Is the Vendor a small business concern?  If so, would it be required to have a small business subcontracting plan (FAR 19.702(b)?

Joel asks the right question.

If the answer is YES (meaning the offeror is a small business concern), then a subcontracting plan is not required, period.

If the answer is NO (meaning the offeror is not a small business concern), shouldn't you do what you said you would do in the solicitation?  Throw the bum out.  And next time, be more careful in what you write in your solicitation.

For the sake of this question the vendor would be a large business under the solicitation. I definitely get that a key principle of contracting is "say what you're going to do and do it" however,  just to play devil's advocate, let's say Vendor 1 did go through a tech eval and received the highest marks with the lowest price while Vendors 2 and 3 just barely passed and had significantly higher prices and it's pretty clear from their proposals that discussions won't make them more competitive. Is it really in the best interest of the Government to remove Vendor 1 as "bum" for failing to include a responsibility item?

Freyr said:

For the sake of this question the vendor would be a large business under the solicitation. I definitely get that a key principle of contracting is "say what you're going to do and do it" however,  just to play devil's advocate, let's say Vendor 1 did go through a tech eval and received the highest marks with the lowest price while Vendors 2 and 3 just barely passed and had significantly higher prices and it's pretty clear from their proposals that discussions won't make them more competitive. Is it really in the best interest of the Government to remove Vendor 1 as "bum" for failing to include a responsibility item?

Whether the small business plan is purely a "responsibility item" depends on the language of your solicitation.  It sounds like your solicitation isn't treating it purely as a responsibility matter, but obviously that depends on the language of the solicitation when read as a whole.

Since this is a hypothetical, you have an opportunity to revise your evaluation criteria. In your example, you established the pro forma review as a floor for remaining in the competition. 

Freyr said:

Is the subcontracting something that we can request Vendor 1 to submit their subcontracting plan after their initial submission without engaging in discussions?

If a subcontracting plan is an evaluation factor for a trade-off, then not providing the information is technically a deficiency.  You can’t cure such a deficiency through clarifications without conducting discussions. However, your pro forma criteria indicated that the government “will remove vendors who do not comply with the solicitation requirements”.

I don’t know if the protest forums have waived pro forma restrictions. But generally, the GAO looks to see if the government has followed its stated evaluation criteria. And the forums have consistently stated that the government can’t use communications to allow a firm to cure a clear deficiency without conducting discussions.

EDIT: if the basis of award is an LPTA, there may be exceptions that might allow the government to obtain a satisfactory subcontracting plan, if it is a responsibility criterion, before award - but your stated absolute pro forma requirement would theoretically trump that possibility.

Freyr said:

Is it really in the best interest of the Government to remove Vendor 1 as "bum" for failing to include a responsibility item?

Yes.  Maintaining the integrity of the process is important.  But isn't it a little disingenuous to describe this as merely a responsibility item?

Let me re-cast what you wrote:  Vendor 1 is the incumbent and is the favored offeror, and we cannot imagine working with any other contractor -- risk to the work and all that -- let's skew our rules to favor our favored offeror since this is who is going to win anyway.  Isn't it in the Government's interest to select the contractor that we favor the most?

I saw this a while back -- the solicitation required a certain education level and experience and so forth for the project lead -- the incumbent proposed its very successful incumbent project lead, who did not have the education -- so the Government team wanted to overlook the deficiency because the incumbent is the one they wanted to win anyway, and thought it was in the Government's interest to select the incumbent because otherwise it got the highest ratings and so forth.

But you can salvage the situation.  Maybe you need to cancel the solicitation and start over.  Or maybe you need to issue a solicitation amendment for some small thing and send it only to those who submitted offers -- invite updated proposals based on the invitation and then re-do whatever portion of the technical evaluation needs to be re-done.  Hopefully, Vendor 1 will follow instructions this time and you can select Vendor 1 as the winner (that seems like the desired end result anyway).

ji20874 said:

Yes.  Maintaining the integrity of the process is important.  But isn't it a little disingenuous to describe this as merely a responsibility item?

Let me re-cast what you wrote:  Vendor 1 is the incumbent and is the favored offeror, and we cannot imagine working with any other contractor -- risk to the work and all that -- let's skew our rules to favor our favored offeror since this is who is going to win anyway.  Isn't it in the Government's interest to select the contractor that we favor the most?

I saw this a while back -- the solicitation required a certain education level and experience and so forth for the project lead -- the incumbent proposed its very successful incumbent project lead, who did not have the education -- so the Government team wanted to overlook the deficiency because the incumbent is the one they wanted to win anyway, and thought it was in the Government's interest to select the incumbent because otherwise it got the highest ratings and so forth.

But you can salvage the situation.  Maybe you need to cancel the solicitation and start over.  Or maybe you need to issue a solicitation amendment for some small thing and send it only to those who submitted offers -- invite updated proposals based on the invitation and then re-do whatever portion of the technical evaluation needs to be re-done.  Hopefully, Vendor 1 will follow instructions this time and you can select Vendor 1 as the winner (that seems like the desired end result anyway).

ji, I think you are saying that vendor 1 would still have to comply with the Part 15 solicitation/RFP/etc. requirements. Important point.

Greatly appreciate the answers which all clearly point in the same direction. That said, for a FAR Part 15 procurement, what's really the purpose of what Joel called a "Pro Forma" review other than to kick out vendors who didn't submit all of the requirements? Say for instance that the subcontracting plan is not used as part of any technical evaluation and we didn't include that compliance language. If a vendor failed to submit any required technical documents and we clearly can't evaluate their technical acceptability that's one thing but if we don't have that language and can evaluate everything except that subcontracting plan (which was omitted), then are we still in the same position as if we had that language and still cannot request the plan without going into discussions? I guess my question now boils down to: is that language on it's own what would be removing the vendor if no other deficiencies exist?

I recall reading this case about an Agency not having that language and getting in trouble for performing a compliance review.

My first suggestion would be to replace the word “will” with “may”.

And - for comparative factors, once getting beyond the pro forma review, I think that failure to submit a required subcontracting plan would still be a deficiency that would require discussions. For LPTA, it might be waiveable, as long as the government obtains an acceptable plan prior to award.

https://protoraelaw.com/think-you-know-everything-about-subcontracting-plans-think-again/

Freyr said:

Greatly appreciate the answers which all clearly point in the same direction. That said, for a FAR Part 15 procurement, what's really the purpose of what Joel called a "Pro Forma" review other than to kick out vendors who didn't submit all of the requirements? Say for instance that the subcontracting plan is not used as part of any technical evaluation and we didn't include that compliance language. If a vendor failed to submit any required technical documents and we clearly can't evaluate their technical acceptability that's one thing but if we don't have that language and can evaluate everything except that subcontracting plan (which was omitted), then are we still in the same position as if we had that language and still cannot request the plan without going into discussions? I guess my question now boils down to: is that language on it's own what would be removing the vendor if no other deficiencies exist?

I recall reading this case about an Agency not having that language and getting in trouble for performing a compliance review.

If the subcontracting plan is not an evaluation criterion, then it apparently would be part of the pre-award Responsibility determination or other pre-award requirement. Don’t know if your currently stated pro forma review criteria would require removal before evaluating.

joel hoffman said:

My first suggestion would be to replace the word “will” with “may”.

And - for comparative factors, once getting beyond the pro forma review, I think that failure to submit a required subcontracting plan would still be a deficiency that would require discussions. For LPTA, it might be waiveable, as long as the government obtains an acceptable plan prior to award.

https://protoraelaw.com/think-you-know-everything-about-subcontracting-plans-think-again/

Thanks for the article, super helpful! It states in there "If it is a responsibility criterion, the exchange will still be considered a “clarification” even if the offeror submits a revised subcontracting plan." Do you feel there's a difference between allowing a revised plan and allowing a plan to be submitted in general? 

You also brought up a word our lawyers seem to hate, "waiveable." What conditions do you see need to be met in order to waive something? Outside of FAR 52.215-1(f)(3) that is, unless you consider it to be that minor in the context of the solicitation.

Lots of advice so far.  I’ll add if vendor 1 is much better, why would you toss them out when holding discussion will rectify?  Too often government agencies spend an extraordinary efforts to avoid discussions.  Often that means not achieving the most favorable offer.  It’s like buying a car with asking for the best price.  Also discussions allow you to bargain on lots of no price issues.  You can hold fissions and get revised offers generally in a few days.

Another thing with subcontracting plans, don’t take things for granted.  An offeror could have an approved master plan or commercial plan in place.  Companies are not required to submit additional plans once a commercial plan is approved by a CO.  My advice is carefully read through the proposal and be certain a plan isn’t mentioned somewhere.  You could find yourself in a mess if you disqualify an offer in error.

The bottom line is competition is there to get the best deal.  Sure, integrity of the process has to be maintained too.  But like the old saying goes, “don’t throw out the baby with the bath water.”

When I said, “For LPTA, it might be waiveable, as long as the government obtains an acceptable plan prior to award”, I was referring to:

https://protoraelaw.com/think-you-know-everything-about-su...

Freyr said:

You also brought up a word our lawyers seem to hate, "waiveable." What conditions do you see need to be met in order to waive something? Outside of FAR 52.215-1(f)(3) that is, unless you consider it to be that minor in the context of the solicitation.

But the initial problem is being able to include the firm’s proposal in the evaluation when the RFP specifically says that the government WILL review EACH proposal for compliance with the solicitation AND WILL REMOVE vendors who do not comply with the solicitation requirements.

formerfed said:

The bottom line is competition is there to get the best deal.  Sure, integrity of the process has to be maintained too.  But like the old saying goes, “don’t throw out the baby with the bath water.”

joel hoffman said:

But the initial problem is being able to include the firm’s proposal in the evaluation when the RFP specifically says that the government WILL review EACH proposal for compliance with the solicitation AND WILL REMOVE vendors who do not comply with the solicitation requirements.

If the firm isn’t required to submit a small business subcontracting plan, then it may very well not be a problem.

In this thread, we still don't know WHY the favored offeror didn't submit a subcontracting plan.  The contracting officer could ask the offeror to clarify WHY it did not submit one with its proposal.  Shooting in daylight is better than shooting in darkness.

This discussion illustrates why many contractors believe the competition process is rigged. One offeror failed to comply and the awarding agency is considering bending the rules for the noncompliant vendor. I get the rationale for doing so, but when the government does this, offerors just get a little more cynical about the process.

If you want fewer protests, be better evaluators.

Why would the government require submittal of a subcontracting plan with the proposal for an LPTA basis of award or as a go/no-go factor other than for expediency?

If that is the reason, then you should provide some wiggle room and state that it has to be acceptable prior to award.

If the subcontracting plan is important enough to be a comparative factor, it is supposed to be a DISCRIMINATOR between competing firms. It is then necessary for it to be included in a trade-off comparison. 
Example: https://www.gao.gov/mobile/products/B-418403?utm_campaign=usgao_email&utm_content=gcdecisions&utm_medium=email&utm_source=govdelivery#mt=e-report

Not saying that the above example is or isn’t a good one, just that the small business participation was a comparative factor and that it was mentioned in the protest.

ji20874 said:

In this thread, we still don't know WHY the favored offeror didn't submit a subcontracting plan.  The contracting officer could ask the offeror to clarify WHY it did not submit one with its proposal.  Shooting in daylight is better than shooting in darkness.

Agreed

here_2_help said:

This discussion illustrates why many contractors believe the competition process is rigged. One offeror failed to comply and the awarding agency is considering bending the rules for the noncompliant vendor. I get the rationale for doing so, but when the government does this, offerors just get a little more cynical about the process.

If you want fewer protests, be better evaluators.

Agreed - and write better requirements. Don’t box yourself in, unnecessarily.

ji20874 said:

In this thread, we still don't know WHY the favored offeror didn't submit a subcontracting plan.  The contracting officer could ask the offeror to clarify WHY it did not submit one with its proposal.  Shooting in daylight is better than shooting in darkness.

It's all a hypothetical still but does the reason matter? Is there a difference between an offeror who thought they uploaded it vs one who glazed over the requirement and didn't think they needed to? 

I'm taking from a lot of the responses here that the Government can tend to be a little too strict in their solicitation requirements, leaving little room for Contracting Officers to make judgement calls and use their discretion without appearing to bend the rules too far and appear to favor one vendor over others. Thankfully these forums exist to help educate those like me who are still learning the ins and outs of Federal Acquisition.

formerfed said:

Too often government agencies spend an extraordinary efforts to avoid discussions.  Often that means not achieving the most favorable offer.  It’s like buying a car with asking for the best price.  Also discussions allow you to bargain on lots of no price issues.  You can hold fissions and get revised offers generally in a few days.

TOTALLY agree!   Here Here!

Joel gave good advice earlier -- for example, do not write in the solicitation, "and will remove vendors who do not comply."  How about either (1) writing "and may remove vendors who do not comply;" or (2) remaining silent on the matter in the solicitation?  But if you promise that you will remove someone, then why not throw the bum out as you promised?  Don't make a promise unless you are prepared to keep it.

Freyr said:

It's all a hypothetical still but does the reason matter? Is there a difference between an offeror who thought they uploaded it vs one who glazed over the requirement and didn't think they needed to? 

I'm taking from a lot of the responses here that the Government can tend to be a little too strict in their solicitation requirements, leaving little room for Contracting Officers to make judgement calls and use their discretion without appearing to bend the rules too far and appear to favor one vendor over others. Thankfully these forums exist to help educate those like me who are still learning the ins and outs of Federal Acquisition.

As you can see here,  don’t box yourself in with an overly restrictive pro forma procedure.

Also, carefully determine how and why you would need to or want to evaluate small business subcontracting participation. That is one facet that is inherently written in the FAR with latitude on how and when the Government  can decide to achieve an acceptable plan  prior to award. It is intended to be able to be negotiated with an otherwise successful offeror.

Out of the 90 or so source selections that I participated in and in the Model RFP that we developed and that Our USACE Districts used on billions of dollars worth of design-build construction projects for the Army Transformation Program within the past fifteen years,  I don’t think any of them included a comparative evaluation of small business participation as an important DISCRIMINATOR, although some Districts may have modified the Model RFP for specific projects.

Not spot on yet this GAO Protest case helps support, as has been offered in this thread, that words do make a difference.  Note the decision discussion regarding "Subcontracting Plan" versus ""Small Business Subcontracting Plan".

https://www.gao.gov/products/b-415908#mt=e-report

C Culham said:

Not spot on yet this GAO Protest case helps support, as has been offered in this thread, that words do make a difference.  Note the decision discussion regarding "Subcontracting Plan" versus ""Small Business Subcontracting Plan".

https://www.gao.gov/products/b-415908#mt=e-report

Carl , this is a good example of possible distinctions between types and purposes of subcontracting plan evaluation factors. In your example, the government wanted to evaluate compliance with limitations on subcontracting and/or the extent of proposed self performance of the work, not necessarily limited to the extent of subcontracting to small businesses.

Freyr said:

Another office disagreement/debate we've had recently is regarding whether or not a responsibility issue can be fixed via exchanges if the vendor failed to provide any documentation regarding it. 

Our example: Using FAR Part 15 procedures. Solicitation says vendors must provide financial statements, accounting system audits, and subcontracting plans. Solicitation also says that the Government will review each proposal for compliance with the solicitation and will remove vendors who do not comply with the requirements of the solicitation. Vendor 1 provides only financial statements and accounting system audits but failed to provide any subcontracting plan. Vendors 2 and 3 provide all of the documentation required. 

Is the subcontracting something that we can request Vendor 1 to submit their subcontracting plan after their initial submission without engaging in discussions? We've looked at some cases (like this and this) where vendors failed to provide certain financial statements or accounting system audits and the Agency removed them for non-compliance with the solicitation. The GAO seemed to think in those cases that it didn't need to go to the SBA for a CoC because it wasn't a non-responsibility determination but rather a non-compliance issue. The COFC has of course held that if even if the exchanges had produced changes in a vendor's proposal it would not constitute discussions under FAR 15.306(d) because the exchanges only concerned responsibility. I haven't seen any GAO/COFC cases where an Agency allowed a fully omitted responsibility item to be submitted after the initial submission (maybe I'm just asking a dumb question and it's clearly something that no one would protest or no CO would allow?).

Bottom line Question: Can we cure a material omission in the name of responsibility or should the vendor be kicked out during the compliance check?

In re-reading this OP, I noticed that all three of the categories of proposal submission requirements - financial statements, accounting audits and subcontracting plans - are typically the type of information necessary for a  pre-award, responsibility determination.

According to 9.105-1(b) this information would generally be obtained after receipt of offers or (possibly) before issuing the RFP in special circumstances. Requests for information are ordinary limited to a low bidder or those offerors in range for award - not as a proposal submission requirement for evaluating every proposal in response to the RFP for a single award contract. 

Am I missing something here?  Why would this pre-award info comprise the evaluation factors to select the source??

Joel,

You bring up good points.  In fact, the FAR implies that the successful offeror just needs to furnish an acceptable plan prior to award.  

Quote

19.702 Statutory requirements.

Any contractor receiving a contract with a value greater than the simplified acquisition threshold must agree in the contract that small business, veteran-owned small business, service-disabled veteran-owned small business, HUBZone small business, small disadvantaged business, and women-owned small business concerns will have the maximum practicable opportunity to participate in contract performance consistent with its efficient performance. It is further the policy of the United States that its prime contractors establish procedures to ensure the timely payment of amounts due pursuant to the terms of their subcontracts with small business, veteran-owned small business, service-disabled veteran-owned small business, HUBZone small business, small disadvantaged business, and women-owned small business concerns.

       (a)  

(1)  Except as stated in paragraph (b) of this section, section 8(d) of the Small Business Act (15 U.S.C. 637(d)) imposes the following requirements regarding subcontracting with small businesses and small business subcontracting plans:

                 (i)  In negotiated acquisitions, each solicitation of offers to perform a contract that is expected to exceed $700,000 ($1.5 million for construction) and that has subcontracting possibilities, shall require the apparently successful offeror to submit an acceptable subcontracting plan. If the apparently successful offeror fails to negotiate a subcontracting plan acceptable to the contracting officer within the time limit prescribed by the contracting officer, the offeror will be ineligible for award. For a multiple-award contract with more than one North American Industry Classification System (NAICS) code, see paragraph (a)(2)(i) of this section.

And negotiation of a subcontracting plan doesn’t constitute discussions per this GAO cite:

“We agree with the protester's premise that where, as here, the quality and completeness of the subcontracting plan was not to be evaluated as part of the evaluation of proposals, the subcontracting plan requirement concerns a matter of responsibility, so that "an agency request for an updated subcontracting plan does not constitute discussions or require that revised proposals be solicited from all offerors." See A. B. Dick Co., B-233142, Jan. 31, 1989, 89-1 CPD para. 106 at 3-4; cf. Computer Sci. Corp. et al., B-298494.2 et al., May 10, 2007, 2007 CPD para. 103 at 10”

wifcon.com/cgen/401600.pdf

Yes, we routinely negotiated the small business subcontracting plan independently with the apparent successful offeror(s).

it would be different if we were evaluating the extent of subcontracting to determine the required self performed work requirements. But the standard small business subcontracting plan - to me - isn’t a real discriminator for most source selections.

Where, as here, an offeror is required by the solicitation to submit a small business subcontracting plan, and fails to do so, and is still considered for award, then the contracting officer is teaching the contractor that corners may be cut without consequences. I wonder what other corners will be cut, post-award?

here_2_help said:

Where, as here, an offeror is required by the solicitation to submit a small business subcontracting plan, and fails to do so, and is still considered for award, then the contracting officer is teaching the contractor that corners may be cut without consequences. I wonder what other corners will be cut, post-award?

H2H, this is supposedly a hypothetical situation.  I think that Freyr understands now that the government shouldn’t paint themselves into a corner definitively by stating that a firm “will be” removed for this type action.

But I’m not sure that Freyr is aware that two of the three identified proposal submission requirements are for responsibility criteria that should be requested of a firm that is an otherwise apparent successful proposer and that a small business subcontracting plan probably isn’t much of a discriminator. I don’t know if they are referring to a small business subcontracting plan or to something identifying the type and extent of subcontracting in order to evaluate the type and extent of self-performed work - which may well be a discriminator where contractually required minimums are established.

joel hoffman said:

H2H, this is supposedly a hypothetical situation.  I think that Freyr understands now that the government shouldn’t paint themselves into a corner definitively by stating that a firm “will be” removed for this type action.

But I’m not sure that Freyr is aware that two of the three identified proposal submission requirements are for responsibility criteria that should be requested of a firm that is an otherwise apparent successful proposer and that a small business subcontracting plan probably isn’t much of a discriminator. I don’t know if they are referring to a small business subcontracting plan or to something identifying the type and extent of subcontracting in order to evaluate the type and extent of self-performed work - which may well be a discriminator where contractually required minimums are established.

Definitely understanding not to paint ourselves into a corner! For those proposal submission items I identified, our office's RFPs typically include them as requirements for their initial proposal submission (I'm assuming so we don't need to ask for them after a technical evaluation? Not sure.). For clarification, I have been referring to SB subcontracting plans, I apologize for not making that more clear.

joel hoffman said:

H2H, this is supposedly a hypothetical situation.

Understood. Please accept my post as a hypothetical comment.

Freyr said:

Definitely understanding not to paint ourselves into a corner! For those proposal submission items I identified, our office's RFPs typically include them as requirements for their initial proposal submission (I'm assuming so we don't need to ask for them after a technical evaluation? Not sure.). For clarification, I have been referring to SB subcontracting plans, I apologize for not making that more clear.

Freyr, all three of those categories are responsibility criteria. I don’t understand why you would competitively evaluate them. Especially if you’re trying to use comparative ratings with the evaluation criteria. Are those the only factors that you typically use?

Financial capability and audited accounting systems are not really suitable as discriminators between proposals. Small business subcontracting plan must be acceptable to the government but I personally don’t think that it’s worth the effort to compare between proposals, thus is usually acceptable or unacceptable. If those are the only factors that you are using why don’t you just go with a bid? Or for simplified acquisition’s just go with price only and obtain the information you need for responsibility determination from the apparent winner

On 4/9/2020 at 4:59 PM, joel hoffman said:

Freyr, all three of those categories are responsibility criteria. I don’t understand why you would competitively evaluate them. Especially if you’re trying to use comparative ratings with the evaluation criteria. Are those the only factors that you typically use?

Financial capability and audited accounting systems are not really suitable as discriminators between proposals. Small business subcontracting plan must be acceptable to the government but I personally don’t think that it’s worth the effort to compare between proposals, thus is usually acceptable or unacceptable. If those are the only factors that you are using why don’t you just go with a bid? Or for simplified acquisition’s just go with price only and obtain the information you need for responsibility determination from the apparent winner

Those are the only responsibility type criteria we typically include in our full and open competitions along with whatever other technical and price evaluation criteria are necessary (we normally do not use LPTA and most requirements are above the SAT/non-commercial). So we're not actually using any of those three to discriminate between proposals.

It is not necessary to include text in your solicitation to indicate what responsibility criteria you will apply to the otherwise successful offeror (except for special standards under FAR 9.104-2, which does not seem to be applicable here).  Maybe you should stop doing it.

Freyr said:

Those are the only responsibility type criteria we typically include in our full and open competitions along with whatever other technical and price evaluation criteria are necessary (we normally do not use LPTA and most requirements are above the SAT/non-commercial). So we're not actually using any of those three to discriminate between proposals.

ji20874 said:

It is not necessary to include text in your solicitation to indicate what responsibility criteria you will apply to the otherwise successful offeror (except for special standards under FAR 9.104-2, which does not seem to be applicable here).  Maybe you should stop doing it.

Another thing to consider is that, when performing responsibility determination, you should be using the latest information available at the time of award. If it takes several weeks a month or two months etc. to evaluate and award, the information that you demanded in their initial proposal May already be outdated or otherwise non-current.

That is on top of the other facts that 1). you’re routinely asking everyone for information that generally only would be applicable to the otherwise successful offeror or proposer, 2) the government appears to be evaluating this information in every proposal not just the apparent winner*,  3) you might be asking for small business subcontracting plans from firms not required to submit them and 4) your pro-forma language boxes you in, as discussed earlier.

*A general rule of thumb is not to ask every proposer for information if you are only going to evaluate and consider the info provided by the apparent winner. Unnecessarily exercising and costing industry time, resources and money.

As a beginner, hopefully there is plenty of food for thought so far.

Good luck and stay healthy!

Disclosure - I used to include the The small business subcontracting plan as a separate go/no go factor. I reconsidered after realizing that it was unnecessary for the reasons explained above!

We were doing it to theoretically streamline timeline for the overall valuation and award. However we found out that we could ask for it after the initial evaluations and trade off decisions, during other pre-award activities in parallel.

So, I apologize if I sounded sanctimonious.

ji20874 said:

It is not necessary to include text in your solicitation to indicate what responsibility criteria you will apply to the otherwise successful offeror (except for special standards under FAR 9.104-2, which does not seem to be applicable here).  Maybe you should stop doing it.

Freyr said:

we typically include in our full and open competitions

Hmmmm. @Freyr as this thread and the information unfolds you might considering offering additional facts as to the reason "we" ask for the information.  Office, agency or other overriding policy?   Because it has always been done that way?   Or, possibly "you" and your office just developed a standard that you think is appropriate?  Doing so might help us all understand why, beyond the small business plan, that responsibility like information is being asked for in the solicitation.

C Culham said:

Hmmmm. @Freyr as this thread and the information unfolds you might considering offering additional facts as to the reason "we" ask for the information.  Office, agency or other overriding policy?   Because it has always been done that way?   Or, possibly "you" and your office just developed a standard that you think is appropriate?  Doing so might help us all understand why, beyond the small business plan, that responsibility like information is being asked for in the solicitation.

It was they way we did it when I started at this office and no one's thought to question it, I try to question whatever doesn't make sense to me but this one flew right over my head. My assumption, or what I figure people would say in hindsight to make sense of it, is that it's to get all the information up front so you don't need to ask for it later (like Joel mentioned, streamline the evaluation timeline). Looking at it now, it doesn't seem to streamline much and could potentially cause other issues and make things take even long (or even still have to ask for updated information regardless).

Freyr said:

It was they way we did it when I started at this office

Thanks.  It is good you are questioning.  My additional thought is I wonder how long the process used has been around.   While not the sole determining resource it would seem that with CPARS, which evaluates factors very similar to those used in responsibility is a tool that might help in the streamlining effort.  A tool for leveling what a contractor might say in a proposal.

A more basic question is why does your office even need financial statements and audited accounting system approvals?  Do you do anything with them?  More people, government and business, just rely on online sources to determine financial well being of companies.  Just a statement from offerors that their accounting system is approved is that appears in most solicitations.  We’ve already talked about subcontracting plans.