KO Sent Denial and Referenced FAR 2.101 and 3.104

NewtoGovContracting said:

But I'm assuming that would have been stated specifically in the denial letter they sent.  Or would I be incorrect in that assumption?

Who knows?  No one here will know.  You will have to ask the contracting officer for more information.  Or, if you think your exclusion was improper, you may file a protest with the agency or with the GAO (but pay attention to timeliness).

Newto, I am going to assume here that you aren’t planning to contest your evaluation rating based upon the point scoring.  I’m assuming that you are questioning the reference to procurement integrity. 

Not sure if there was any explanation or more specific wording in the “denial letter”.    Your original post doesn’t clearly describe the timing (“At one point...”) of your communications with the engineering director or whether you are competing for inclusion in an ID/IQ contract or if this is a task order under an ID/IQ. 

Based upon my limited understanding of the specifics, my advice is to ask the government to explain what they mean by the subject reference to procurement integrity and what definition of a word or term  they are referencing in 2.101. Unless there is more explanation in the KO’s letter, you can’t “see [these] specific clauses”. Please note that those subject references are not “clauses” and they are not “specific” . They are titles of subparts and sections.  

They might not want to elaborate at this point during the on-going competition. If it is a competition for award of a contract, you can ask for a debriefing.

Procurement Integrity violations can be potentially very serious.  I would immediately request a meeting with the KO and head of the office.  Read the FAR details on how violations get treated.  If the KO feels you violated the Act, you need to address it now.

But based on the other things you said, it’s probably either a mistake or poor choices of wording.  For example, the KO may have used integrity violations because they couldn’t verify your scoring in the technical evaluation.

Regardless I would get answers on whether it’s really a Procurement Integrity issue as soon as possible.

joel hoffman said:

Newto, I am going to assume here that you aren’t planning to contest your evaluation rating based upon the point scoring.  I’m assuming that you are questioning the reference to procurement integrity. 

Not sure if there was any explanation or more specific wording in the “denial letter”.    Your original post doesn’t clearly describe the timing (“At one point...”) of your communications with the engineering director or whether you are competing for inclusion in an ID/IQ contract or if this is a task order under an ID/IQ. 

Based upon my limited understanding of the specifics, my advice is to ask the government to explain what they mean by the subject reference to procurement integrity and what definition of a word or term  they are referencing in 2.101. Unless there is more explanation in the KO’s letter, you can’t “see [these] specific clauses”. Please note that those subject references are not “clauses” and they are not “specific” . They are titles of subparts and sections.  

They might not want to elaborate at this point during the on-going competition. If it is a competition for award of a contract, you can ask for a debriefing.

Sorry, the communication with the engineering director is pre award and sending white paper was pre award.

The denial letter references nothing other than the points shortage as the reason for being removed from competition.  It mentioned nothing about sending the white papers, or any discussions, which the conversation we had was only about some ideas around potential solutions to some issues they mentioned.  We didn't discuss the ID/IQ at all. 

This is a bid for a spot in the ID/IQ, not a task order. 

We might protest as we are a little befuddled as to how they disallowed so many points.  We established a JV with another experienced government contractor who had a lot of the past performance.  We provided plenty of examples of work that lined up with the point requirements.  

But yes a my main question is about the procurement integrity reference.

formerfed said:

Procurement Integrity violations can be potentially very serious.  I would immediately request a meeting with the KO and head of the office.  Read the FAR details on how violations get treated.  If the KO feels you violated the Act, you need to address it now.

But based on the other things you said, it’s probably either a mistake or poor choices of wording.  For example, the KO may have used integrity violations because they couldn’t verify your scoring in the technical evaluation.

Regardless I would get answers on whether it’s really a Procurement Integrity issue as soon as possible.

Thanks, that's what had me concerned, but if it was anything other than them thinking we falsely tried to claim points, it doesn't make sense.  That's a judgement call to a certain extend or a difference of opinion, unless we provided nothing to back that data up. 

I have already requested a debrief, so let's see what they come back with.

In your request for debriefing, did you list the questions for which you would like answers?  You might get a paper debriefing with no chance for a meeting to ask questions, so listing your questions in the request can make sure you get a chance to ask them.  

Inasmuch as all source selection information is supposed to be marked with something like “Source Selection Information — See FAR 2.101 and 3.104,” I am guessing there is no Procurement Integrity Act allegation at all; rather, this is just an inartful expression work on the contracting officer’s part or a simple misunderstanding on the original poster’s part of the marking requirement in FAR 3.104-4(c).

ji20874 said:

In your request for debriefing, did you list the questions for which you would like answers?  You might get a paper debriefing with no chance for a meeting to ask questions, so listing your questions in the request can make sure you get a chance to ask them.

Excellent advice. 

ji20874 said:

Inasmuch as all source selection information is supposed to be marked with something like “Source Selection Information — See FAR 2.101 and 3.104,” I am guessing there is no Procurement Integrity Act allegation at all; rather, this is just an inartful expression work on the contracting officer’s part or a simple misunderstanding on the original poster’s part of the marking requirement in FAR 3.104-4(c).

ji, that is a very plausible guess. I would ask what they meant though in the list of questions, to verify.

ji20874 said:

In your request for debriefing, did you list the questions for which you would like answers?  You might get a paper debriefing with no chance for a meeting to ask questions, so listing your questions in the request can make sure you get a chance to ask them.  

Inasmuch as all source selection information is supposed to be marked with something like “Source Selection Information — See FAR 2.101 and 3.104,” I am guessing there is no Procurement Integrity Act allegation at all; rather, this is just an inartful expression work on the contracting officer’s part or a simple misunderstanding on the original poster’s part of the marking requirement in FAR 3.104-4(c).

No, I just requested the debrief because we only had 3 days to request and we need to review the proposal and RFP again.  It's been almost 2 years since we bid this

NewtoGovContracting said:

No, I just requested the debrief because we only had 3 days to request and we need to review the proposal and RFP again.  It's been almost 2 years since we bid this

The plot thickens as information dribbles out.  Good luck, Newto.

ji20874 said:

In your request for debriefing, did you list the questions for which you would like answers?  You might get a paper debriefing with no chance for a meeting to ask questions, so listing your questions in the request can make sure you get a chance to ask them.

Off topic, but written rather than oral debriefings is another example of how professionalism in our field is going away.  It’s now like KOs are afraid and don’t know how to defend their decisions.  They are scared of direct questions so they hide. That’s why so many protests happen. Rant over.

OP, just in case they are serious about Procurement Integrity, you need immediate answers. I wouldn’t let them put you off until after award.  If they tell you it’s not truly a violation, waiting is at your discretion.

formerfed said:

Off topic, but written rather than oral debriefings is another example of how professionalism in our field is going away.  It’s now like KOs are afraid and don’t know how to defend their decisions.  They are scared of direct questions so they hide. That’s why so many protests happen.

Debriefings can be ways for the government to obfuscate issues regarding a procurement.  I once worked with a contractor that received a post award debriefing in the form of an extract from a PowerPoint presentation made to the SSA.  You can imagine how beneficial and clear that was.

Retreadfed said:

Debriefings can be ways for the government to obfuscate issues regarding a procurement.  I once worked with a contractor that received a post award debriefing in the form of an extract from a PowerPoint presentation made to the SSA.  You can imagine how beneficial and clear that was.

I will say that I would send the winner and the other firms in the competitive range  their evaluation and rating sheet** with comments as an attachment to the notice of award and offer them a written or oral debriefing if they wished. Brave or foolhardy, I guess. But we had five or less finalists, usually. 

Edit:  (** we removed the actual assigned numerical or adjectival ratings from the evaluation and rating documentation). Forgot that little detail originally. 

This was mostly for construction and design-build competitions. Caddell Construction once requested a debriefing and asked to see the awardee’s design proposal, which was incorporated at award to the contract, as part of the debriefing.

The Caddell corporate proposal team (all of whom I knew) brought their architect and sat him at the end of the table in the conference room. I let them review the drawings as they grilled their designer. 

They told me that they were disappointed but understood and agreed that the winner beat them...

We never had a protest using that method.  Lucked out.

Joel, there are many contracting officers who refuse to provide one or more of the items required by FAR 15.506 even when they are specifically asked for it.

Retreaded,  Yes, I am well aware of that.

 https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=IpNgah-e6v4

The problem is just FAR 15.506 items may not let unsuccessful offerors know why they lost.  Joel’s approach is different - it’s showing unsuccessful sources why someone else won.  If you’re confident in your decision, why not?

The purpose of the debriefing is to furnish the basis for the selection decision, rather than to let unsuccessful offers know why they lost.  It might seem to be two sides of the same coin, but there is a subtle difference.

Correction to my above post:

We edited out the actual assigned points or adjectival ratings from the proposer’s evaluation and rating sheet** In the attachment to the award letter (not a complete debriefing), we provided all evaluation comments, including:

+ strengths

- weaknesses 

* deficiencies, also including deviations or omissions 

• any clarification needs, if discussions were to be held with that firm.

**(Ain’t it easy and handy to copy, paste and edit electronic SS documents used for multiple purposes? 😊)

We also sent the same type info to the awardee and offered them a debriefing, upon request.

ji, I disagree with your stated purpose of a debriefing. In my opinion, you make it look like a defense of the award decision, rather than an explanation and also to help the offeror better compete in the future.  

See this from “A Pocket Guide to Federal Government Contract Debriefings” at: https://www.hollandhart.com/pdf/2016ContractDebriefings.pdf  (Emphasis added)

“What is a Debriefing?

A Debriefing under FAR Part 15 is an opportunity for an offeror to better understand the basis for an agency’s selection decision. Debriefings give you

- a chance to hear from the agency regarding: the evaluation process; 

- how your proposal was evaluated in relation to the evaluation criteria; 

- what was successful in your proposal; what was lacking and in need of improvement in your proposal;

- and reasonable responses to relevant questions about whether source selection procedures were followed.”

See also later discussion and questions to ask under:

”Always Ask How You Could Have Done Better!...”

Here is some relevant coverage at 15.506:

”(d) At a minimum, the debriefing information shall include— 

“(1) The Government's evaluation of the significant weaknesses or deficiencies in the offeror's proposal, if applicable; 

“(2) The overall evaluated cost or price (including unit prices), and technical rating, if applicable, of the successful offeror and the debriefed offeror, and past performance information on the debriefed offeror; 

“(3) The overall ranking of all offerors, when any ranking was developed by the agency during the source selection;”  [generally N/A]

“(4) A summary of the rationale for award;...”

Also perform Google Searches similar to “purpose of a debriefing” (non-FAR specific definitions) and  “purpose of a debriefing FAR” and see what pops up.

joel hoffman said:

ji, I disagree with your stated purpose of a debriefing. In my opinion, you make it look like a defense of the award decision, rather than an explanation and also to help the offeror better compete in the future.

Joel,

See FAR 15.506(a)(1)--

• "An offeror, upon its written request received by the agency within 3 days after the date on which that offeror has received notification of contract award in accordance with 15.503(b), shall be debriefed and furnished the basis for the selection decision and contract award."

“‘...shall be debriefed [AND FURNISHED] the basis for the selection decision and contract award.”

Update on this:

No there has not been a violation of procurement integrity it had something to do with the format/method of communication.  There is a protocol to sending emails or information when it pertains to source selection, which I am still completely unclear about.  So will need to research that.  The KO response is below if anyone has any thoughts.  

"No there has not been a violation of procurement integrity.  There is a protocol to sending emails or information when it pertains to source selection.  Also you will be receiving a written debrief so there will not be a meeting scheduled and we are not accepting and/or answering questions."

So I'm betting there's been a ridiculous amount of protests because Vendors were not afforded the opporutunity to ask questions and gain resolution on why they were not selected.  And I'm doubting the writeup will contain anything truly useful, but I gess we will see.

joel hoffman said:

“‘...shall be debriefed [AND FURNISHED] the basis for the selection decision and contract award.”

Joel, I include"furnished" in my posting describing the purpose of the debriefing, which is to furnish the basis for the selection decision -- I'm missing the point of your posting.

NewtoGovContracting said:

There is a protocol to sending emails or information when it pertains to source selection, which I am still completely unclear about.  So will need to research that.

Earlier in this thread, I referenced FAR 3.104-4(c) as the likely reason for the contracting officer's referencing of FAR 2.101 and 3.104.

ji20874 said:

Joel, I include"furnished" in my posting describing the purpose of the debriefing, which is to furnish the basis for the selection decision -- I'm missing the point of your posting.

ji, to furnish the basis for the selection decision is not the sole purpose of the debriefing. The sentence doesn’t state or even imply that.  In my opinion it says that “an offeror...shall be debriefed AND [the offeror shall] be furnished the basis of the selection decision and contract award. “

“d) At a minimum, the debriefing information shall include— 

(1) The Government's evaluation of the significant weaknesses or deficiencies in the offeror's proposal, if applicable; 

(2) The overall evaluated cost or price (including unit prices), and technical rating, if applicable, of the successful offeror and the debriefed offeror, and past performance information on the debriefed offeror; 

(3) The overall ranking of all offerors, when any ranking was developed by the agency during the source selection; 

(4) A summary of the rationale for award; 

(5) For acquisitions of commercial items, the make and model of the item to be delivered by the successful offeror; and 

(6) Reasonable responses to relevant questions about whether source selection procedures contained in the solicitation, applicable regulations, and other applicable authorities were followed.”

Thats my point.

Edit: Providing an offeror it’s evaluation sheet with strengths, weaknesses, deficiencies and other comments is consistent with (d) (1) above.

Since the winning design proposal is part of the unclassified contract, it is not protected information and can be shared with other proposers after award, absent some specific justification.

Sharing such information can help them become more competitive in the future. 

Sorry if you don’t understand and/or agree.

On 7/1/2019 at 8:03 AM, ji20874 said:

Joel,

See FAR 15.506(a)(1)--

• "An offeror, upon its written request received by the agency within 3 days after the date on which that offeror has received notification of contract award in accordance with 15.503(b), shall be debriefed and furnished the basis for the selection decision and contract award."

This does not support the claim that "furnishing the basis of the selection decision" is the sole purpose of a debriefing, much less that a debriefing has a sole purpose. Non sequitur by ji.

Don,  You're the only one here to speak of the "sole purpose" of a debriefing.  Even so, furnishing the basis of the selection decision is the single reason mentioned in the FAR, and doing that one thing well will towards achieving the other potential debriefing benefits that Joel has suggested.

Do you have anything to offer to the original poster?

On 7/1/2019 at 12:22 PM, NewtoGovContracting said:

Update on this:

No there has not been a violation of procurement integrity it had something to do with the format/method of communication.  There is a protocol to sending emails or information when it pertains to source selection, which I am still completely unclear about.  So will need to research that.  The KO response is below if anyone has any thoughts.  

"No there has not been a violation of procurement integrity.  There is a protocol to sending emails or information when it pertains to source selection.  Also you will be receiving a written debrief so there will not be a meeting scheduled and we are not accepting and/or answering questions."

So I'm betting there's been a ridiculous amount of protests because Vendors were not afforded the opporutunity to ask questions and gain resolution on why they were not selected.  And I'm doubting the writeup will contain anything truly useful, but I gess we will see.

ji hit the mark on that one.

“   On 6/29/2019 at 11:40 AM,  ji20874 said: 

Inasmuch as all source selection information is supposed to be marked with something like “Source Selection Information — See FAR 2.101 and 3.104,” I am guessing there is no Procurement Integrity Act allegation at all; rather, this is just an inartful expression work on the contracting officer’s part or a simple misunderstanding on the original poster’s part of the marking requirement in FAR 3.104-4(c).”

On 6/30/2019 at 8:00 PM, ji20874 said:

The purpose of the debriefing is to furnish the basis for the selection decision, rather than to let unsuccessful offers know why they lost.  It might seem to be two sides of the same coin, but there is a subtle difference.

"The" purpose. Definite article.

Are you saying that the correct interpretation of your claim is that furnishing the basis of the source selection decision is one of multiple purposes of a debriefing?

Don Mansfield said:

"The" purpose. Definite article.

Are you saying that the correct interpretation of your claim is that furnishing the basis of the source selection decision is one of multiple purposes of a debriefing?

This insomniac agrees with you, Don. 

How about this from Appendix A to the April 2016 edition of ” DoD Source Selection Procedures”?

“A.1 Purpose of Debriefing
The PCO should chair any debriefing session upon receipt of an offeror’s timely, written request (see FAR 15.503, 15.505, and 15.506). The debriefing serves to assure offerors that the Government properly evaluated their proposals and made the award determination in accordance with the RFP. Since each offeror puts considerable resources into preparing and submitting a proposal, fairness dictates that the PCO promptly debrief offerors and explain why a proposal was excluded from the competitive range or was successful or unsuccessful. Timely and thorough debriefings increase competition, encourage offerors to continue to invest resources in the Government marketplace, and enhance the Government’s relationship and credibility with Industry. The debriefing also provides feedback to offerors to assist in improving future proposal submissions. An effective debriefing often deters a protest by demonstrating that the Government conducted a thorough, fair evaluation and made a sound decision according to the established source selection methodology. Debriefings may be done orally, in writing, or by any other method acceptable by the contracting officer.”

Thanks, Joel, for sharing insights for DoD debriefings.  Our DoD readers will appreciate it, as DoD likely does more debriefings than any civilian agency or even than many civilian agencies combined.

On 7/3/2019 at 10:39 AM, ji20874 said:

Thanks, Joel, for sharing insights for DoD debriefings.  Our DoD readers will appreciate it, as DoD likely does more debriefings than any civilian agency or even than many civilian agencies combined.

ji, When I started managing and leading our District’s non-service contracting source selections around 1992, neither DoD or Army had written their source selection manuals, although there may have been some OFPP or DoD guidance on debriefings. Don’t remember. The Army Materiel Command (AMC) had a good source selection guide which I went by for guidance along with FAR and any other articles and reviews of daily GAO Decisions. I kept up with Court Decisions and sought out references and guidance by Nash and Cibinic, Vern Edwards, Federal Publications, etc.   The Army later incorporated the AMC SSG into their SSM. 

We were doing a lot of MILCON and Civil Works design-build, set-asides, Army and Air Force JOC type contracts, Army MEDCOM, Non-Appropriated Fund and other construction contract source selections to the extent that our District quit using IFB’s for most contracts other than dredging and smaller civil works O&M projects. We also conducted source selections for Installation and Medical Facility O&M service contracts.

I wanted to provide as much debriefing type information as allowed to all the competitors how their proposals were evaluated in order to show them how they could improve their chances and better meet our objectives in future competitions, too. My KO’s were very supportive.  Both industry and we learned and improved in how they responded and how the District wrote RFP’s and conducted the SS process.

Educating industry on how to improve responding is very important.  That is one key purposes of debriefings.  But often another reason keeps getting pushed back is avoiding protests because that’s not spelled out well in policies and guidance.  

Larger and more important acquisitions usually are prepared by proposal experts.  Those experts are either employees of the companies responding or paid consultants.  They are skilled in responding to precisely what the RFP calls for while emphasizing the established trade offs.  More importantly business development people from companies have spent a long time well gathering information.  When I first left the government, I was shocked at first attending a class where I learned that 60% of B&P costs of proposal winners on large acquisitions gets spent before the RFP is even released.  

So when these companies don’t win, they want to know why.  The two things they seek answers on is were they evaluated properly and what did the winner provide they didn’t.  If they get direct and responsive answers to those questions, protests usually don’t happen.

I understand there are all sorts of benefits to providing a debriefing.  Furnishing the broad basis of the selection decision, rather than a narrow basis, can be beneficial to unsuccessful offers and to the Government for future acquisition outcomes.  I support in-person debriefings for as many acquisitions as practicable.  Please do not paint me as an enemy of meaningful debriefings -- that would be unfair.

However, I stop short of categorizing all of the potential benefits of debriefings as purposes of the debriefings.  For example, I do not believe it is a contracting officer's responsibility to help all unsuccessful offerors improve their proposals for the next time, thus, for me, helping the unsuccessful offeror improve their proposals for the next time is not a purpose of the debriefing.  Rather, the contracting officer's duty is to furnish the basis of the selection decision as guided by FAR 15.506 (which provides a minimum, not a maximum) -- with that information, and maybe with a few well-placed questions (FAR 15.506(d)(6), if we're talking about post-award debriefings), any unsuccessful offeror can take responsibility for improving its own proposals for future opportunities.  That offeror's improvement for the next time, and maybe even a win, is a potential benefit or outcome of a meaningful debriefing.

Contracting officers are already overburdened -- we should not make them responsible for improving the future proposals of presently unsuccessful offerors, or for achieving all the other potential benefits or outcomes of debriefings.  The FAR only provides one statement that can fit as a purpose of a debriefing, and I generally like to stay close to the FAR text wherever I am able.

All that said, I support oral (in person or telephone) debriefings for as many acquisitions as practicable, for exactly the reasons described in other comments -- the potential benefits and outcomes from furnishing the basis of the selection decision make it worthwhile for contracting officers to provide meaningful debriefings.

In my comment that started this discussion on debriefings, I wrote, "The purpose of the debriefing is to furnish the basis for the selection decision, rather than to let unsuccessful offers know why they lost.  It might seem to be two sides of the same coin, but there is a subtle difference."  That subtlety may have been lost here, and I regret that.  However, in every debriefing I have conducted, I always explain why we selected the winner.  I have never told an unsuccessful offeror that it lost because [fill in the blank], or that it would have won if [fill in the blank].

formerfed said:

Educating industry on how to improve responding is very important.  That is one key purposes of debriefings.  But often another reason keeps getting pushed back is avoiding protests because that’s not spelled out well in policies and guidance.  

Larger and more important acquisitions usually are prepared by proposal experts.  Those experts are either employees of the companies responding or paid consultants.  They are skilled in responding to precisely what the RFP calls for while emphasizing the established trade offs.  More importantly business development people from companies have spent a long time well gathering information.  When I first left the government, I was shocked at first attending a class where I learned that 60% of B&P costs of proposal winners on large acquisitions gets spent before the RFP is even released.  

So when these companies don’t win, they want to know why.  The two things they seek answers on is were they evaluated properly and what did the winner provide they didn’t.  If they get direct and responsive answers to those questions, protests usually don’t happen.

formerfed, I agree with you.

We, of course, also explained the rationale for the award decision in the actual debriefing.  I wasn’t too concerned about protests, as they were extremely rare.

In fact, I never had a protest after a debriefing or as a result of furnishing info concerning the proposer’s evaluation with the notice of award, as described above.

On 7/5/2019 at 10:28 AM, ji20874 said:

The FAR only provides one statement that can fit as a purpose of a debriefing...

This is neither factual nor a rational interpretation of FAR 15.506. The claim:

On 7/5/2019 at 10:28 AM, ji20874 said:

The purpose of the debriefing is to furnish the basis for the selection decision, rather than to let unsuccessful offers know why they lost.

is laughable pseudo intellectualism.

On 7/5/2019 at 12:28 PM, ji20874 said:

....However, I stop short of categorizing all of the potential benefits of debriefings as purposes of the debriefings.  For example, I do not believe it is a contracting officer's responsibility to help all unsuccessful offerors improve their proposals for the next time, thus, for me, helping the unsuccessful offeror improve their proposals for the next time is not a purpose of the debriefing.  Rather, the contracting officer's duty is to furnish the basis of the selection decision as guided by FAR 15.506 (which provides a minimum, not a maximum) -- with that information, and maybe with a few well-placed questions (FAR 15.506(d)(6), if we're talking about post-award debriefings), any unsuccessful offeror can take responsibility for improving its own proposals for future opportunities.  That offeror's improvement for the next time, and maybe even a win, is a potential benefit or outcome of a meaningful debriefing.

Contracting officers are already overburdened -- we should not make them responsible for improving the future proposals of presently unsuccessful offerors, or for achieving all the other potential benefits or outcomes of debriefings.  The FAR only provides one statement that can fit as a purpose of a debriefing, and I generally like to stay close to the FAR text wherever I am able.

All that said, I support oral (in person or telephone) debriefings for as many acquisitions as practicable, for exactly the reasons described in other comments -- the potential benefits and outcomes from furnishing the basis of the selection decision make it worthwhile for contracting officers to provide meaningful debriefings.

In my comment that started this discussion on debriefings, I wrote, "The purpose of the debriefing is to furnish the basis for the selection decision, rather than to let unsuccessful offers know why they lost.  It might seem to be two sides of the same coin, but there is a subtle difference."  That subtlety may have been lost here, and I regret that.  However, in every debriefing I have conducted, I always explain why we selected the winner.  I have never told an unsuccessful offeror that it lost because [fill in the blank], or that it would have won if [fill in the blank].

It isn’t the responsibility of the KO to coach  proposers how to win the next competition. But, AS A MINIMUM, in addition to the basis and rationale for the award, the debriefing information  SHALL include... 

“The Government's evaluation of the significant weaknesses or deficiencies in the offeror's proposal, if applicable; ” 

(In DoD that should include strengths.)

The debriefing shall also include  debriefed offeror’s past performance information. 

There has to be a purpose to providing the above information. It is not to compare it to the winning proposal, but to advise the proposer how the government saw its proposal. The contractor should be able to deduce what the proposal lacked and what was considered strong. It is up to the proposer to determine how it can be more competitive in the future. If the quality of past performance is not a strength, then it should realize where it has to focus on higher performance and higher customer satisfaction.

joel hoffman said:

The contractor should be able to deduce what the proposal lacked and what was considered strong. It is up to the proposer to determine how it can be more competitive in the future. If the quality of past performance is not a strength, then it should realize where it has to focus on higher performance and higher customer satisfaction.

Right.  I'm glad we agree.

That's why I wrote,

• "[T]he contracting officer's duty is to furnish the basis of the selection decision as guided by FAR 15.506 (which provides a minimum, not a maximum) -- with that information, and maybe with a few well-placed questions (FAR 15.506(d)(6), if we're talking about post-award debriefings), any unsuccessful offeror can take responsibility for improving its own proposals for future opportunities."

ji20874 said:

Right.  I'm glad we agree.

That's why I wrote,

• "[T]he contracting officer's duty is to furnish the basis of the selection decision as guided by FAR 15.506 (which provides a minimum, not a maximum) -- with that information, and maybe with a few well-placed questions (FAR 15.506(d)(6), if we're talking about post-award debriefings), any unsuccessful offeror can take responsibility for improving its own proposals for future opportunities."

Roger. 10-4.

I wanted to stress that there is more than one purpose of a debriefing.

There might be a primary purpose and a secondary purpose(s) but there are multiple purposes. 

Over and out...😋

As I followed this thread with interest I continued to think about the successful offeror who in fact could request a debriefing.

C Culham said:

As I followed this thread with interest I continued to think about the successful offeror who in fact could request a debriefing.

Absolutely. We sent the winner a copy of their evaluation comments and offered them the opportunity for a debrief, too.