Georgia Tech Procurement Assistance Center

5 tips for making winning bids

By

After spending 30 years in the software business, Greg Mills was seeking a new challenge. That’s why two years ago, he acquired a brass and metal-fixtures manufacturer near Phoenix and renamed it M3 metals. He’s spent the majority of that time seeking ways to modernize and streamline the company, so it can find new customers in the increasingly competitive construction industry.

He isn’t alone. In fact, 34 percent of construction companies said their biggest challenge in their first through fourth years in business was finding new customers, according to a Kabbage® study. That’s more than the 30 percent combined who said they were most concerned with managing cash flow, dealing with regulations, and finding and retaining employees.

Keep reading this article at: https://www.constructiondive.com/news/5-tips-for-making-winning-bids/530192/

Two women are bridging a gap between the construction industry and new technology

By

Across the globe, thousands of millennials are starting businesses on the premise today’s smartphone technology can create new value and disrupt entire industries.

Most of these digital revolutionaries will fail, for the usual reasons: they lacked industry contacts, targeted the wrong market, underestimated users’ resistance to new technology, or couldn’t raise capital in a saturated ecosystem.

But Kitchener, Ont.-based Bridgit has found the formula for disrupting markets. Through deep industry knowledge, a tight focus on customer value, and sheer hard work, its founders — Mallorie Brodie and Lauren Lake — are changing the way the construction industry shares data across Canada and in major U.S. cities.

It’s a mission Lake, 24, has taken personally since she began working in construction while studying structural engineering at Western University in London, Ont. “I showed up on a job site with my iPhone, and got handed a clipboard,” she recalls. The hundreds of inputs required in a major construction project were still being recorded on paper, Excel spreadsheets and Post-It Notes, making sharing this information difficult and costly.

Keep reading this article at: http://business.financialpost.com/entrepreneur/growth-strategies/how-these-women-are-bridging-a-gap-between-the-construction-industry-and-new-technology/wcm/2314374f-7c92-4250-b21b-973f7517fefb?utm

How to approach best value RFPs and protest improper award decisions

By

Government contractors responding to RFPs understand the need to read the fine print.

Mostly commonly, we discuss this topic in terms of pure proposal acceptability. Protest decisions from the Government Accountability Office GAO and Court of Federal Claims (COFC) make it abundantly clear that the burden falls on the contractor to follow directions and include all of the required information in all of the right places. It is for that reason (among others) that we always recommend having an outsider (be it a consultant, a lawyer, or even just another person from your company not involved in preparing the proposal) do a quality check before a proposal is submitted.

A more nuanced issue – but just as important – is understanding the RFP’s evaluation scheme. That is, not only what information must be submitted, but how that information will be weighed and measured by the Agency.

For example, in the past, we’ve looked at low-price technically acceptable (LPTA) RFPs. The basic idea on an LPTA procurement is that a contractor need only achieve a minimum passing score on its technical proposal – the Agency will not give bonus points for added bells and whistles. The much more important part of an LPTA proposal is price. Among those offerors found to be technically acceptable, the award goes to the offeror with the lowest submitted price. So, the focus on an LPTA proposal should be on getting lean (while maintaining technical acceptability) so that you can get as low as possible (or practical) on price.

Keep reading this article at: http://www.mondaq.com/unitedstates/x/563830/Government+Contracts+Procurement+PPP/How+To+Approach+Best+Value+RFPs+And+Protest+Improper+Award+Decisions

Offeror with ‘relatively weak proposal’ can file size protest, says SBA’s OHA

By

SBA sealAn offeror with a “relatively weak proposal” can nonetheless file a size protest challenging the small business eligibility of the prospective awardee, provided that the protester was not found technically unacceptable or otherwise incapable of being selected for award.

In a recent size appeal decision, the SBA Office of Hearings and Appeals held that the mere fact that the protester was evaluated as “less than satisfactory” on four out of five non-price factors did not justify dismissing the protester’s size protest for lack of standing.

OHA’s decision in Size Appeal of TMC Global Professional Services, SBA No. SIZ-5792 (2016) involved a DOE NNSA solicitation for the Design, Integration, Construction, Communication, and Engineering 2 (DICCE2) procurement in support of DOE’s nuclear smuggling detection and deterrence efforts.  The solicitation was issued as a small business set-aside under NAICS code 237990 (Other Heavy and Civil Engineering Construction), with a corresponding $36.5 million size standard.

Keep reading this article at: http://smallgovcon.com/sba-size-protests/offeror-with-relatively-weak-proposal-can-file-size-protest-says-sba-oha/

Lesson learned the hard way: Insufficient experience information sinks offeror’s proposal

By

GAO-GovernmentAccountabilityOffice-SealAn offeror’s failure to provide the type of past performance information mandated by a solicitation led to the offeror’s elimination from consideration for a  major GSA contract.

A recent GAO bid protest decision highlights the importance of fully reading and adhering to a solicitation’s requirements–including those involving the type of past performance or experience information required.

GAO’s decision in Dougherty & Associates, Inc., B-413155.9 (Sept. 1, 2016) involved the GSA “HCaTS” solicitation, which contemplated the award of multiple IDIQ contracts to provide Human Capital and Training Solutions across the federal government. The solicitation was divided into two Pools based on the offeror’s small business size status. The GSA established a target of 40 awards for each Pool.

The solicitation provided for award based on best-value, and included a requirement for past experience, which stated:

Keep reading this article at: http://smallgovcon.com/gaobidprotests/insufficient-experience-information-sinks-offerors-proposal/

Subcontract with incumbent doesn’t mandate high past performance score

By

An offeror was not entitled to a high past performance score merely because it proposed a subcontracting relationship with the incumbent prime contractor.

GAO-GovernmentAccountabilityOffice-SealIn a recent bid protest decision, the Government Accountability Office (GAO) held that an agency had properly assigned the offeror a mere “Satisfactory” past performance score, despite a subcontracting relationship with the incumbent, because the prospective prime contractor had not sufficiently demonstrated its own relevant past performance.

The GAO’s decision in TechTrend, Inc., B-412009, B-412009.2 involved a Forest Service solicitation for human resources information technology and contract advisory and assistance services.  The solicitation was issued as an 8(a) set-aside.

The solicitation stated that award would be made on a best value basis, considering three factors: technical capability, past performance, and price.  With respect to the past performance factor, the solicitation provided that the Forest Service would assess the past performance of the prime offeror and its proposed subcontractors.  However, the solicitation stated that the experience of the prime offeror was more important than the experience of subcontractors.

Keep reading this article at: http://smallgovcon.com/gaobidprotests/gao-subcontract-with-incumbent-didnt-mandate-high-past-performance-score/

Tech industry offers six ways for feds to buy better IT

By

A group of public and private sector technology councils are suggesting ways the federal government could get better at buying IT.

PSC white paperA white paper published this week highlights six areas where the government can modernize or update the way in which it purchases services and technologies from private companies, crafting a number of ways feds could amend acquisition regulations.

“Our collective goal is to enable the government to reach, directly or indirectly, the full array of capabilities and solutions that exist in the private sector to deliver effective mission results,” the paper reads.

Among the suggestions are integrating an “innovation template” and “emerging technology provision” into contracts to give agencies flexibility when it comes to acquiring rapidly evolving tools.

The paper also calls for best value/cost-technical tradeoff to be the default evaluation technique used for services acquisitions except for the most basic, commoditized requirements, as well as to include “an alternative solution or strategy” that differs from RFP requirements as long as the solution meets the contract’s desired outcome.

Keep reading this article at: http://fedscoop.com/tech-councils-offer-ways-for-feds-to-upgrade-acquisition-process

Download white paper here: Delivering-Results-A-Framework-for-Federal-Government-Technology-Access-Acquisition

As GSA’s FAS struggles to reinvent itself, contractors suffer

By

The last year has been a tough one for the General Services Administration’s Multiple Award Schedules (MAS) program.  The Federal Acquisition Service (FAS) – the GSA agency charged with administering the MAS program – has struggled to re-invent itself and its contracting vehicles in order to ensure they both stay relevant in an increasingly competitive federal marketplace.  The byproduct of this struggle has been mostly negative for Schedule vendors.

GSA Schedule ContractIn an effort to demonstrate the value its contracts bring to federal customers, FAS has pursued an unrelenting crusade aimed at reducing prices at all costs.  It is no longer enough for a vendor to give the Government a great deal vis-à-vis its commercial customers (a determination historically made through a “vertical pricing” analysis).  Now vendors also must charge less than their competitors – a determination made through a “horizontal pricing” analysis.  While FAS contracting officers are supposed to consider factors that may explain a price differential as part of their price evaluation, in practice, COs pay little heed to such “trifles.”  The concept of value rarely enters into the equation any more.

Time and again, vendors are told to lower prices or remove products from their Schedule because another vendor offers the same product at a lower price.  So what that the other vendor offers no customer service, no phone support, no warranty, and is run by two guys out of a garage in Glenwood.  Price is king, and that’s all FAS seems to care about nowadays.  (We mean no disrespect to the good people of Glenwood by the way.  We just couldn’t resist the alliteration.)

Keep reading this article at: http://www.mondaq.com/article.asp?articleid=417332

GAO: Agency need not raise offeror’s high price in discussions

By

When an agency decides to hold discussions with offerors, must it discuss with an offeror the price proposed for the contract? Not unless that offeror’s proposed price is so high as to be unreasonable.

GAO-GovernmentAccountabilityOffice-SealAs the GAO held in a recent bid protest decision, unless an offeror’s price is so high as to make its proposal unacceptable, the offeror is not entitled to be informed during discussions that its price is too high–even if the price is significantly higher than competitors.

The GAO helped shed light on this issue in Joint Logistics Managers, Inc., B-410465.2, B-410465.3 (May 5, 2015). There, the United States Marine Corps issued a task order RFP seeking “Care of Supplies in Storage” services in Albany Georgia, for one base year and one option year. The award was to be made on a best-value basis, considering technical approach, past performance, and price. Price was considered significantly less important than the combined non-price factors; but, price would become increasingly more important if proposals were considered technically equal or if an offeror’s price was so high as to diminish the value of any technical superiority.

Keep reading this article at: http://smallgovcon.com/gaobidprotests/when-too-high-isnt-high-enough/

GAO: ‘Mechanical’ cost realism evaluation was improper

By

An agency’s cost realism evaluation was improper because the agency “mechanically” compared an offeror’s proposed staffing to an undisclosed government estimate.

In a recent bid protest decision, the GAO held that it was improper for the agency to apply its own estimates for labor hours and costs without considering the protester’s unique technical approach.

The GAO’s decision in CFS-KBR Marianas Support Services, LLC; Fluor Federal Solutions LLC, B-410586 et al. (Jan. 2, 2015) involved a Navy procurement for base operations support services.  The solicitation contemplated the award of a cost-reimbursement contract, which was to be awarded on a “best value” basis.  Among the evaluation factors, the Navy was to consider offerors’ proposed staffing and resources.

Keep reading this article at: http://smallgovcon.com/gaobidprotests/gao-mechanical-cost-realism-evaluation-was-improper/

Contracting News

Read More

Contracting Tips

Read More

GTPAC News

Read More

Georgia Tech News

Read More