Debriefing | The Contracting Education Academy

November 29, 2018 By cs

Poor debriefings spur bid protests

Just how bad are debriefings?

Pretty bad and possibly getting worse.

That’s the general conclusion of Washington Technology’s Insider Report on post-award debriefings and bid protests.

As the findings show, poor debriefings often lead to bid protests. So while bid protests often are criticized, they are really a symptom of a problem and not the main problem.

Generally, companies don’t want to protest. The research showed that a nearly three-quarters felt protests damaged the long-term relationship, but nearly the same percentage said they would protest again.

That tells us how important quality debriefings are. Companies want is to hear from their customers how their proposal fell short. This kind of feedback can change how companies do business, what kind of solutions they develop and even who they team with.

Keep reading this article at: https://washingtontechnology.com/blogs/editors-notebook/2018/10/debriefing-special-report.aspx

May 22, 2018 By cs

DoD implements FY18 NDAA requirement for post-debriefing Q&A process

This past March marked the beginning of a more fulsome required debriefing process for defense contracts.

The Director of Defense Procurement and Acquisition Policy (DPAP) issued a class deviation memorandum, effective March 22, 2008, requiring contracting officers to: (1) provide unsuccessful offerors an opportunity to submit additional questions within two days after receiving a debriefing; and (2) hold the debriefing open until the agency delivers written responses. The class deviation implements Section 818 of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2018 (NDAA).

Federal agencies have long been required to debrief unsuccessful bidders after it awards a contract on the “basis of a competitive proposals.” And the existing FAR provisions applicable to such debriefings, FAR 15.505 and 15.506, already require agencies to include, as part of the debriefing process, “reasonable responses to relevant questions about whether source selection procedures were followed . . . .”

In practice, however, agencies regularly ignore that requirement — often providing a limited written debriefing, declaring the debriefing closed with no opportunity for questions, and thereby putting the disappointed offeror on a 5-day clock to protest, without all the information to which it is entitled.

Keep reading this article at: https://www.insidegovernmentcontracts.com/2018/05/questions-department-defense-implements-fy-2018-ndaa-requirement-post-debriefing-qa-process/

September 25, 2017 By cs

Senate passes $700 billion 2018 NDAA, including procurement reforms

On September 18, 2017 the Senate passed its version of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2018.

The Senate version of the NDAA authorizes defense spending at close to $700 billion for Fiscal Year 2018, which begins on October 1. The Senate NDAA’s $700 billion total is more than President Donald Trump requested, and also exceeds the caps set by the Budget Control Act of 2011. In order to provide the authorized $700 billion level through appropriation bills, Congress will need to address the limits of the Budget Control Act and eliminate the threat of sequestration.

As is the case each year, the NDAA will include significant procurement reform provisions. Although it remains to be seen which of these provisions will be included in the final version of the NDAA passed by Congress and signed into law by the president, the Senate and House versions both contain notable reforms that would impact the laws and regulations applicable to government contractors. For example, the Senate version contains reforms to the debriefing and bid protest process and the House version would permit and promote Department of Defense (DoD) purchases through online commercial marketplaces. Both versions contain significant potential reforms to the regulation of commercial items.

In its recent vote, the Senate was acting on H.R. 2810, the House version of the 2018 NDAA, and voted on Amendment #1003, which included the Senate version of the NDAA. This version was further modified by numerous bipartisan amendments, including an amendment that incorporated the Modernizing Government Technology (MGT) Act. The MGT provisions would establish information technology working capital funds at 24 federal agencies and set up a separate $500 million modernization fund within the Department of the Treasury, to be administered by the General Services Administration, for the purpose of improving information technology and cybersecurity across the federal government.

Below is a summary of several significant procurement reform provisions in the Senate and House versions of the NDAA, each of which contain more than 50 separate sections related to procurement policies and reform.

Keep reading this article at: https://www.lexology.com/library/detail.aspx?g=6e11bc94-e1ca-42a7-ae21-b96f2965ad02

August 16, 2017 By cs

Senate attempt to reduce protests misses the point

When it comes to federal procurement, the frequency and expectation of protests has had a palpable, costly, and sometimes deleterious effect on the process and those competing in it.

Most companies now add an extra six to 12 months to their revenue projections in order to account for possible protests.

There is good reason to believe (including surveys) that “low price/technically acceptable” (LPTA) procurement strategies are, with some frequency, driven by a desire to avoid protests, since protesting such procurements is near impossible.

And, of course, there have been cases where incumbents, having lost a re-competition, submit a protest and, as a result, effectively get a contract extension while the protest is decided.

All of these represent unintended and undesirable impacts of the protest process. As a result, many have believed for some time that significant remedial action is needed. This includes the Senate Armed Services Committee, which, for the second year in a row, has included provisions in the defense authorization bill that would require losing protestors to reimburse the government for the costs of a protest when none of the plaintiff’s allegations are sustained.

Keep reading this article at: https://washingtontechnology.com/articles/2017/07/25/insights-soloway-bid-protests.aspx

January 11, 2017 By cs

Why procurement officials shouldn’t fear debriefings

The White House has a strong message for the government’s buying officials: Talk to the companies that bid on a contract about why they did or didn’t win the award.

The Office of Management and Budget’s Office of Federal Procurement Policy (OFPP) recently released a “myth-buster” memo clearing up misconceptions about debriefing meetings, the post-award discussions often requested by unsuccessful vendors curious about why they weren’t selected.

Among common practices OFPP tried to bust: “If a company brings a lawyer, cut the discussion short.”

Keep reading this article at: http://www.nextgov.com/cio-briefing/2017/01/why-procurement-officials-shouldnt-fear-debriefings/134375

Read the OFPP’s Jan. 5, 2017 “myth busting” memo at: https://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/omb/procurement/memo/myth-busting_3_further_improving_industry_communications_with_effectiv….pdf

Just how bad are debriefings?

This past March marked the beginning of a more fulsome required debriefing process for defense contracts.

On September 18, 2017 the Senate passed its version of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2018.

When it comes to federal procurement, the frequency and expectation of protests has had a palpable, costly, and sometimes deleterious effect on the process and those competing in it.

The White House has a strong message for the government’s buying officials: Talk to the companies that bid on a contract about why they did or didn’t win the award.

Search this Website