price evaluation | The Contracting Education Academy

Emily Murphy, the General Services Administration’s administrator, uttered her “famous” words during her nomination hearing before the Senate Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee in October 2017: “We are trying to make sure GSA’s contracting officers and our policies support really vigorous competition at the task order level because that is the amount we actually are going to spend so we want to get the best deal there, the most competition we can there.”

She offered experience, understanding and hope where only previous administrators’ words offered hallowed general concepts before.

If anyone understood the ridiculousness of asking a vendor’s price for something they haven’t seen the requirements for, it was Murphy.

And when Congress blessed the concept of creating an “unpriced multiple award contract” where costs only mattered at each individual task order level in the 2018 National Defense Authorization Act, many in the acquisition community — including myself — thought the clarion call finally has been heard.

Keep reading this article at: https://federalnewsnetwork.com/reporters-notebook-jason-miller/2020/08/gsa-finally-pushing-price-competition-to-where-it-belongs-at-the-task-order-level/

When the terms of a solicitation run contrary to the regulations, challenging the solicitation in a pre-award protest may provide contractors the chance to shift the tide in their favor before bids are submitted and an award is made.

In January 2020, the Government Accountability Office (GAO) sustained a pre-award bid protest brought by Noble Supply & Logistics, Inc. that challenged the terms of a General Services Administration (GSA) solicitation. Noble Supply & Logistics, Inc., B-418141, 2020 WL 289546 (Jan. 16, 2020). Noble Supply argued the RFQ’s price evaluation methodology, as written, failed to provide for an evaluation of which offeror presented the best value and the lowest overall cost alternative, in violation of FAR part 8.

In the RFQ, GSA asked holders of GSA 51V Hardware Superstore Federal Supply Schedule (FSS) contracts to bid on four blanket purchase agreements (BPAs) to provide hardware products and services to four military branches. For its price evaluation factor, the RFQ stated that GSA would evaluate price quotations “to ensure that offered pricing, to include flat rates and tiered volume discounts, is fair and reasonable.” The RFQ then stated that GSA would not evaluate whether the award was the “lowest-priced technically acceptable” (LPTA), nor would it conduct a “best value tradeoff source selection methodology.” Thus, GSA would only evaluate the quotes for price reasonableness to determine whether prices were unreasonably high.

Noble Supply argued that this price methodology was contrary to 41 U.S.C. sections 152, 8.404(d) and 8.405-3(a), which require GSA to award BPAs to the awardee that provides the “best value and results in the lowest overall cost alternative.” GAO agreed, explaining that “consideration of the lowest cost is an imperative when using the FSS” and therefore GSA is required to “reach a determination regarding which FSS vendor meets the agency’s needs at the lowest overall cost.” Noble Supply & Logistics, Inc., B-418141, 2020 WL 289546, at *6 (Jan. 16, 2020).

Keep reading this article at: http://www.mondaq.com/Article/891604

GSA finally pushing price competition to where it belongs: At the task order level

Contractor successfully uses GAO pre-award protest to modify solicitation

When the terms of a solicitation run contrary to the regulations, challenging the solicitation in a pre-award protest may provide contractors the chance to shift the tide in their favor before bids are submitted and an award is made.

Search this Website