The document provides a detailed overview of procurement and contracting procedures under different FAR sections, including FAR 8.4, FAR 13, FAR 15.3, and FAR 16.505. It covers topics such as evaluation factors, pricing, debriefings, and oral presentations, and provides insights and recommendations for each of these areas.
The section on evaluation factors discusses the importance of corporate experience and staffing, technical expertise, and betterment in procurement decisions. It emphasizes the need to focus on meeting customer needs and outlines factors that can raise or lower expectations of success.
The pricing section highlights the importance of determining prices as fair and reasonable and provides guidance on how to request price reductions. It also covers the use of rates-only pricing and highest technically rated with fair and reasonable pricing.
The debriefings section provides insights on how to conduct brief explanations and debriefings, including what should and should not be included in these processes. It also explains that the GAO does not review the adequacy of debriefings and that it's important to limit the brief explanation of awards or debriefings to just the facts.
The oral presentations section covers the use of oral presentations in procurement and contracting procedures, including how to evaluate technical and product demonstrations and how to down-select vendors. It also provides guidance on how to use group oral debriefings, on-the-spot consensus, and streamlined evaluation and selection documentation.
The document concludes with a list of innovation resources and techniques for procurement, including micro trainings, yearbooks, and curated samples and information for all procurement innovations. Overall, the document serves as a comprehensive guide for procurement and contracting professionals looking to navigate the complex world of FAR regulations and procedures.
THE NEXT LEVEL
This document is a training aid to support the PIL Boot Camp all‐day experience for the DHS acquisition community. This is not a stand‐alone document. It contains no privileged or proprietary information. |
PIL BOOT CAMP
The Next Level
Fall 2022
Office of the Chief Procurement Officer
FAR 1.102-4 - Role of the Acquisition Team
Deep Dive – Right Sizing Oral Presentations & Product/Technical Demonstrations............ 8
Innovation Technique 17 – Share Evaluation Documentation......................................... 15
Innovation Technique 18 – Enhanced Contract Type Conversion.................................... 16
Procurement Innovations Matrix by FAR Section........................................................... 29
The Procurement Innovation Lab (PIL) was created in 2015 to promote a learning culture that offers acquisition professionals the ability to test new ideas and share lessons learned across the entire acquisition community. It is vital to the success of the mission to create a culture that embraces innovation and manages risks associate with procurements.
Unlike a tiger team, which takes over a procurement and promises immediate results, the PIL leaves the contracting officer in the driver’s seat. The PIL supports and encourages the contracting officer and other members of the acquisition team as they conduct their own acquisitions. This method promotes learning and acceptance of innovation.
Innovation is imperative for acquisition professionals in the Department of Homeland Security, and across the entire federal Government, to efficiently and effectively enable mission. That’s why it is a priority in our strategic plan. The PIL Boot Camp and Next Level workshops are designed to bring the entire acquisition team, no matter their experience or job series, together to understand innovative
approaches that other teams have tested, consider the results, and contemplate new applications or approaches to how we buy. These interactive workshops can transform how we think about procurement. I hope that you enjoy this experience, apply innovation to your next procurement, and will look forward to seeing YOUR innovative approaches in future iterations of the workshop.
– Paul Courtney, DHS Chief Procurement Officer You can always email us at PIL@hq.dhs.gov or individually via our contact information below:
You can find YOUR Acquisition Innovation Advocate (AIA) here!
Or, if you’re at DHS, you can find a complete list of Component AIAs here!
How does the PIL Work?
The PIL primarily focuses on the “obtain” or “contract formation” (i.e., solicitation → evaluation → award) phase of the DHS acquisition lifecycle. Once a procurement project is brought to the lab, PIL Coaches collaborate bi‐weekly with the acquisition team (i.e., Contracting Officer, Program Manager, and Procurement Attorney) until contract award.
The key benefit of the PIL is the senior leadership support it provides for managed risk‐taking:
- If projects are successful, the PIL highlights the team’s success.
- If projects fail because tested techniques didn’t work as intended, senior leadership acknowledges the failure as a true measure of progress and learning.
The PIL is committed to capturing lessons learned from the project regardless of the outcome. As shown below, the PIL framework is centered on “testing” (experimenting) and “sharing” (institutionalizing).
This continuous cycle of testing, receiving feedback, sharing, and re‐testing fosters a learning culture. An organization with a learning culture will steadily and rapidly improve, and be more responsive and flexible, to the constant changes that exist in operational and mission environments.
The PIL experiments with innovative techniques to improve the efficiency and effectiveness of procurements by:
- Lowering entry barriers for innovative, non‐ traditional contractors to compete for DHS business opportunities.
- Shortening the time‐to‐award, thereby delivering capability to the customer faster.
- Encouraging competition by providing interested vendors with a greater understanding of the goals and objectives for each procurement.
- Increasing the likelihood of successful outcomes by focusing on evaluation techniques to obtain the most qualified vendors.
Purpose: To allow vendors to propose solutions that exceed the Government’s requirement and evaluate it accordingly.
- A betterment is any instance where the proposed solution promises to exceed the Government’s requirement in a meaningful way. The offeror should provide information explaining the promise of the betterment and its value to the government.
- This technique is intended to be applied as a stand‐alone factor (similar to innovation as a factor).
- This can easily be submitted in writing (see sample language at the bottom of the page) or done as part of an oral presentation.
Do
- Include Betterment as a stand‐alone
- Hold the contractor to its betterment promises by incorporating them into the
Don’t
- Think that you need to evaluate apples to The betterment promised by one vendor will be different from another vendors – and that’s okay! The key is the tradeoff decision!
- Forget to provide a nominal example of a betterment promise in your
Samples from USCIS Travel Documents Production Services (TDPS) II
Purpose: To allow vendors to understand the Government’s affordability and scope of work prior to submitting a proposal.
- Helps level the playing field and increase
- Removes some of the inherent
- Ensures
- This can be included in the market research phase, in a draft solicitation and the final
- Can provide either a target price or a range of prices by either CLINs or periods of
- Is not intended to be either ceiling or
- Aligns proposals with real requirements, allowing evaluators to focus on technical
- – Helps ensure small businesses understand the anticipated magnitude of each effort so they can decide whether to invest significant bid and proposal costs.
incumbent
more competitive and realistic
Small Business Benefit
What vendors’ think Gov’t has to spend What Government actually has to spend
Recommended text for a solicitation –
Sample from CBP Targeting and Analysis Systems Program Directorate (TASPD) (FAR 16.505)
Sample from USCIS Quality and IV&V Services Delivery (QISD) (FAR 16.505)
Oral Presentation or Interview
Product Demonstration Coding Challenge
Purpose: To bring in the actual technical staff to see and hear their proposed solutions!
- Many ways to get information directly from vendors’ technical
- Allows Government and vendor to
- where
- Request a copy of the PowerPoint slides to be delivered prior to oral presentations, but do NOT evaluate independently of the oral presentation.
- .
ask and answer
Reduce the use of paper proposals
Need to take into account the size and complexity of your requirement when structuring the evaluation factor
Sample from NPS CARI - Texas & Pacific Railway Depot Sample from FEMA Manufactured Housing Unit
– Interpretive Exhibit Design (FAR 13.5) $251,000 (MHU) (FAR 15.3) $800 million
Purpose: To focus evaluation criteria on what’s most important to the mission outcomes and challenges.
- Focused on “usability” and “mission ”
- Really differentiates which vendors can perform the
- Faster and easier to
- Pairs well with interview‐style
- Much easier for vendors to respond to the
- Vendors do not need to respond to all aspects of a requirement to show
that they can perform the work. Just have them respond to what is important to meet the mission.
Sample from FEMA COVID-19 Vaccination Campaign (FAR 15.3)
Sample from USCG AUXDATA II (FAR 8.4)
Excerpt from a real consensus evaluation report ‐ USCG AUXDATA II (FAR 8.4)
Purpose: To build acquisition strategy with those who will 1) evaluate submissions and 2) use product/service.
To get the best results, structure your solicitation and evaluation factors based on what is most important to end‐users. Include end‐ users throughout the process to ensure the results of the procurement work for their needs.
Use to collaboratively create and finalize evaluation criteria.
Keep JAM sessions short and focused (1‐2 hours max). May need to repeat JAM sessions to ensure that all requirements are captured.
Ensure enough end‐user stakeholders are included so that a decision
can be finalized and avoid lengthy reviews and emails. Make sure to also include as much of the review/leadership chain as possible, including legal, policy, level above, etc.
Make decisions as you go along and produce workable artifacts (such as the high‐level acquisition strategy shown below).
Has its roots in Agile Software development where companies held JAM (Joint Application Modeling) sessions.
Four general principles:
Small Group Collaboration Rapid Iterative Design
Visualization
Continuous Flow
Sample from ICE Background Investigations (BI) (FAR 8.4)
Sample from CISA National Risk Management Center (NRMC) (FAR 16.505)
Purpose: To focus the evaluation and award on the technical and not a tradeoff with price.
- Simplifies the best value determination; provides a streamlined way to make award to the highest technically rated offerors.
- Accelerates time to
- Ensures proposed pricing is more accurately associated with proposed quality of
- This is not LPTA nor is it a tradeoff between technical and
- A self‐scoring evaluation methodology is not Instead, try using confidence ratings!
The PIL recommends using this technique ONLY when establishing multiple award IDIQs or BPAs.
We do NOT recommend this in a competition that results in a single award or where cost is a significant consideration in the evaluation.
This technique is NOT recommended for single award BPAs under FAR 8.4 because of statutory and regulatory requirement that best value determinations result in the lowest overall cost alternative (considering price, special features, administrative costs, etc.).
Sample from USAID Education for Peace, Recovery, and Resilience (EPRR) (FAR 15.3)
Sample from VA Customer Experience, DevOps, Agile Releases (CEDAR) (FAR 15.3)
There are many different PIL innovation techniques that help evaluate solicitation submissions faster, easier, and more efficiently.
Technique 3 Confidence Ratings
Easier to understand than traditional adjectival ratings.
Can be used for everything – goods or services, simple or complex procurements, any FAR Section.
Suggest having a working session/dry‐run with the team to understand and implement confidence ratings. | Technique 4 Down-Select
Can be either advisory or mandatory, depending on the requirement.
Highly recommended when there is a possibility that you receive more than a few proposals.
Ensure you select the right factors for each phase. |
Technique 6
Select Best-Suited, Then Negotiate
Only suitable for FAR 8.4, 13, and 16.505. NOT 15.3!
Include PIL recommended language in all your appropriate solicitations to allow maximum flexibility, because you never know when you might need it.
Consider not requiring vendors submit a PWS, QASP or another plan. Instead, negotiate that with the best suited vendor prior to award.
This technique should not be used to either select a winner or make a vendor’s quote acceptable. Need to complete evaluation BEFORE you start negotiations
– See GAO Guide, p. 22. | Technique 7
On-the-Spot Consensus Evaluation
Good for any phase and any FAR Section.
Can be used whether the submission is written or presented orally.
Can be used virtually via Zoom, MS Teams, etc. No individual reports!
1. Read/Listen/Watch.
2. Come to consensus for each factor.
3. Document the rationale. |
All vendor’s prices must be input into the same scenario/formula.
This technique is most applicable to T&M/LH type contracts and least applicable to FFP.
Sample from CBP Investment Analysis Office (FAR 8.4)
Purpose: More effectively communicate agency’s award decision to unsuccessful vendors.
- Clarity and trust in the award process, thus reducing protest
- Government can instill confidence in the acquisition decision and communicate adherence to its contracting process.
- Offerors are motivated to better understand the process while gaining additional insight to improve future proposals.
- Contracting Officers and Program Managers can apply a successful approach through dry runs in a learning environment which brings positive reinforcement.
- Reduced
- Small Business Benefit: More clarity and understanding of the award decision helps small businesses compete more effectively for future work.
Why do we perform debriefings? It is an opportunity for vendors to better understand the basis for an agency’s award decision and improve their next submission.
What should you provide?
Evaluation Report Decision Document How about everything!
As part of the debriefing or brief explanation process, we recommend providing that vendor with their evaluation report for each factor, then follow up with a conversation.
Simple!
Have you ever thought about the major differences in the FAR between brief explanations and debriefings? Check out the table below to see!
Purpose: Allows procurement teams to build flexibility into the solicitation to allow for future conversion from one contract type to another, such as from time‐and‐materials to firm‐fixed‐price, after award.
- Allows procurement teams to award the most appropriate type of contract, at time of award, but convert to a more appropriate, less risky, type after enough historical performance data is
- Improves collaboration between the contracting office, program office, and the After award, CLINs may be converted through mutual agreement of both parties.
- Provides the flexibility to include optional CLINs for support that cannot be accurately priced before work commences. For example – an optional T&M CLIN can be converted to FFP, such as
when the work is more defined after performance or when funding becomes available.
- Allows flexibility when the program office is faced with budget constraints, such as in continuing
Sample from DHS Service Management Tool Sample from DHS Financial Systems Modernization
(FAR 8.4) (FAR 16.5)
Purpose: The FAR is not the only procurement authority. There are many others that acquisition professionals can leverage depending on the situation.
In addition to the flexibilities in the Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR), acquisition professionals can also rely on non‐FAR based authorities such as:
- Small Business Innovation Research (SBIR) Program
- Other Transactions (OTs)
- Commercial Solutions Opening Pilot (CSOP) Program
- America COMPETES Reauthorization Act (Prizes)
Each of these authorities has unique aspects and can be leveraged in different situations.
SBIR ‐ enables small businesses to explore their technological potential and provides the incentive to profit from its commercialization. Encourages domestic small businesses to engage in Federal Research/Research and Development (R/R&D) that has the potential for commercialization.
For more information see 15 U.S.C. 638 or visit SBIR.gov/about.
OTs – enables DOD, DHS, and other select agencies to award flexible contracts for (1) Research, (2) Prototype, and (3) Production Purposes. Benefits include rapid procurement, non‐FAR based competition, and reduced risk through iterative prototyping.
For more information see 2016 National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) Section 815.
CSOP ‐ acquire innovative commercial solutions under $10 million. Lowers the barrier for entry for non‐traditional companies to do work with the U.S. Government by targeting innovative commercial products while not requiring the commercial FAR clauses.
For more information see 2017 National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) Section 880.
Prizes ‐ invite ideas and solutions through crowdsourcing. Successful at attracting individuals, small‐disadvantaged businesses, and non‐traditional contractors. Not suited for routine services or already well understood requirements.
For more information see Public Law 111‐358 or visit Challenge.gov.
For more information, descriptions, and real samples, visit the Period Table of Acquisition Innovations under “Alternative Authorities” at www.fai.gov/periodic‐table.
Betterment –
B-415349.2, L-3 Army Sustainment LLC, January 3, 2018 – | |
“With regard to evaluation under the technical factor, the solicitation encouraged offerors to propose “enhancements” that exceeded the solicitation requirements and/or lowered risk, noting that if such proposed enhancements were determined beneficial to the government, they would be incorporated into the contract. Offerors were advised that examples of “exceeding specified performance” included increased “capacity, capability, and availability. ***
On May 12, during the first round of face‐to‐face discussions with L‐3, the agency noted that L‐3 had proposed [redacted] enhancements, stating that the agency had considered each one and determined that none demonstrated ‘additional opportunity cost benefit to the Government.’ … [The Government advised that] in proposing enhancements, L‐3 should: (1) identify implementation costs, (2) propose contractually binding changes to the solicitation’s acceptable quality level (AQL) metrics;7 and (3) suggest a monetized value related to the enhancements where feasible. ***
“Although L‐3 and M1 each received a rating of outstanding under the most important technical factor, the agency concluded that M1’s proposal under this most important factor was superior to that of L‐3. Among other things, the source selection authority (SSA) noted that M1’s proposal offered 191,400 additional flight hours, with an associated NMOCBV of $876.3 million, as compared to L‐3’s proposal offering 153,100 additional flight hours, with an associated NMOCBV of $356.2 million.***
“Here, the agency’s application of the NMOCBV calculation was reasonably subsumed within the stated evaluation criteria. As noted above, the solicitation specifically advised offerors from the outset that the agency sought enhancements to the solicitation’s requirements. Further, during discussions L‐3 was repeatedly advised of the agency’s application of this quantification tool and the manner in which it was being calculated. … L‐3’s challenges to the agency’s use of the NMOCBV analysis are denied.” |
PIL Commentary: You can’t control whether a vendor submits a protest, so don’t be afraid of one! As long as you do what you say you’re going to do in the solicitation, you’re on strong footing with the GAO. Instead of being afraid of a protest and avoiding all risk, take smart risks, manage it.
FAR 15 Oral Presentations Rules do NOT apply to other FAR Parts –
B-420190, Blueprint Consulting Services, LLC, d/b/a Excelicon; Trillion ERP Venture Tech LLC, Dec 30, 2021 –
“Further, the RFQ stated that the agency would employ a two‐phased evaluation approach. Id. at 53‐56. In phase 1, the agency would evaluate vendors’ demonstrated prior experience, based on their written responses to six specific questions concerning past performance of contracts of similar size, scope and complexity as the RTPD requirement. Id. at 53‐54. Following the agency’s evaluation of the phase 1 submissions, the agency would advise vendors as to whether they were likely to be viable competitors and should proceed to phase 2.[3] Id. at 54.
In phase 2, the agency was to evaluate the management, staffing/hiring, and technical approach factor, and price. Id.at 55. The management, staffing/hiring, and technical approach factor was to be evaluated during an oral presentation. Id. The agency was to assess the content of vendors’ oral presentations based on responses to specific questions asked by FEMA, both written and provided to vendors in advance, and questions asked during the oral presentations. Id.at 62‐63. The oral presentations were not to be recorded. Id.at 55.
Both protesters argue that FEMA failed to document the record with respect to the content of oral presentations, and that our Office should sustain the protests because the record lacks an adequate basis on which to assess the agency’s evaluation.
The agency acknowledges that it did not record the oral presentations, and that it advised the vendors during the oral presentation that their presentation slides would not be considered, and that the evaluation would be based solely on their responses to the government’s questions. Excelicon COS ¶ 27. The agency also notes that its technical evaluation team was advised not to refer to the presentation slides in the evaluation, and instead only evaluate the content of vendors’ oral presentations. Id. FEMA agues, however, that it “reasonably documented its evaluation judgments,” and that a streamlined procurement process under FAR subpart 8.4 requires only minimal documentation. Trillion 2nd Supp. MOL at 20.
[W]e have found that apart from documenting evaluation judgments, subpart 8.4 does not expressly require an agency to record or otherwise transcribe the content of the vendors’ oral presentation. Id.; cf. Checchi
and Co. Consulting, Inc., B‐285777, Oct. 10, 2000, 2001 CPD ¶ 132 (in procurements conducted under FAR part 15, agencies are required to maintain a record of oral presentations, which can include retaining government notes, copies of offeror briefing slides or presentation notes).
Our review of the record here shows sufficient‐‐albeit sparse‐‐documentation of the agency’s evaluation conclusions about vendors’ oral presentations. The technical evaluation report documents particular aspects of vendors’ management, staffing/hiring, and technical approach explained in the presentations and which of those aspects, the evaluators concluded, merited strengths or weaknesses. See Excelicon AR, Tab J, Phase 2 TER; Trillion AR, Tab H, Phase 2 TER. There is no further requirement in law or regulation that mandates documenting oral presentations in procurements conducted under FAR subpart 8.4, and it is not our role to impose one where the FAR does not.
PIL Commentary: Even though the regulatory language for Oral Presentations only exists in FAR 15, that does not mean the language applies to other FAR sections that utilize Oral
Presentations. FAR Sections 8.4, 13, and 16.505 are silent, therefore you can innovate!
HTRRP Established by GAO as Allowable –
B-413559.3, Sevatec, Inc., January 11, 2017 – | |
“The Alliant 2 procurement was designed by GSA to establish multiple‐award indefinite‐delivery, indefinite‐quantity contracts … The RFP provides that the agency will select approximately 60 awardees using a “highest technically rated [ ] with a fair and reasonable price” evaluation scheme. [“[t]he source selection process on the Alliant 2 Unrestricted Master Contract will neither be based on the Lowest Priced Technically Acceptable (LPTA) nor Tradeoffs.”] …
“The protesters assert that the agency’s evaluation scheme fails to comply with the Competition in Contracting Act (CICA), which states that “cost or price . . . must be considered in the evaluation of proposals.” …
“In a tradeoff source selection process, the agency cannot so minimize the impact of price as to make it merely a “nominal evaluation factor” … The solicitation here expressly states that there will be no tradeoffs in the source selection … The relatively low importance of price in an evaluation scheme that does not contemplate tradeoffs, as is the case here, is unobjectionable.
“While we agree with the protesters that, under this evaluation scheme, offerors below the top 60 will not have necessarily been found technically unacceptable, we nevertheless find nothing improper about the agency’s source selection methodology.
“Insofar as the proposed source selection process considers the price of every awardee (and rejects those firms that lack fair and reasonable pricing), the agency has satisfied its requirement to consider price to the government.” |
GAO Reviews HTRRP in 2019 –
B-417816, Cyberdata Technologies, LLC, November 5, 2019 – | |
“Under the circumstances here, the RFP’s source selection methodology‐which only considers the prices of the highest‐rated offerors, and considers the prices insofar as they are “fair and reasonable”‐‐conforms with the agency’s requirements to consider price under CICA [Competition in Contracting Act]. Insofar as the proposed source selection process considers the price of every awardee (and rejects those firms that lack fair and reasonable pricing), the agency has satisfied its requirement to consider price to the government.
“Consistent with the terms of the solicitation, as the ultimate award decision would not consider price in a tradeoff with non‐price factors, we see no reason why the agency would be required to consider the relative merits of price in the context of establishing a competitive range, as the protester urges. Here, the record clearly shows that the agency evaluated CyberData’s price in accordance with the terms of the solicitation and found it to be fair and
reasonable. We conclude that the protester’s challenge to the agency’s price evaluation is without merit.” |
Use Caution if Considering HTRRP under FAR 8.4 –
B-418141, Noble Supply & Logistics, Inc., January 16, 2020 – | |
“On January 25, 2019, under the procedures of Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) subpart 8.4, the agency1 issued the RFQ to vendors holding contracts under FSS No. 51V, Hardware Superstore. The agency intends to establish four separate single‐award BPAs …
“Regarding pricing, the solicitation requires vendors to include their current FSS pricing for their entire catalog of SIN 105‐001 and 105‐002 products, any flat discounted rates from the catalogs, and four tiers of volume discounts.
… The solicitation sets forth five technical evaluation factors, three of which will be evaluated on a pass/fail or satisfactory/unsatisfactory basis.
“The solicitation establishes that the agency will evaluate price quotations “to ensure that offered pricing, to include offered flat rate and tiered volume discounts, is fair and reasonable.” The solicitation provides that award will be made on a best‐value basis but will not involve either a lowest‐priced technically acceptable or a best‐value tradeoff |
PIL Commentary: HTRRP may not be an appropriate evaluation methodology for procurements using FAR 8.4 because of the language requiring the Government to make an award that “results in the lowest overall cost alternative.” It is unknown what GAO’s decision would change if the agency had been establishing a multiple-award BPA.
Is It Req ui red? | ||
1. | False – nothing in FAR 8.4 requires you to use procedures from other FAR Sections. | |
2. | False – 8.405‐1(d)(3)(ii) states agencies shall “Provide the RFQ to as many contractors as practicable, consistent with market research …
to reasonably ensure that quotes will be received from at least three contractors that can fulfill the requirements.” | |
3. | False – 8.404(a) states “… ordering activities shall not seek competition outside of the Federal Supply Schedules or synopsize the
requirement; but see paragraph (g) of this Section [for orders using ARRA 2009 funds].” | |
4. | False –8.404(d) states “ordering activities are not required to make a separate determination of fair and reasonable pricing, except for a price evaluation as required by 8.405-2(d).” | |
5. | False – 8.404(d) states that the Government must conclude that the award “represents the best value (as defined by FAR 2.101) and
results in the lowest overall costs alternative (considering price, special features, administrative costs, etc.).” | |
6. | False – 8.405‐2(d) states only “After award, ordering activities should provide timely notification to unsuccessful offerors.” | |
7. | False – the protest window starts upon award (see Competition in Contracting Act). | |
8. | True – FAR 8.405‐4 states that, “Ordering activities may request a price reduction at any time before placing an order, establishing a BPA, or in conjunction with the annual BPA review.” It continues, “the ordering activity shall seek a price reduction when the order or BPA
exceeds the simplified acquisition threshold.” | |
9. | False – FAR 8.405-1 provides ordering procedures for supplies and services not requiring a statement of work. A statement of work
may not be required for supplies and services that are listed in the schedules at a fixed price (e.g. installation, maintenance, repair). | |
10. | False – 15.102(e) states that the contracting officer must maintain a record, but states it may be done through “videotaping, audio tape
recording, written record, Government notes, copies of offeror briefing slides or presentation notes.” | |
11. | False – 15.304(c)(3)(iii) gives Contracting Officer the discretion not to evaluate past performance if they document that it is not an
appropriate evaluation factor. For commercial products and services, past performance is discretionary. See GAO bid protest B‐417205. | |
12. | False – FAR 52.212‐4 Contract Terms and Conditions—Commercial Products and Commercial Services, subsection (c), Changes. | |
13. | False – Agencies must include price realism analysis language in the solicitation for any cost type where price realism is discretionary, including FFP and T&M. Otherwise, the GAO has consistently ruled that agencies may not perform a price realism analysis. | |
14. | False – 16.505(a)(10)(ii) states that protests under a Fair Opportunity can only be submitted to GAO. | |
15. | False – 13.106‐3, “Evaluation of other factors … (ii) May be based on one or more of the following: (A) The contracting officer’s
knowledge of any previous experience with the supply or service being acquired.” | |
16. | False – see 15.404‐1. | |
17. | False – nothing in this clause states that it can only be used at the very end, the only stipulations are that it cannot exceed 6 months in
total. |
Select Best-Suited, then Negotiate should not be used to choose a winner or
make a vendor’s submission acceptable –
B-418823.3, Innovative Management & Technology Approaches, Inc., Jan 8, 2021 – | |
“IMTAS asserts that Epsilon’s quotation included a technical assumption that took exception to material solicitation requirements, rendering the quotation unacceptable. IMTAS further contends that the agency engaged in impermissible and unequal discussions when it contacted only Epsilon prior to award and requested that it remove this assumption from the quotation, which Epsilon did. Finally, IMTAS argues that the agency’s evaluation was unreasonable because it failed to assess a weakness to Epsilon’s quotation for its high‐risk staffing plan.
We sustain IMTAS’s protest on the basis that Epsilon’s quotation included an assumption that took exception to material solicitation requirements, and the agency conducted impermissible and unequal discussions in allowing Epsilon to remove this assumption from its quotation prior to award.” |
PIL Commentary: Select Best-Suited, then Negotiate should only be used after the successful vendor has been selected in accordance with the terms and conditions of the solicitation. This technique should not be used to cure material defects in a quote or proposal.
Teams should use the PIL Recommended solicitation text verbatim.
PIL Commentary: The GAO reviewed this language in VariQ-CV JC, LLC, June 15, 2020 (B- 418551; B-418551.2) and Gunnison Consulting Group, Inc., October 5, 2020 (B- 418876; B-418876.3; B-418876.4). In both cases, the GAO found that the agency’s conduct of exchanges was permissible and did not undermine the foundational principle of FAR 16.505 procurements that all contract holders be permitted a fair opportunity to compete.
The GAO does not Review Debriefings –
B-414555.2, American Native Veterans of Louisiana, July 11, 2017 – | |
“The protester alleges that the agency failed to reasonably evaluate ANVL's proposal, improperly amended the solicitation after the closing date for submission of proposals, and failed to provide a proper and fair debriefing.
“We dismiss the protester's allegations concerning the contracting officer's conduct of the debriefing because our Office does not review protests challenging the adequacy of debriefings. A1 Procurement, JVG, B‐404618, Mar. 14, 2011, 2011 CPD ¶ 53 at 5 n.5 (debriefings are procedural matters that do not affect the validity of an award).” |
PIL Commentary: Since the GAO does not review the adequacy of debriefings or brief explanations of award, it’s hard to get it wrong. If you’re performing a brief explanation under FAR 8 or 13 and you’ve provided a vendor with their evaluation report, then you’re good to go. If you’re performing a debriefing under FAR 15.3, and you’ve complied with
15.505 or 15.506, you’re good!
Don’t guess or provide opinions in a debriefing –
B-419930, Platinum Business Services LLC, September 23, 2021 – | |
“Platinum also contends the agency’s evaluation of its technical and management capability was unreasonable. Protest at 11. Specifically, Platinum cites the agency’s post‐award explanation wherein the agency stated that Platinum’s quotation would have been more competitive if it (1) explained how Platinum planned to develop and influence cybersecurity architecture and strategy, and (2) discussed the importance of, and collaboration about, policy change. Protest, attach. 5, Brief Explanation at 1. According to Platinum, this evaluation conclusion was unreasonable because Platinum’s quotation devoted an entire section to its plan to develop cybersecurity architecture and strategy. Protest at 11. Additionally, Platinum contends it mentioned the word “collaboration” several times throughout its quotation.”
This protest ground is dismissed for failure to state a valid basis of protest. |
PIL Commentary: Limit your brief explanation of award or debriefings to just the facts. Don’t offer any suggestions or opinion on what a vendor could have done to make their submission better or more compelling. This kind of conjecture may lead a vendor to file a protest, as it did in the Platinum Business Services case above.
In this exercise you will develop an evaluation approach for Cafeteria Services. This exercise will be used as a starting place for the other exercises that are covered during this class.
This cafeteria services must include all aspects required, including staff, produce, and menu design. The IGCE for this effort is $1.05 million per year, with a base period and four (4) option periods of 12‐ months each. This is an open market requirement.
Market research indicates that over 30 companies are likely to respond.
Use the techniques learned so far, in addition to your own experiences, to guide the conversation. When creating the evaluation approach, focus on meeting the customer needs.
Tasks:
- Hold a short JAM Session to outline
- Create a streamlined evaluation
The Cafeteria Services solicitation has now been released using FAR 13, Simplified Acquisition Procedures. Phase 1 will include a 15-minute interactive virtual oral presentation.
You are working as a Capture Manager at "The Sandwich Company." Phase 1, Factor 1 is the most important factor in the tradeoff and more important than price.
Factor 1 – Corporate Experience and Staffing
- Describe your company’s experience designing a cafeteria
- Describe your company’s experience hiring and retaining restaurant
- The Government highly desires that this experience includes staffing a cafeteria or similar that is located in an urban It is preferable, but not required, that this experience be located within a federal unclassified office building, with opening hours between 6am and 6pm.
Tasks:
- Prepare a list of questions you would submit to the Government before the solicitation deadline.
- In the time remaining, prepare an outline of how you would respond to both elements as a vendor.
The Cafeteria Services solicitation has been amended and the due date for quotes has now closed. The Government received 27 quotes in Phase 1 and
down‐selected to 4 vendors.
You are the Government evaluation team evaluating Phase 2. The solicitation provided the following instructions to the remaining 4 vendors:
Each vendor shall provide about a five‐minute oral presentation responding to the following two Factors:
Factor 2 – Technical (Oral Presentation)
Please describe how you will successfully source produce (e.g., eggs, bread, and cheeses). It is highly desired that this includes sustainable environmental practices. What alternative strategies does your company have in place to continue to source produce in the event of supply chain disruptions (e.g., a drought or pandemic)?
Factor 3 – Betterment (Oral Presentation)
The Government’s minimum requirements for the cafeteria are:
- Operating hours: 6:00am to 10:00am and 11:00am to 2:00pm.
- Entrees: hot and
- Beverages: hot and
Please describe if your approach exceeds these minimums and state what they are. Any promises will be included in the award.
The PowerPoint presentation will NOT be evaluated. But may be referred to during evaluation to aid in memory.
Tasks:
- Watch Oral Presentation – 5 minutes
- Engage in interactive dialogue – up to 5 minutes
- Perform On‐the‐spot Consensus & Document Evaluation – 20 minutes
On-the-Spot, Technical Evaluation Worksheet
Famous Sandwiches
Confidence Rating: | □ High | □ Some | □ Low |
Instructions to Offerors Factor 2 – Oral Presentation
Please describe how you will successfully source produce (e.g., eggs, bread, and cheeses). It is highly desired that this includes sustainable environmental practices. What alternative strategies does your company have in place to continue to source produce in the event of supply chain
disruptions (e.g., a drought or pandemic)? | Evaluation Criteria
Factor 2 – Oral Presentation
Each vendor will be evaluated on their approach to provide fresh, quality products and their ability to describe a successful alternative strategy to source produce. | ||
Raises expectations of success:
·
·
·
·
·
·
·
·
· | Lowers expectations of success:
·
·
·
·
·
·
·
·
· | ||
Confidence Rating: | □ High | □ Some | □ Low |
Instructions to Offerors Factor 3 – Betterment
The Government’s minimum requirements for the cafeteria are:
• Operating hours: 6:30am to 10:00am and 11:00am to 2:00pm.
• Entrees: hot and cold.
• Beverages: hot and cold.
Please describe if your approach accommodates options beyond these minimums and state what they are. Any promises will be included in the award. | Evaluation Criteria Factor 3 – Betterment
Each vendor will be evaluated on their approach to providing hours beyond what is required in the Statement of Work. | ||
Raises expectations of success:
·
·
·
·
·
·
·
·
· | Lowers expectations of success:
·
·
·
·
·
·
·
·
· |
True | False | |
FAR 8.4, Federal Supply Schedules | ||
1. When using FAR 8.4, if you want to enter negotiations, then you must use FAR 15.306 procedures (i.e., discussions). | ||
2. When using FAR Section 8.4 to award an order or BPA, an agency must provide a fair opportunity to compete to all contractors under the selected Federal Supply
Schedule. | ||
3. Agencies are required to publicize the GSA Schedule solicitations by posting them to GSA eBuy, which also satisfies the synopsis requirements of FAR Section 5. | ||
4. Before making an award, Contracting Officers are required to determine prices as fair and reasonable. | ||
5. Awards under FAR 8.404, must be made either using Best Value Tradeoff or LPTA. | ||
6. After award, agencies shall notify all vendors that submitted a quote in response to the solicitation and provide them with the winning quoter’s name and price. | ||
7. If a brief explanation is not provided within 5 days of award, the deadline to file a GAO protests is extended an additional 5 days. | ||
8. If placing an order or a BPA under FAR 8.4, the contracting officer may ask for price reductions after all quotes have been received AND evaluated, and this exchange is not considered discussions. | ||
9. All solicitations must include either a Statement of Work, Statement of Objectives, or Performance Work Statement. | ||
Other Acquisitions | ||
10. If using Oral Presentations under FAR 15, the Contracting Officer must video record. | ||
11. When using FAR 15 procedures, you must evaluate past performance as part of each
award. | ||
12. When purchasing commercial products or services, all changes must be performed in accordance with FAR 52.243‐3, Changes. | ||
13. Agencies may perform a price realism analysis on an FFP or T&M type award, even if the solicitation is silent. | ||
14. Under FAR 16.505, vendors may only submit protests to GAO or the Court of Federal Claims. | ||
15. When using FAR Part 13 procedures, Contracting Officers may not use personal
knowledge or previous experience with the supply or service being evaluated. | ||
16. If you are going to use any of the proposal analysis (price) techniques listed in FAR
15.404‐1, then you must include them in your solicitation. | ||
17. You may only use FAR 52.217‐8, Option to Extend Services, at the very end of a contract, when all option periods have expired. |
Based on the FAR/HSAR/HSAM, only one of fifteen items above is TRUE; the other fourteen are FALSE.
This technique is non-FAR based. Don’t rely on the FAR. |
Innovation | FAR 8.4 | FAR 13 | FAR 15.3 | FAR 16.505 |
#1 Oral Presentations | ||||
#2 Product/Technical Demonstrations | ||||
#3 Confidence Ratings | ||||
#4 Down-Select | ||||
#5 Comparative Evaluation | ||||
#6 Select Best Suited, then Negotiate | ||||
#7 On-the-Spot Consensus | ||||
#8 Streamlined Evaluation and Selection Documentation | ||||
#9 Group Oral Debriefings | ||||
#10 Discovery | ||||
#11 Betterment | ||||
#12 Affordability | ||||
#13 Mission Focused Evaluation Criteria | ||||
#14 Involve End Users | ||||
#15 Highest Technically Rated, with Fair and Reasonable
Pricing | ||||
#16 Rates Only Pricing | ||||
#17 Share Evaluation Documentation | ||||
#18 Enhanced Contract Type Conversion | ||||
#19 Leveraging Procurement Flexibilities |
ADDITIONAL INNOVATION RESOURCES
|
ADDITIONAL INNOVATION RESOURCES
Micro trainings in under 10 minutes
Refresher video on eight PIL Boot Camp Techniques
Find yearbooks from 2018 to present
Curated samples and information for all the procurement innovations