——— Browse Questions (and Answers) ———

Auditing

Better Buying Power

Business

Contracting

Facilities Engineering

Industrial & Contract Property Mgmt

Information Technology

Life Cycle Logistics

Production, Quality, & Manufacturing

Program Management

Purchasing

Program Systems Engineering

Science and Technology Management

Systems Engineering

Test and Evaluation

Other

Ask A Question

Before submitting a question, please…

Use the menu on the left to review the questions that have been previously asked and answered.
Search the Ask A Professor library by typing your question into the text box at the top of this (or any) page and clicking the Search button.
After all that, if you’re sure no one has already asked and answered your question, then…

Question and Answer List RSS

Competition Templates and Samples Posted:9/26/2012

Responsibility Determination for Afghani Native Contractors Posted:9/26/2012

Responsibility Determination for Afghani Native Contractors

Posted:	9/26/2012 8:52:00 AM
Scenario:	I have encountered an issue that needs a bit more investigating, and I haven’t been able to find anything concrete to address contracting authority when issuing awards to Afghani native contractors. I’m a bit concerned about our ability to make a responsibility determination without any means of looking at a company.
Question:	Where can I find information to assist in making a responsibility determination for contract awards to Afghani native contractors?
Answer:	DAU wrote: To aid in your research, we suggest that you download the “Defense Contingency Contracting Handbook” at the following link: http://www.acq.osd.mil/dpap/ccap/cc/jcchb/index.html. In Chapter 5, Contracting Processes, under Section 7 – Justification and Approvals, the following information appears to be relevant to your inquiry: Pre-award Determinations & Memorandums Responsible Prospective Contractor. (FAR 9.103(a)) Contracts may be awarded only to responsible prospective contractors. A responsible contractor is an entity that meets the criteria in FAR 9.104-1. A CCO [Contingency Contracting Officer] is responsible for researching and determining if a contractor is deemed responsible. To aid the CCO in contractor’s responsibility research, a listing of already annotated responsible contractors in the AOR [Area of Responsibility] can be found at the following Web site: https://ishare.bta.mil/default.aspx (password required). Additionally, in accordance with FAR 42.302(a)(32), DCMA is responsible for performing preaward surveys of potential contractors in connection with FAR Subpart 9.1, "Responsible Prospective Contractors". Information summarizing the Contingency Contract Administration Services that DCMA routinely performs can be found at the following link: http://www.dcma.mil/communicator/fall_winter00/16CCAS.cfm. Therefore, you could also review this DCMA website or contact your local DCMA office to learn more information pertaining to requests for the performance of pre-award surveys by DCMA on Afghani native contractors.
Rating:	4
Views:	7

8a awards and the GPE Posted:9/24/2012

Communications during contract with two or more competing contractors Posted:9/12/2012

Communications during contract with two or more competing contractors

Posted:	9/12/2012 2:23:00 PM
Scenario:	PM AAA is developing a Communications Plan for guidance during the ACV Technology Demonstrator Contract pre source selection and post source selection.
Question:	FAR 15.201 describes the nature of communications with potential offerors prior to source selection; however, I have been unable to find any clear guidance on how to communicate with the contractors post source selection. PM AAA will be entering a contract with two or more venders and run a competitive competition between the selected venders with one vender winning all i.e., the winner will move on to LRIP production producing its version of the ACV. How should we the government work/communicate with the competing venders prior to and during the competition? The concern is that technical discussions with one vendor could become an advantage to the other vender(s) if they are aware of the discussion details. I would appreciate any guidance you can provide for pre and especially post source selection.
Answer:	DAU wrote: To address your question, the first stop is FAR Part 15; you are already aware of the guidance there. The second stop would be the DoD Source Selection Procedures, specifically section 3.4 (Discussion Process), section 3.10 (Debriefings), and Appendix B (Debriefing Guide). Once you have digested that content, it's beneficial to place yourself in the shoes of both offerors during pre-award discussions and in the shoes of the losing offeror during the post-award debriefing. Then ask yourself (as the offeror): "Is there anything about the way the Government has conducted the discussion/debriefing that I feel may have put me at a competitive disadvantage?" The answer to this question provides a good "self-check" for how to conduct the discussions and debriefings.
Rating:	1
Views:	1015

Interpretation of FAR definition of Agency Head - Source Selection Posted:9/6/2012

Interpretation of FAR definition of Agency Head - Source Selection

Posted:	9/6/2012 12:59:00 PM
Scenario:	The Contracting Office is evaluating proposals for an acquisition using the Best Value Trade Off. The CO requested everyone involved in the Source Selection process to sign a certificate of non-disclosure and financial interest. The program office or customer (different Bureau) requested the head of their Bureau be briefed on the status of the Best Value Determination and the Technical Evaluation Panel (TEP) findings. This person, declined to sign a non-disclosure form claiming that head of a Bureau is equivalent to an assistant secretary, which in his or her opinion meets the FAR definition of Agency Head (FAR 2.101). Furthermore, this person claims since per 15.303 Agency heads are responsible for source selection, under FAR 3.104-4, he or she would have the first responsibility, to protect source selection information. Therefore, he or she does not need to sign a non-disclosure form.
Question:	The CO believes that when FAR 15.303 states that Agency heads are responsible for source selection, the FAR is referring to the head of the agency (Secretary of State) and the person he or she delegates to manage contracting functions of the agency such as the Head of the Contracting Activity (HCA). Is the CO interpretation correct? Otherwise, if Agency head means the head of the Program Office or customer, their being responsible for source selection presents a conflict of interest. In which other government agency is the customer and not the contracting activity responsible for source selection?
Answer:	DAU wrote: FAR Part 2 defines "agency head" as "...the Secretary, Attorney General, Administrator, Governor, Chairperson, or other chief official of an executive agency, unless otherwise indicated, including any deputy or assistant chief official of an executive agency." So the bureau head in your situation is correct in that an "assistant secretary" would meet the FAR definition of an agency head. However, it is questionable whether a bureau head is the equivalent of an "assistant chief official of an executive agency." A clue can be taken from DoD's definition in DFARS Part 2: “Head of the agency” means, for DoD, the Secretary of Defense, the Secretary of the Army, the Secretary of the Navy, and the Secretary of the Air Force. Subject to the direction of the Secretary of Defense, the Under Secretary of Defense (Acquisition, Technology, and Logistics), and the Director of Defense Procurement and Acquisition Policy, the directors of the defense agencies have been delegated authority to act as head of the agency for their respective agencies (i.e., to perform functions under the FAR or DFARS reserved to a head of agency or agency head), except for such actions that by terms of statute, or any delegation, must be exercised within the Office of the Secretary of Defense. DoD's definition, along with the FAR definition's reference to "...unless otherwise indicated..." makes it clear that agencies have the latitude to further define "agency head" for their own agencies. You did not indicate which bureau is involved, or even if the other bureau is organizationally part of your agency. For example, the parent agency of the FBI is the Dept. of Justice, so DOJ would establish whether the FBI Director can act as agency Head for FBI source selections. Regarding the other aspect of your question, the agency head is the head of the agency actually performing the contracting for the acquisition. This is demonstrated by FAR 15.303(a), which assigns the agency head the responsibility for designating the contracting officer as the SSA in cases for which it's appropriate. Clearly, an agency head from one agency cannot designate a contracting officer from a different agency; they are from the same agency. When one agency requests contracting support from another agency, they play by the contracting agency's rules. However, I am unaware of any specific prohibition against having the SSA come from the customer/using activity.
Rating:	1
Views:	1872

Multiple Award BOA using Sealed Bid? Posted:8/16/2012

Multiple Award BOA using Sealed Bid?

Posted:	8/16/2012 3:19:00 PM
Scenario:	Procurement for Community Nursing Home (CNH) services. VHA (Veterans Health Administration) currently writes BOA's with every available State inspected CNH in a given geographic region IAW 38 U.S.C. 1703(a). The need is to have a facility readily available within proximity of where an eligible veteran may reside, allowing them the choice of where they receive care. Technical qualifications are certified by the state and reimbursement rates are also state approved. Selection criteria at the time an order is issued is based on the location of a facility which is a price related factor IAW FAR 14.201-8(a).
Question:	Does the FAR prohibit competing a BOA using Sealed Bid competition procedures? Additionally, can a single BOA be written for multiple holders pursuant to FAR 52.214-22 with each CNH delineated as a different line item number? With the original agreement having been competed, IAW FAR 16.703(d)(1)(ii) subsequent orders would have already satisfied competition requirements allowing the veteran freedom to choose any facility.
Answer:	DAU wrote: 1. The FAR references quoted below in pertinent part are applicable to this response. FAR 6.401 -- Sealed Bidding and Competitive Proposals (a) Sealed bids. (See Part 14 for procedures.) Contracting officers shall solicit sealed bids if -- (1) Time permits the solicitation, submission, and evaluation of sealed bids; (2) The award will be made on the basis of price and other price-related factors; (3) It is not necessary to conduct discussions with the responding offerors about their bids; and (4) There is a reasonable expectation of receiving more than one sealed bid. FAR 14.101 -- Elements of Sealed Bidding Sealed bidding is a method of contracting that employs competitive bids, public opening of bids, and awards. The following steps are involved: (e) Contract award. After bids are publicly opened, an award will be made with reasonable promptness to that responsible bidder whose bid, conforming to the invitation for bids, will be most advantageous to the Government, considering only price and the price-related factors included in the invitation. FAR 15.101-2 -- Lowest Price Technically Acceptable Source Selection Process (a) The lowest price technically acceptable source selection process is appropriate when best value is expected to result from selection of the technically acceptable proposal with the lowest evaluated price. (b) When using the lowest price technically acceptable process, the following apply: (1) The evaluation factors and significant subfactors that establish the requirements of acceptability shall be set forth in the solicitation. Solicitations shall specify that award will be made on the basis of the lowest evaluated price of proposals meeting or exceeding the acceptability standards for non-cost factors. (2) Tradeoffs are not permitted (3) Proposals are evaluated for acceptability but not ranked using the non-cost/price factors. (4) Exchanges [with offerors] may occur FAR Subpart 16.5 -- Indefinite-Delivery Contracts FAR 16.500 -- Scope of Subpart (a) This subpart prescribes policies and procedures for making awards of indefinite-delivery contracts and establishes a preference for making multiple awards of indefinite-quantity contracts. FAR 16.504 -- Indefinite-Quantity Contracts (a) Description. An indefinite-quantity contract provides for an indefinite quantity, within stated limits, of supplies or services during a fixed period. The Government places orders for individual requirements. Quantity limits may be stated as number of units or as dollar values. (b) Application. Contracting officers may use an indefinite-quantity contract when the Government cannot predetermine, above a specified minimum, the precise quantities of supplies or services that the Government will require during the contract period, and it is inadvisable for the Government to commit itself for more than a minimum quantity. The contracting officer should use an indefinite-quantity contract only when a recurring need is anticipated. (c) Multiple award preference— (1) Planning the acquisition. (i) Except for indefinite-quantity contracts for advisory and assistance services as provided in paragraph (c)(2) of this section, the contracting officer must, to the maximum extent practicable, give preference to making multiple awards of indefinite-quantity contracts under a single solicitation for the same or similar supplies or services to two or more sources. FAR 16.703 -- Basic Ordering Agreements (a) Description. A basic ordering agreement is a written instrument of understanding, negotiated between an agency, contracting activity, or contracting office and a contractor, that contains (1) terms and clauses applying to future contracts (orders) between the parties during its term, (2) a description, as specific as practicable, of supplies or services to be provided, and (3) methods for pricing, issuing, and delivering future orders under the basic ordering agreement. A basic ordering agreement is not a contract. 2. As indicated in FAR 14.101, sealed bidding is a “method of contracting”. Pursuant to FAR 16.703(a)(3) as stated above, a basic ordering agreement is not a contract. Therefore, sealed bidding is not an appropriate method authorized by the FAR for executing Basic Ordering Agreements. Furthermore, in accordance with FAR 16.703(a), a BOA is executed between the contracting office and a single contractor. Therefore, we believe that a single BOA document cannot be executed by the contracting office with multiple holders. 3. However, based on the information provided in this inquiry, we believe that the contracting office may wish to consider the use of multiple award, indefinite delivery/indefinite quantity (IDIQ) contracts in accordance with FAR 16.504 for this acquisition. Under this approach, all of the IDIQ contracts could delineate each CCH as different, separately-priced line item numbers. Additionally, sealed bidding procedures under FAR Part 14 could be also used to achieve competitive pricing for each CCH. However, pursuant to both FAR 6.401(a) and FAR 14.101(e), sealed bidding can only be used if award will be made on the basis of price and price related factors only. Additionally, discussions with any of the offerors would be prohibited under these procedures. Therefore, if more flexibility is needed, especially if discussions must be conducted with each offeror prior to contract awards, then the contracting office may wish to consider the use of Lowest Price Technically Acceptable (LPTA) negotiation procedures in accordance with FAR 15.101-2 in awarding the multiple award IDIQ contracts.
Rating:	1
Views:	1794

Two Phase Source Selection Posted:8/16/2012

Definition Posted:5/3/2012

Definition

Posted:	5/3/2012 9:43:00 AM
Scenario:	Attempting to determine if I can perform multiple roles in the source selection of a major weapon system acquisition.
Question:	What is the definition of "Senior Leader" as it is used in PGI 203.170 Certification?
Answer:	DAU wrote: It's not very clear from the various regulations. For example, DFARS 203.171 mentions "Senior DoD officials seeking employment with defense contractors," and then refers to a "'Covered DoD official'...defined in the clause at 252.203-7000" as presumably the same thing. The subject clause then goes on to identify a covered DoD official as: (2)(i) Participated personally and substantially in an acquisition as defined in 41 U.S.C. 131 with a value in excess of $10 million, and serves or served— (A)In an Executive Schedule position under subchapter II of chapter 53 of Title 5, United States Code; (B)In a position in the Senior Executive Service under subchapter VIII of chapter 53 of Title 5, United States Code; or (C) In a general or flag officer position compensated at a rate of pay for grade O-7 or above under section 201 of Title 37, United States Code; or (ii) Serves or served in DoD in one of the following positions: program manager, deputy program manager, procuring contracting officer, administrative contracting officer, source selection authority, member of the source selection evaluation board, or chief of a financial or technical evaluation team for a contract in an amount in excess of $10 million. To complicate matters, the Air Force supplement to FAR Part 15 defines "senior leader" as "O5s/civilian equivalents and above." The DoD Source Selection Procedures do not provide clarification. The DFARS may be deliberately written to provide some flexibility in its definition of "senior leader" so organizations can use their business judgment specific to the acquisition. You can call the DPAP office that requires the report. I recommend you start by calling 703-695-4258.
Rating:	1
Views:	511

Price Only DoD Source Selection Procedures exemption Posted:4/16/2012

Contract Debriefings Posted:4/11/2012

Discussions during the LPTA process Posted:3/27/2012

Planning for the SSAC activities Posted:3/19/2012

LPTA Posted:2/16/2012

LPTA

Posted:	2/16/2012 5:23:00 PM
Scenario:	FAR 15.305 - The Government will reserve the right to evaluate the lowest priced proposal first and if acceptable in both Experience and Past Performance, will proceed to award. In the event that the lowest priced offer is not acceptable, then the second lowest priced proposal will be evaluated and if acceptable, award will be made. Process will continue until an acceptable offer is evaluated.
Question:	Do we have to review ALL proposals in an LPTA w/evaluation factors as Experience, Past Performance and Price? Can we look at the Price of the lowest proposal FIRST and then move to award if they are considered acceptable? Does this go against CICA?
Answer:	DAU wrote: For purposes of efficiency (the FAR does encourage efficiency during the evaluation process), it would make sense to stop at the earliest lowest-priced proposal that is technically acceptable. Why go through the burdensome process of reviewing five, ten, twenty other proposals if you already found a "winner"? That's one argument. Another argument is based on FAR 15.306(c), which states "Agencies shall evaluate all proposals..." However, it's not clear if that's a mandate to review every single proposal, or that any proposal that is to be evaluated must be evaluated in accordance with FAR 15.305(a). Probably more important, not evaluating all proposals would make it impossible to debrief the unsuccessful offerors who request them, which is definitely a FAR requirement. You would be on safer ground if the solicitation actually stated that only the lowest offeror(s) will be evaluated for technical acceptability. However, the issue of debriefing unsuccessful offerors remains. If you never evaluated the losing proposals for technical acceptability (because though you already had a "winner"), you won't have the information you need to conduct the debriefings.
Rating:	7
Views:	794

Proprieary Information Posted:2/1/2012

Source Sel Process Posted:1/26/2012

Source Sel Process

Posted:	1/26/2012 12:21:00 PM
Scenario:	I work for a non-DoD Federal agency. We are in the process of developing an acquisition strategy for a multi-million dollar IT Service Program. The program office wouild like to do a two-step approach. First, offerors would be required to submit a mandatory technical qualification package. After the technical qualification package evaluation, those not technically qualified/acceptable would be notified that their proposals would not be considered any further and removed from the competition. Those remaing, after the down select , would be asked to submit price and past performance info for a full trade off eval.
Question:	Is this permissible?
Answer:	DAU wrote: You can use a down-select process to evaluate technical proposals--in this case for an IT service program--for acceptability on a "pass/fail" basis in the first stage without considering price. A similar concept is employed for two-step sealed bidding (FAR 14.5), but at a much simpler level. During the first stage of down-selection, the Government can reject any proposals that do not conform to the mandatory requirements of the RFP. However, only a pass/fail rating scheme can be used at this point. If a graded scheme were used (i.e., Outstanding, Good, Acceptable...) it would constitute a competitive range determination, which is not permitted with consideration of price as an evaluation factor. Only Architect-Engineer design-build contracting (FAR 36.2) is authorized to use what amounts to down-selection without considering price in the first stage. As with all source selections it's imperative to— (i) state exactly what factors you are going to evaluate, (ii) state how you are going to evaluate them, (iii) perform the evaluation exactly as you stated, and (iv) carefully document each step of the way. Faithfully following these source selection tenets is key for avoiding problems during the source selection process...particularly for a unique approach such as down-selection.
Rating:	7
Views:	705

Importance of Performing Organization in Past Performance Evaluation Posted:1/3/2012

Best Value for Supply buy Posted:12/30/2011

Best Value for Supply buy

Posted:	12/30/2011 2:23:00 PM
Scenario:	Supply buy. LPTA or Best Value? We make a major IT acquisition at the end of every fiscal year. The equipment is shipped out around the world; both CONUS and OCONUS. Each year the quotes are evaluated on a LPTA basis. The awards go out to multiple vendors based on LPTA. We had one vendor who quoted to all line items, but was not the lowest price on 12 CLINS; the cost difference on the items quoted and the lowest priced was between $1.00 and $50.00. We made four awards versus one award.
Question:	Can you do a Best Value on a supply buy or must you always use LPTA?
Answer:	DAU wrote: The decision to use the tradeoff process or LPTA is not based upon whether or not one is buying a supply or service. The tradeoff process is appropriate when it is in the best interest of the Government to consider award to other than the lowest priced offeror or other than the highest technically rated offeror (FAR 15.101-1). LPTA, as the name implies, is appropriate to use when the Government can establish a level of technical acceptability for the item. After establishing the level of technical acceptability, it is then in the Government’s best interest to select the lowest price offer that meets the Government’s needs (FAR 15.101-2). Therefore, it is conceivable that one could use either process for the procurement of supplies depending on how the Government defines best value. For example, it is conceivable that one may wish to tradeoff longer mean time between failures, lower cost of maintenance, energy efficiency, or a number of other characteristics in lieu of merely selecting the lowest price or most highly technically rated offer. Both methodologies, tradeoff and LPTA, are valid for supplies. The issue really becomes what is in the best interest of the Government.
Rating:	7
Views:	554

Determination and Findings for using other than sealed bidding Posted:11/28/2011

SSEB Requirement Posted:11/22/2011

Source Selection Records Posted:11/10/2011

Show most recent questions. Page 1 of 7 NEXT 20>>

Warnings and Disclaimers

DISCLAIMER: The information contained with�in this server is not official United States Government policy and cannot be construed as official in any way.

NOTICE: Unauthorized attempts to upload information or change information on this service are strictly prohibited and may be punishable under the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act of 1986. All information contained within this server is considered public information and may be distributed or copied. Anyone using this system consents to monitoring of this use by system or security personnel.

DISCLAIMER OF LIABILITY: With respect to documents available from this server, the United States Government nor any of their employees, makes any warranty, express or implied, including the warranties of merchantability and fitness for a particular purpose, or assumes any legal liability or responsibility for the accuracy, completeness, or usefulness of any information, apparatus, product, or process disclosed, or represents that its use would not infringe privately owned rights.

DISCLAIMER OF ENDORSEMENT:
Reference herein to any specific commercial products, process, or service by trade name, trademark, manufacturer, or otherwise, does not necessarily constitute or imply its endorsement, recommendation, or favoring by the United States Government. The views and opinions of authors expresses herein do not necessarily state or reflect those of the United States Government, and shall not be used for advertising or product endorsement purposes.