this week, I viewed this page in the protest section of Wifcon.com and found this:

Quote

The RFQ here provided that "[o]ffers are requested by COB Friday, September 24, 1999." Language requesting quotations by a certain date cannot be construed as establishing a firm closing date for the receipt of quotations absent a provision expressly providing that quotations must be received by that date to be considered. John Blood, B-274624, Dec. 19, 1996, 96-2 CPD para. 233 at 2; Instruments & Controls Serv. Co., B-222122, June 30, 1986, 86-2 CPD para. 16 at 3. Here, the language in the RFQ requesting quotations by September 24 does not meet that standard. The agency therefore should have considered any quotations received prior to source selection if no substantial activity had transpired in evaluating quotations and other vendors would not be prejudiced. Instruments & Controls Serv. Co., supra. Failure to do so would be inconsistent with the statutory provision authorizing simplified procedures for small purchases, 10 U.S.C. sect. 2304(g)(1)(A) (Supp. IV 1998), which requires that agencies obtain competition to the maximum extent practicable. 10 U.S.C. sect. 2304(g)(3) (1994); Instruments & Controls Serv. Co., supra. Since the RFQ here contained no late quotations clause; absolutely no activity with regard to the evaluation of quotations had transpired prior to the receipt of Sugar Blues' quotation; and there is no indication that any other vendor would be prejudiced, the quotation should have been considered.  (G.E.G. Sugar Blues & Noe's Colors, B-284117, February 22, 2000)  (emphasis provided)

You will find something similar near this blurb on that same page but I didn't look further.  I focused on the expressly providing part of the first quote I highlighted and wondered what that meant.  Then I went back to this topic and read the original post with the reference to the wrong clause for this procurement.  I did a search at GAO using RFQ and wrong clause.  Voila.  This popped out first.

Quote

The agency posted with the RFQ a memorandum that contained detailed instructions for the preparation and submission of quotations; the memorandum also identified the evaluation criteria and basis for award.  Of relevance here, the memorandum required that quotations be submitted electronically directly to the DHS contract specialist--at her email address provided in the memorandum--no later than 10:00 a.m. Eastern Standard Time (EST), on September 8, 2015.  Id. at 1.  The memorandum further cautioned that “[q]uotations not received by the time and date specified and in the manner specified herein will be considered non‑responsive and eliminated from further consideration.”  Id.  The agency reiterated--for a third time--that “[t]o be considered timely, electronic copies of the quotation submission must be received at the specified email address no later than 10:00 AM EST on September 08, 2015.  The Government will confirm receipt of your submission via email reply.”  Id. (underline removed).  Notably, the RFQ did not instruct vendors to submit quotations via GSA’s e-Buy portal. 

In addition, the RFQ incorporated by reference the late submission provisions of FAR clause 52.212-1, which provides that “[o]fferors are responsible for submitting offers . . . so as to reach the Government office designated in the solicitation by the time specified in the solicitation.”  RFQ at 1; FAR clause 52.212-1(f).  The provision further provides as follows: 

Any offer . . . received at the Government office designated in the solicitation after the exact time specified for receipt of offers is “late” and will not be considered unless it is received before award is made, the Contracting Officer determines that accepting the late offer would not unduly delay the acquisition; and--

 (A) If it was transmitted through an electronic commerce method authorized by the solicitation, it was received at the initial point of entry to the Government infrastructure not later than 5:00 p.m. one working day prior to the date specified for receipt of offers; or

(B) There is acceptable evidence to establish that it was received at the Government installation designated for receipt of offers and was under the Government’s control prior to the time set for receipt of offers . . . .

FAR clause 52.212-1(f)(2)(i).  (emphasis provided)

Advanced Decisions Vectors, Inc. B-412307: Jan 11, 2016

(I did not correct the font in the quoted text above because GAO had it indented and I didn't want to indent it myself.  So you may have to squint to read it.)

OK GAO.  Three times in the first paragraph of the quoted text above is enough for me to accept that it is expressly providing.  We need a hybrid where an aspect of a quote uses offer rules and I am the correct person to come up with a new term for such a hybrid quote/offer.  It is Quofer!  That's better than contracting mongrel.  I'm thinking about a defintion in FAR Pat 2 and sending it to the FAR Councils.

Now we move to the second part of the quote.  GAO quotes FAR Clause 52.212-1 since it was in the q_uofer_.  Doh, GAO.

I like your observation.  A quofer is a mongrel -- it is messy -- neither parent claims it, and yet they created it.

If contracting professionals would read the FAR, and do what it says, we won't create such mongrels.  In this case, the contracting officer used 52.212-1 in the RFQ, but didn't need to -- the prescribing language for 52.212-1 calls for its use when seeking offers, not quotes.  How many of us can tell the difference between an offer and a quote?  The prescribing language also allows for 52.212-1 to be tailored, which probably wasn't done in this case.  If the contracting officer felt a need for something like 52.212-1 in his or her RFQ, he or she could have carefully tailored it and would have still had a quote.

So, based on the contracting officer's sloppiness, a mongel quofer was created, inheriting the attributes of both a quote and an offer -- messy.  But it is a living thing, and it has to fit into our society.  So having given life to the mongrel, we have to work with it as best as we can.

In this case, the late attribute was inherited from the offer side, and the simplified attribute was inherited from the quote side.  

In this case, the original poster asserts that everyone else's submission was late and only its submission was timely -- the original poster wants to emphasize the offer parentage and reject all the other submissions, and wholly ignore the quote parentage.  To me, the offer parentage prevails on the matter of late quotes, but the quote parentage prevails on the matter of informal amendments.  If there was no informal amendment, I would agree with the original poster and enforce the late provision (from the offer parentage) -- but there was an informal amendment (from the quote parentage), and everyone got a chance to update/resubmit, and everyone was treated fairly, and effectively a new receipt date was set.  If I were the judge, and if I had to rule on the merits based on the facts presented by the original poster, and wanting to give life to all parts of this mongrel, and mindful of the duty to be fair, I would have ruled that (1) the late provisions are enforceable, and (2) the informal amendment is allowed -- and since none of the submissions were late (based on the informal amendment), the late provision is not brought into play.  I would rule in a manner that recognizes both the offer and the quote parentage, and I would rule against the original poster.  

The original poster seems to want a decision that honors only the offer parentage and ignores the quote parentage.  But we can't be purists when we're dealing with mongrels. 

Actually, if I were the judge, I wouldn't have to rule on the merits.  Rather, I would dismiss the protest as late because the original protester should have filed its protest when the contracting officer asked for new submissions rather than 10 days after award.  Or, that failing, I would dismiss the protest because the original poster was not an interested party as the GAO defines that term (next in line for the award).  Or, even that failing, I would dismiss the protest because even if there was error, the original protester was not prejudiced or adversely affected, and every protest has to demonstrate prejudice.

All of this arises because of the contracting officer's sloppiness.

I'm still sorting this out in my mind.  At present, I'm on the side of accepting due dates for receipt of quotations.  However, I may change my mind.  Below are two blurbs from GAO decisions which also trouble me.

Quote

The RFQ here provided that "[o]ffers are requested by COB Friday, September 24, 1999." Language requesting quotations by a certain date cannot be construed as establishing a firm closing date for the receipt of quotations absent a provision expressly providing that quotations must be received by that date to be considered. John Blood, B-274624, Dec. 19, 1996, 96-2 CPD para. 233 at 2; Instruments & Controls Serv. Co., B-222122, June 30, 1986, 86-2 CPD para. 16 at 3. Here, the language in the RFQ requesting quotations by September 24 does not meet that standard.

OK GAO, what is the standard?  Apparently "requesting" is not strong enough but "must" is.  OK, but it could be used as a procurement rule that GAO may pull out of its bag of precedents sometime in the future.

If you look at the second case that I used in my post (Advanced Decisions Vectors, Inc. B-412307: Jan 11, 2016,) you will see that the agency warned quoters 3 times aboiut a due date for quotes.  That wasn't enough for GAO's attorneys, they decided to support this by using the wrong clause in an effort to make their position stronger.  Using the wrong clause with all its citations to offers and offeror in a decision dealing with an RFQ is shoddy workmanship.

In government contracting, we all should recognize key words, their meaning, and their differences.  When you hear the word bid versus proposal, it means something.  When you hear the acronym IFB versus RFP,  it means something.  When you hear the word shall versus may, it means something, and when you hear the word quote versus offer, it means something.  Using the wrong terminology can cost the government money.

Messy facts and sloppy terminology make for messy/sloppy decisions.

@bob7947 and @ji20874 Amen.

bob7947 said:

I'm still sorting this out in my mind.  At present, I'm on the side of accepting due dates for receipt of quotations.

Due date is not the issue.   You and ji nailed it otherwise with regard to use of terms (offer) and the 52.212-1 either not tailored to meet FAR conventions (change offer to quote etc.) or not use the 52.212-1 at all.

Remember the SF-1449 form has a due date even if RFQ is marked.   And due date for a quote has been around for a long time - reference the SF-18. 

And then sort it out more by (as noted by the OP) noting the order of precedence language of FAR 52.212-4! 

All leads back to my post on May 26 on giving considerations to other facts as I believe the OP's thinking on late as provided by 52.212-1 is sound.

At the hazard of having extended discussion on another part of this thread I would only offer that in the OP's particular case, and agreeing that there are many details missing, my read between the lines is that the OP may have a possibility of having his/her protest considered even if filed late.   After all it sounds like a RFP, yet debriefing to the extent of RFP was denied, amendment does not sound like it was formal, and the consensus in this case the government was messy and sloppy may give rise to GAO accepting the protest under the standard of 4 CFR 21.2(c).   I for one would have fun in developing a protest that supports GAO should consider the protest even if not timely as the issues are significant to the procurement system.  Such a decision could in fact create case law that helps give direction as to how 52.212-1 should be handled with regard to an RFQ.

Quote

Remember the SF-1449 form has a due date even if RFQ is marked.   And due date for a quote has been around for a long time - reference the SF-18.

In questioning the feasibility of a due date for an RFQ, I was reworking the process in my head and deciding what it should look and work like.  In that mode, I don't concern myself with the existence of government forms, regulations, or laws.  They can all be changed. 

I realize that is beyond the original posters (OP) intent but the sloppiness of the procurement and GAO's decisions upset me.

Hi ji20874, 

Excellent citations. I find case law extremely fascinating to read (I served 6 years as a local legislator and have created a few laws myself). 

You mentioned that there would still be an allowance for amendments by the CO and that I've overlooked this point  apologies if I didn't mention it clearly but there was no amendment, in my opinion (for what that's worth lol). The solicitation cleary stated that experience was an evaluation factor. Many of the offerors did not submit an experience profile (inexperienced bidders, perhaps). The CO then sent an email offering them a second chance to do so. I would not call that an amendment but an offer to correct deficient bids. 

On edit : I wanted to add that I did some searching of GAO decisions by using the combined keywords of "rfq" and "52212-1", and that's where I felt that I found many pertinent cases as well.

On 6/1/2019 at 9:04 AM, joel hoffman said:

You said yourself that you think another firm would win if you prevailed. You have no evidence that the next firm would be disqualified.

So how would you have standing as an interested party  to win a protest?

Likewise, it is not absolute that the other bidder would win. However, without progressing, we don't have any details about that other bidder, their bid and the evaluation process.

On 6/1/2019 at 8:45 AM, ji20874 said:

We fully understand the federal acquisition process.  But you erred in failing to allow that a contracting officer may update/amend a solicitation, even after receipt of quotes -- and it appears that this is what happened here.  The contracting officer treated everyone fairly.  You lost because your quote didn't provide the best value (your price was too high).

No one here supported your protest plan, and you think we're all stupid?  No.

I didn't mean to be insulting. I was referring to two different groups. The first group being the people here who didn't think 52212-1 changes the rfq. The second group being COs not in this discussion who don't understand or do sloppy work. 

As someone on the contractor side, I see many many sloppily or lazily written solicitations. However, I do see some that are superb and it kind of excites me when I do.