Georgia Tech Procurement Assistance Center

GTPAC to host Cost/Price Proposal Workshop on April 24th

By

One of the most important skills government contractors must learn is how to prepare a quality cost/price proposal, and how to analyze their cost/price competitiveness through market research.  In order to help Georgia businesses learn this skill, the Georgia Tech Procurement Assistance Center (“GTPAC”), with support from The Contracting Education Academy at Georgia Tech will be hosting a day-long workshop to provide instruction to businesses on cost/price proposal preparation and cost/price analysis.  Attendees will receive training and materials on topics such as: cost estimating, direct and indirect costs, cost realism and how to do price related market research, among others.

Date:  4/24/2019

Time:  9:00 AM to 3:00 PM (EDT)

Location:  The Global Learning Center, 84 5th Street NW, Atlanta, Georgia 30308

Presenters:  Alexis Kirksey, Nancy Cleveland, Andrew Smith

Admission is free, but pre-registration is required as seating is limited. 

Registration:  Go to https://gtpac.ecenterdirect.com/events/8683 and click “Sign Up”

If you have any questions, call Alexis Kirksey at (404) 894-6109

Addressing the key points in your proposal to the government

By

Responding to a request for proposals is time consuming and, yes, tedious at times.  However, your proposal is your opportunity to demonstrate to the government: 1) that you understand their need, and 2) that you can meet, and perhaps exceed, their expectations.  Consequently, it is not enough to tell them that your business can do the job.  You must provide concrete evidence that you have what it takes to meet their demands.

While reputation, prior experience, and good will may get you additional business in the private sector, this is not true in government contracting.  Even companies who have exceeded performance expectations for years must provide details commensurate with the RFP in order to maintain their position as the government contractor providing the service.  Finally, a key difference between private sector work and government contracting is that the government’s decision is almost always subject to scrutiny.  Consequently, even if your proposal satisfies the government and you win the bid, you still run the risk of losing the award due to a properly filed protest, if the reviewing body determines you shouldn’t have received such high scores.

Below we offer some tips, based on years of defending award winners, protesting awards to others, and hands-on experience in government contacting. In our work, we have seen certain detrimental mistakes repeated – time and time again. While proposals include some subjective criteria, by implementing these tips, you can increase your chance of achieving a higher score which, in turn, increases your chances of an award, and increases your likelihood of surviving a protest later.

Keep reading this article at: https://www.bidprotestweekly.com/5-must-know-tips-for-preparing-a-bid-addressing-the-key-points-in-your-proposal-to-the-government

Five factors for proposal evaluation: Creating bids that will survive a protest

By

Submitting the winning bid is an exhilarating feeling, dimmed only by the following days, as the offeror waits to hear if others may file a protest.

Once a protest is filed, offerors options are limited.

One option that is available to offerors, but often ignored is the right to hire qualified counsel to represent their interests.  Government contract attorneys are in a unique position, in that, while they are ethically obligated to protect their client’s interests, they are prohibited from discussing certain information with their clients.  This frustrates offerors, and limits an attorney’s opportunities to provide valuable information about how things might have been different, had the offeror only done something different.

Keep reading this article at: https://www.bidprotestweekly.com/five-factors-for-proposal-evaluation-creating-bids-that-will-survive-a-protest/

Find Davis-Bacon in federal construction contracts, not in a supermarket

By

There is hickory bacon.  There is turkey bacon.  And then there is Davis Bacon.

The first two can be found in the meat department of your local supermarket.

The last one — Davis Bacon — is found in federally-funded construction contracts.  If you’re bidding on a federal contract or subcontract, you’d better educate yourself about this requirement.

The federal Davis-Bacon Act (DBA) applies minimum prevailing wage classifications for all federally-funded or assisted construction projects.  (Note that the Federal Acquisition Regulation – the FAR – now refers to the Davis Bacon Act as “Wage Rate Requirements – Construction.”)

The U.S. Department of Labor creates wage classifications by the type of project for a specific type of worker.   (Although not the case in Georgia, also be aware of the fact that some state governments have adopted “little DBAs” requiring prevailing wages on state-funded public works projects.)

The worker classifications are crafted with broad job scopes, in order to be over-inclusive.  These classifications have drawn the ire of many private construction firms, who complain about what they consider over-payment for non-specialized labor (i.e., paying a wire runner as a journeyman electrician).  So, while many favor the DBA’s heavy wages – it can be crippling to an unprepared private firm’s profit margin.

In order to prepare, a construction professional must read and absorb the federal wage classifications that apply on their project – before bidding.  Wage classifications are prepared by state and by project, and are included in all federally-funded construction work.

If you are bidding a contract in the State of Georgia, you’ll need to check out the Georgia classifications.  For example, if you were building a non-residential structure, such as a government building, in Bibb County, you can see the applicable wage rates here.

If your Bibb County bid needs to include ironworkers to install your structural steel, you would need to bid them per hour at $24.04, plus $9.86 in fringe benefits (insurance, fringe, or even cash).  There are no real boundaries here – if a worker is involved in structural steel work, that worker is to be paid as an ironworker. If a contractor does not plan for this broad application, you’ll be facing penalties that are spelled-out under the Wage & Hour Act or Contract Work Hours and Safety Standards Act.  The penalties are stiff, providing for up to two times the amount of the unpaid or underpaid wages, plus interest.

The lesson here?  Like with all things involving government contracting, do your homework before jumping in with both feet.  To obtain assistance, check with a representative of the Georgia Tech Procurement Assistance Center (GTPAC) nearest you.  With proper preparation, you’ll be able to bid correctly, win a contract or subcontract, and then be able to bring home the real bacon.

© 2010-2017 –  Georgia Tech Procurement Assistance Center – All Rights Reserved.

On-time bid proposals, not a second too late

By

Submitting your company’s bid proposal close to the deadline can be risky and have grave consequences.

The government has repeatedly rejected proposals submitted before, but received after, the deadline because of technical glitches.

In submitting a proposal for a government contract, the onus is on the contractor to ensure that its proposal is received prior to the exact time specified for receipt of proposals.  The deadlines set forth in the solicitation are strictly enforced unless: the agency receives the proposal before the contract is awarded, the contracting officer determines that accepting the late proposal would not unduly delay the acquisition, and: (i) the proposal was submitted electronically and received at “the initial point of entry to the Government infrastructure not later not later than 5:00 p.m. one working day prior to the date specified for the receipt of proposals,” (ii) the proposal was “received at the Government installation” and was “under the Government’s control” before the solicitation deadline, or (iii) it was the only proposal that the Government received.  (FAR 15.208(b)(1)(i)-(iii))

This applies not only to Defense and IT contractors, but also to health care companies competing for government contracts. (See FAR 15.208(b)(1): “Any proposal, modification, or revision, that is received at the designated Government office after the exact time specified for receipt of proposals is ‘late” and will not be considered.”; see also FAR 52.212-1(f)(2): “offer, modification, revision, or withdrawal of an offer received at the Government’s office designated in the solicitation after the exact time specified for receipt of offers is ‘late’ and will not be considered.” )

Keep reading this article at: http://www.mondaq.com/article.asp?articleid=598620

Retired Air Force Master Sergeant sentenced to prison for disclosing confidential bid information

By

Justice Dept. seal - CopyA retired U.S. Air Force Master Sergeant was sentenced last week in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida to 18 months in prison following his guilty plea to unlawfully disclosing confidential procurement information and filing a false tax return, announced Acting Assistant Attorney General Caroline D. Ciraolo of the Justice Department’s Tax Division.

According to court documents, Trevor Smith retired from the U.S. Air Force in December 2012 at the rank of Master Sergeant.  From February 2009 through February 2010, Smith was deployed to Afghanistan, where he served as Supply Non-Commissioned Officer-In-Charge for the Operation Enduring Freedom/Combined Security Transition Command-Afghanistan NATO Training Mission.  In that capacity, Smith met a Fort Lauderdale-based government contractor.  As part of his plea, Smith admitted that he agreed to disclose confidential bid information on government contracts to the contractor in exchange for bribe payments.  Smith and the contractor agreed that Smith would receive two percent of all revenues on contracts that the contractor received as a result of Smith’s assistance.

In January 2010, the contractor wired $42,853.29 to Smith.  The two agreed to wait until Smith returned to the United States for more payments.  After returning to the United States, Smith set up a shell corporation called T Star Air Inc. to receive 23 additional payments totaling $220,600.  Smith also created and submitted phony invoices to conceal the scheme.  For tax years 2010 through 2012, Smith filed corporate tax returns for T Star Air that falsely claimed inflated expenses and deductions.

In addition to the prison term, U.S. District Judge Beth Bloom for the Southern District of Florida ordered Smith to pay restitution to the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) in the amount of $6,501.

Source: http://www.justice.gov/opa/pr/retired-air-force-master-sergeant-sentenced-prison-disclosing-confidential-bid-information

The Ten Commandments of principle-centered winning

By

Winning new work is an ongoing imperative.

However, this does not mean winning at any cost or through any means. It means winning the right way, the ethical way. We call it Principle-Centered Winning (PCW).

Here are PCW’s major tenets applied to the government contracting arena:

  • Commandment I
    THOU SHALT NOT speak evil of thy customer.
    Sometimes the walls have ears.

Read all Ten Commandments of Principle-Centered Winning at: http://federalnewsradio.com/commentary/2015/10/ten-commandments-principle-centered-winning/

18F app acquisition pilot could be ‘a terrible idea’

By

The innovation team at General Services Administration’s 18F has been testing new ways to speed up the acquisition process, particularly when it comes to agile development of software. Today (Oct. 26, 2015), the team will be trying out what could be “a terrible idea.”

18F at GSA18F members will be posting an open competition to GitHub for work on the team’s CALC tool. The work will be paid for using the agency’s micro-purchasing authority, which lets federal offices procure products or services under $3,500 using a credit card.

The bidding will start at $3,499 and the lowest bidder will be given 10 days to produce working code. If the winning vendor fails, the next lowest bidder will have 10 days to succeed where their colleagues could not.

Keep reading this article at: http://www.federaltimes.com/story/government/acquisition/2015/10/22/micro-purchase-pilot/74392760/

Offeror’s winning bid of $0 was acceptable, says GAO

By

Under certain circumstances, the winning bidder on a fixed-price contract may offer $0.00.

In a recent decision, LCPtracker, Inc.; eMars, Inc., B-410752.3 et al (Sept. 3, 2015), the GAO held an offeror submitting a zero-dollar offer (that is, an offer for $0.00) was eligible to receive a fixed-price contract because both the Government and the contractor would receive benefits under the contract.

HUDIn LCPtracker, the Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) sent a solicitation for web-based payroll tracking services to three small businesses: eMars, Inc., LCPtracker, Inc. and Elation Systems, Inc. The successful offeror was to provide web-based services for over 6,000 users dispersed throughout the nation. The solicitation did not request technical proposal submissions, only price quotations. HUD planned to pay for the entire service, which meant offerors would not be able to charge fees to third party users.

Keep reading this article at: http://smallgovcon.com/gaobidprotests/offerors-winning-bid-of-0-00-was-acceptable-says-gao/

Proposal in government mail room was still ‘late’

By

Even if a proposal arrives in a government mailroom by the submittal deadline, the proposal is nevertheless “late” if it does not reach the location specified in the solicitation by the designated time.

In a recent bid protest decision, the GAO reaffirmed long-standing precedent that “receipt of a bid or proposal at a mailroom or other receiving area does not constitute receipt at the location specified in the RFP, provided the agency has established reasonable procedures to ensure that mailed bids or proposals are routed from the mailroom to the location designated in a solicitation for receipt.”

In Brian X. Scott, B-410195 (Nov. 7, 2014), the Military Sealift Command issued a request for proposals for a series of voyages to perform reapply deliveries to islands off the coast of California. The RFP stated that proposals were to be delivered to MSC offices at the Washington Navy Yard by 2:00 p.m. on July 30.

The RFP advised offerors that access to the Navy Yard was restricted.  Accordingly,  “Offerors, couriers, and other delivery services may encounter unpredictable and lengthy delays or denied access when attempting to enter that facility. Similarly, mailed and emailed proposals may encounter unpredictable and lengthy routing delays. In all cases, offerors are responsible for the risks associated with the chosen delivery method and for ensuring that the Government receives the complete proposal at the appropriate designated location prior to the due date and time for proposal submission.”

Keep reading this article at: http://smallgovcon.com/gaobidprotests/proposal-in-government-mailroom-was-still-late/

 

Contracting News

Read More

Contracting Tips

Read More

GTPAC News

Read More

Georgia Tech News

Read More