Discussions with an agency prior to submitting a final proposal can lead to a more well-informed submission by an offeror; however, such is not always the case. The Government Accountability Office (GAO) decision in Quality Control International, LLC (QCI), B-417984 (December 20, 2019) provides guidance as to how offerors should rely on information supplied by the agency in crafting their best, most competitive bid.
Continue reading at: Government Contracting Matters
Responding to agency Requests for Proposals (RFP) is an exercise in playing follow-the-leader. Contractors should take care to:
The common thread for RFPs across all procurement types is to deliver the exact information requested by the agency – and in exact format requested.
Continue reading at: The Federal Government Contracts & Procurement Blog
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
“Build a better mousetrap and the world will beat a path to your door” is the old saying, but the federal government seldom beats a path to the door of a contractor. Nevertheless, companies can win contracts by adding value to their proposals with technical discriminators.
Assuming a contractor is responsible, contract awards by federal agencies are generally determined by three sets of factors: price, past performance, and technical approach. Where contracts are awarded based on the government’s assessment of best value, distinctions among technical proposals are critical to determining the contract award. In best value acquisitions, technical discriminators, which serve to differentiate one proposal from another, are often what determine success or failure.
To increase the value of their technical proposals, contractors must make maximum use of technical discriminators. Yet, not all technical discriminators that could lend a competitive advantage to a proposal may be readily apparent. For that reason, it can be useful to look at best value assessments in other procurements. Many such evaluations are reviewed in bid protest decisions. These decisions frequently discuss the technical discriminators that agencies find significant.
Keep reading this article at: http://www.mondaq.com/article.asp?articleid=760726
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
The GAO recently denied Leidos Innovations Corporation’s protest of a determination that Leidos was ineligible to receive a $272 million award by the U.S. Army despite Leidos having both the highest-rated technical proposal and the lowest evaluated cost.
The GAO decision, which affirmed the agency’s determination that Leidos was non-responsible because one of Leidos’ subcontractors did not have the necessary base access, is an important reminder that prime contractors should thoroughly vet their subcontractors to ensure, to the extent possible, all necessary qualifications are satisfied for the associated contract.
In February 2016, Leidos was one of six contractors that responded to a request for task order execution plan (RTEP) to provide operational and sustainment logistics support for U.S. Special Operations Command’s Tactical Airborne Multi-Sensor Platform. The RTEP noted that some of the work may take place at U.S. government facilities in the U.S. Central Command (USCENTCOM) Area of Responsibility (AOR). Contractors were also on notice that they were subject to parts of the Defense Federal Acquisition Regulation Supplement, including a provision requiring contractors to comply with directives from the Combatant Commander of USCENTCOM.
Keep reading this article at: http://www.lexology.com/library/detail.aspx?g=40117ba6-744c-41ae-80f7-abbe1635226a
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
Contractors that want to improve their proposal drafting skills (and win more contract awards) should always keep an eye on the news and learn from others’ mistakes. Understanding an agency’s award rationale can provide a competitive advantage and keep you well-positioned to receive the next contract.
And, sometimes, simply following instructions and staying within the lines can make the difference between winning and losing.
Take, for example, a recent GAO decision discussing the merits of an agency’s technical evaluation. The protest argued that the agency unreasonably overlooked technical details included in the “past performance” and “personal experience” sections of the contractor’s proposal.
Keep reading this article at: http://www.mondaq.com/article.asp?articleid=516702
We’re part of a larger team that focuses on government affairs professionals — the companies, associations and lobbyists trying to influence government action and the Hill staff and federal agencies who make it happen. Our day-to-day activities center mostly around these clients and the type of work they do.
Our work also helps Bloomberg Government’s other client base — the community of government contractors trying to find and win business with the federal government. Those clients are focused primarily on business development, capture and proposal activities — securing their current work and pounding the pavement to land future work.
Keep reading this article at: http://about.bgov.com/blog/why-you-cant-understand-federal-contracting-without-understanding-legislation/
Late is late. All government contractors know the rule. Submissions must be received by the Agency at the time indicated, or else risk being excluded. Still, as we start the New Year, it bears repeating because of the new and exotic ways we still see the rule popping up and harming contractors.
Today – we look at the perils of Agency spam filters.
Advanced Decisions Vectors (ADV) was an offeror on a Department of Homeland Security 8(a) set-aside contract for consulting services. The RFP called for proposals to be submitted by 10 a.m. Eastern on September 8. ADV claimed that sent its proposal by email before the deadline (with 5 minutes to spare!), but the Agency disagreed – it did not receive the proposal – and disqualified ADV.
Keep reading this article at: http://www.mondaq.com/article.asp?articleid=458364
