Evaluation Team Guidance

I am okay with a single TEP.  The TEP, so to speak, could be a single person.

By the way, considering the additional administrative costs of multiple awards is completely fair and honorable.  Point the contracting officer to FAR 52.215-1(f)(6).

You will have to ask the contracting officer where he or she is getting these ideas -- they don't come from the FAR.

IAMBATMAN said:

The question: The CO wants two separate Technical Evaluations Teams (TEPs), with separate members to prevent the perception of an unbiased evaluation( for example the customer picking one vendor to reduce their administrative burden), what gives the CO this authority? any FAR reference or agency supplemental guidance references?

The KO can have as many or few technical evaluation teams and/or members as they deem necessary. Why do you think that the KO is restricted to one team, if the solicitation is set up with the possibility of two awards.

As for agency supplements, we don’t know what your specific agency is. No other agency supplement would be relevant.

I will say that the KO should be working to meet their customer’s needs and not ignore the customers goals.

By the way what is the role of the “technical evaluation team” which you are referring to? Do they evaluate and rate the proposals or do they just review, evaluate  and provide a technical report or briefing to another panel or to the KO?

Is the KO the source selection authority?

@joel the technical evaluation team will evaluate and rate the proposals and provide a technical report to the KO

@Don Yes.

I know at the end of the day its the KO's decision, however you do have those customers that want FAR references for everything, so I would like to provide them with something other than because the KO said so.

In this case, I think the answer is going to be because the CO said so.

IAMBATMAN said:

RFQ

IAMBATMAN said:

Quoters

Quotes.....quotes!  My view no TEP whether one or two, no FAR part 15.  Simply get the quotes determine the best alternative as the overall best value and make the dang award.   Even though hypothetical if the work is really not complex but akin to mowing grass and servicing a sprinkler system and the solicitation is really an RFQ the KO is making the whole process unnecessarily complex.   FAR 13.106-2 and lots of Forum threads on how to evaluate quotes says so!

IAMBATMAN said:

know at the end of the day its the KO's decision, however you do have those customers that want FAR references for everything, so I would like to provide them with something other than because the KO said so.

Ok, if we're talking SAP, quote FAR 13.106-2(b)(1).

C Culham said:

Quotes.....quotes!  My view no TEP whether one or two, no FAR part 15.  Simply get the quotes determine the best alternative as the overall best value and make the dang award.   Even though hypothetical if the work is really not complex but akin to mowing grass and servicing a sprinkler system and the solicitation is really an RFQ the KO is making the whole process unnecessarily complex.   FAR 13.106-2 and lots of Forum threads on how to evaluate quotes says so!

Don Mansfield said:

Ok, if we're talking SAP, quote FAR 13.106-2(b)(1).

Yes.  Don’t make this unnecessarily complex.  You get quotes, evaluate, select, and issue a purchase order.  Probably two people can do it - a tech/program person and CO (or KO if DoD)

The other point that is important here is that the customer should have some input if they will be administering the contract(s). 

ji20874 said:

By the way, considering the additional administrative costs of multiple awards is completely fair and honorable.  Point the contracting officer to FAR 52.215-1(f)(6).

C Culham said:

Quotes.....quotes!  My view no TEP whether one or two, no FAR part 15.  Simply get the quotes determine the best alternative as the overall best value and make the dang award.   Even though hypothetical if the work is really not complex but akin to mowing grass and servicing a sprinkler system and the solicitation is really an RFQ the KO is making the whole process unnecessarily complex.   FAR 13.106-2 and lots of Forum threads on how to evaluate quotes says so!

Hear!  Hear!

Just to pile on this hypothetical ... walk me through how, after market research, somebody reached the conclusion that these services were NOT commercial services to be acquired using Part 12 procedures. We doing lawn care to MIL-SPEC these days?

We don't know anything --  the lawn care example was clearly identified by the original poster as hypothetical.  The original poster's sole question was on the necessity for authority to require two evaluation teams rather than one -- he or she could just as easily used execution services at a prison for task 1 and chaplain services at the same prison for task 2.

We don't know whether the services are commercial or not -- that is irrelevant to the question.  We don't know if they're using FAR Part 13 or some other authority -- that is irrelevant to the question. 

On 6/16/2022 at 10:53 AM, IAMBATMAN said:

The question: The CO wants two separate Technical Evaluations Teams (TEPs), with separate members to prevent the perception of an unbiased evaluation( for example the customer picking one vendor to reduce their administrative burden), what gives the CO this authority? any FAR reference or agency supplemental guidance references?

On 6/16/2022 at 7:53 AM, IAMBATMAN said:

The question: The CO wants two separate Technical Evaluations Teams (TEPs), with separate members to prevent the perception of an unbiased evaluation( for example the customer picking one vendor to reduce their administrative burden), what gives the CO this authority? any FAR reference or agency supplemental guidance references?

Emphasis added.

ji20874 said:

We don't know anything --  the lawn care example was clearly identified by the original poster as hypothetical.  The original poster's sole question was on the necessity for two evaluation teams rather than one -- he or she could just as easily used execution services at a prison for task 1 and chaplain services at the same prison for task 2.

We don't know whether the services are commercial or not -- that is irrelevant to the question.  We don't know if they're using FAR Part 13 or some other authority -- that is irrelevant to the question.

Actually, the OP's question was not about the necessity for two teams. It was about the CO's authority to require two teams.

If the procurement will be conducted under FAR Part 15, and if the CO is the SSA, which is to be presumed in the absence of information to the contrary, see FAR 15.303(a), then the CO's authority to require two separate evaluation teams is FAR 15.303(b)(1) and (2).

If the procurement will be conducted under FAR Part 13, then the CO's authority is FAR 13.106-2(b), previously cited by Don.

I agree that commerciality has nothing to do with the CO's authority to require two TEPs.

There are the requested FAR references. I say that the question has now been answered.

ji20874 said:

We don't know whether the services are commercial or not -- that is irrelevant to the question.

Are you sure?   

 FAR 12.205 "(a) Where technical information is necessary for evaluation of offers, agencies should, as part of market research, review existing literature generally available in the industry to determine its adequacy for purposes of evaluation. If adequate, contracting officers shall request existing product or service literature from offerors of commercial products or commercial services in lieu of unique technical proposals."

The idea of a TEP for a commercial service akin to mowing and sprinkler servicing is dumb.  

On 6/16/2022 at 7:53 AM, IAMBATMAN said:

The CO wants two separate Technical Evaluations Teams (TEPs), with separate members to prevent the perception of an unbiased evaluation( for example the customer picking one vendor to reduce their administrative burden), what gives the CO this authority? any FAR reference or agency supplemental guidance references?

I will agree the FAR gives the CO authority to have two TEP's YET FAR references and dare I say agency supplements on the subject places the imperative or the expected course of action for a TEP and I would submit that for a RFQ, noncommercial or commercial that expected course of action is no TEP.

As with any the thread unless the CO/KO is in violation of statute or regulation they can do anything they like but in some cases what they do is dumb!

@C CulhamYour point is that a TEP for lawn and sprinkler maintenance is dumb. I agree.

But ji20874's point is that we were not asked for an opinion in that regard. We were asked what is the CO's authority to require two TEPs. That question has been answered.

Vern Edwards said:

@C CulhamYour point is that a TEP for lawn and sprinkler maintenance is dumb. I agree.

But ji20874's point is that we were not asked for an opinion in that regard. We were asked what is the CO's authority to require two TEPs. That question has been answered.

Yeah I know but I struggle as usual as you all are saying go for it because the CO says so but is the CO doing so a proper exercise of authority?  I really question that it is.

Could it not be that the strategy for two TEP's for a quote (commercial or not) is not in the best interests of the Government and using a TEP for a quote (commercial or not) is addressed in the FAR (regulation) as not required therefore doing so is not a permissible exercise of authority?   

Dumb hypothetical!

C Culham said:

Could it not be that the strategy for two TEP's for a quote (commercial or not) is not in the best interests of the Government and using a TEP for a quote (commercial or not) is addressed in the FAR (regulation) as not required therefore doing so is not a permissible exercise of authority?

Emphasis added.

Are you saying that because all they want is a quote, instead of a proposal, that a CO cannot establish a TEP? If so, I disagree. That would be going too far.

An agency seeking a quotes in a single acquisition using simplified acquisition procedures might be seeking to acquire products and services much more complex than lawn car and sprinkler maintenance. If so, two TEPs might be appropriate.

I agree that for lawn care and sprinkler maintenance, two TEPs seem needless. But don't try to turn that into some kind of general rule against it. Again, don't go too far!

Vern Edwards said:

Are you saying that because all they want is a quote, instead of a proposal, that a CO cannot establish a TEP? If so, I disagree.

 Difference of opinion. 

For clarity what I am saying is the TEP is not required by the FAR for a quote, or even a RFP ( team yes but not panel).   Agency supplement or policy might require a panel but it is not required by the FAR.   I do agree the CO can do anything they want including establishing a TEP for any procurement, even a micro-purchase.   So what is too far?

The very reason the Federal procurement process is in disarray is because the general rule of simplified procurements has been so distorted into being like FAR part 15 procurements.   Won't count for much but the best interest of the Government is to keep it simple, the FAR echo's this strongly. 

I appreciate the view but as it goes I am settled in mine.

C Culham said:

... as it goes I am settled in mine.

As usual. 😄

C Culham said:

The idea of a TEP for a commercial service akin to mowing and sprinkler servicing is dumb.

The homeowners association in the community I live went out for proposals for the exact services.  They did a selection on a technical/price trade off.  They considered past performance, technical approach and price.  The technical factor for mowing involved assessing the type of equipment offerors used for mowing, blowing and trimming.  They felt it was important that mowing be done quickly to minimize disruption to homeowners so larger and faster equipment was a plus.  They also wanted to know how offerors would service irrigation lines.  Some companies installed sensing equipment to spot leaks and blockages.  Some companies replace bad lines while others patch bad sections.  They looked for companies that found problems and fixed before homeowners submitted reports.

I understand your point and this example is a rarity but there might be good reasons for a TEP.

formerfed said:

I understand your point and this example is a rarity but there might be good reasons for a TEP

Or better market research, or sealed bidding, or no TEP......it just depends!  Life goes on!

@formerfedWell, you got him to "It just depends!" That's something.

Vern Edwards said:

@formerfedWell, you got him to "It just depends!" That's something.

Come on Vern, jump in the pool you will like it.   After all you hedge your bets all the time.  In truth every darn contracting question is " it depends".   When the question hits adjudication neither you or I have the last word, the courts or equal do, and for them it even depends on facts not hypotheticals.

C Culham said:

Come on Vern, jump in the pool you will like it.

I was swimming with whales before you knew how to dog paddle.

Vern Edwards said:

I was swimming with whales before you knew how to dog paddle.

Now, now I think you have forgotten history.  I was swimming with whales, inclusive of you and many others, in the early years.   Your migration was admittedly far reaching but that does not mean that the route I took was any less.  You want to deem it so but in the end I was in the pod whether you acknowledge it or not.   And by the way I think there are many in my pod that would acknowledge that appropriate credit to you was acknowledged in my migration.  Too bad you feel a want to stomp on it being so every chance you get.  Swim on!

Carl, you should know by now that you won’t get the last word in…🤪

@joel hoffmanWhat's amusing about this is that my first comment in this thread was to agree with him.

But then he went overboard with "After all you hedge your bets all the time," and "jump in the pool you will like it."

My writing speaks for me.

He can have the last word.

Vern Edwards said:

@joel hoffmanWhat's amusing about this is that my first comment in this thread was to agree with him.

But then he went overboard with "After all you hedge your bets all the time," and "jump in the pool you will like it."

You would think there is a pool of his writings and other contributions to the field.

He can have the last word.

Darn it Vern you bait and bait and bait.   Read the posts, read them!  You do hedge your bets just like editing your most recent post.  You see I screen shot what I see and that makes me react.  You changed it and you know it but you still left it worded to bait me.     Overall it is the third in a line of snide remarks made to others but aimed at me when all that I did was politely answer your question and then you started with the crap.   Reading the posts will clearly show the trail.       Your gamesmanship is backhanded and I just won't just sit by and let the stream at me.   

There are a million ways to contribute to the pool and I have done so!

I guess I discredited you with "Hear! Hear!"

As for editing my post, yes.  I thought things through and changed my words. I do it all the time. (Like just then.) Is that what you call hedging my bets? If so, you should try it.

And Carl, you discredit yourself by taking extreme positions. You made your best point in this thread with your first post. It's still a good point.

Vern Edwards said:

And Carl, you discredit yourself by taking extreme positions.

It is not extreme.     In this thread I have simply suggested that for a hypothetical whose very subject is a simple commercial item procurement that the CO should have two TEPs. They can but I disagree on the basis of the following and the rest of the guiding principles of the FAR which suggests doing so is not commensurate with the guiding principles and possibly not a permissible exercise of authority. 

"The Federal Acquisition System will-

           (1) Satisfy the customer in terms of cost, quality, and timeliness of the delivered product or service by, for example-

                (i) Maximizing the use of commercial products and commercial services;

                (ii) Using contractors who have a track record of successful past performance or who demonstrate a current superior ability to perform; and

                (iii) Promoting competition;

           (2) Minimize administrative operating costs;

           (3) Conduct business with integrity, fairness, and openness; and

           (4) Fulfill public policy objectives."

C Culham said:

In this thread I have simply suggested that for a hypothetical whose very subject is a simple commercial item procurement that the CO should have two TEPs. They can but I disagree on the basis of the following and the rest of the guiding principles of the FAR which suggests doing so is not commensurate with the guiding principles and possibly not a permissible exercise of authority.

That's extreme. The FAR  guiding principles suggest no such thing.

Vern Edwards said:

That's extreme. The FAR  guiding principles suggest no such thing.

 The how and implied why  to evaluate a simplified acquisition (both non-commercial and commercial) is stated in the FAR. The very "Purpose"  of which is to promote efficiency and minimize burden.  "(T)two TEP's" for a "Quote" for mowing and sprinkler maintenance is not efficient and is burdensome on contractors and the agency and therefore questionable exercise of authority.  Heck the very fact that there was a post regarding the hypothetical proves the point. 

If the OP wanted to simply ask if a CO can do anything they want when it comes to establishing TEP's that is whole different story, and yes that question has been answered and one which I do not disagree with and have stated same in this thread.  The OP did not do that, their hypothetical subject for asking was a quote.

Vern Edwards said:

I guess I discredited you with "Hear! Hear!"

You know where you did!  At the above quote I did not utter a word.  I did  when you started with your subsequent posts and you know which ones.  So to be clear I saw the Hear Hear post, read it, did not respond to it and appreciated it.   The extreme was started by you after I responded, again respectfully, to your question.