Given a solicitation that had a response date more than 6 months earlier than award, is this not excessive? Companies were kept competitive for this entire period of time. At cost with maintaining available capacity, as well as ongoing efforts expended. Should this happen?

By P Cook on Monday, March 31, 2003 - 11:44 am:

It can happen! At my previous agency, I had several brand new requirements for complex high dollar medical service contracts. Despite our best efforts at creating the requirements, we had the need for several amendments to clarify issues brought up by both in-house parties and interested contractors. This was not an easy task because some changes involved several departments and many voices to get the issues resolved to the satisfaction of the various departments and stated correctly in the solicitation. That was even before the evaluation and award could be done which in itself, was a very time-consuming process. Our agency wanted these services awarded post haste, and we made our best efforts to solicit, evaluate and award. However, with a new complex requirement, with a high dollar value, and the lives of our veterans at stake, care had to be taken make sure all bases were covered to assure we had the best contractors to perform the services.

By dave on Monday, March 31, 2003 - 01:04 pm:

The above pretty much sums it up, acquisitions of great scope or complexity will normally require more time, ask yourself, will DCAA audits be needed, will a preaward survey be conducted, how extensive will the negotiations be, etc. A simple sealed bid requirement for oft bought COTS items will probably go very quickly from bid opening to award. Buying the F22 fighter jet probably took quite a while from proposal submission to award.

By Vern Edwards on Monday, March 31, 2003 - 02:30 pm:

As I understand it, the question was whether six months is too long to evaluate proposals and award a contract. If that is the question, then I think the answer is yes -- as a general rule, six months is too long. A well-planned, organized and managed source selection should not take so much time, even for large, complex acquisitions.

I also think that the RFP preparation process was flawed if an agency has to issue "several" clarifying amendments. RFPs for large, complex acquisitions must be well-scrubbed before issuance through especially intensive editing procedures such as murder boards, in which prospective offerors can be invited to participate. While such procedures may not entirely eliminate the need for a clarifying Q&A amendment, they should eliminate the need for "several" such amendments.

A scan of Fedbizopps shows that it is not uncommon for agencies to amend solicitations several times after issuance. To me, this is prima facie evidence of poor acquisition process management.

By formerfed on Monday, March 31, 2003 - 03:29 pm:

Since the posting is under the Small Business Discussion section, I doubt the procurement is for something extremely complex like a major system. Vern’s comment hit the nail right on the head. Most procurements dragging on for months involve poor planning and process management.

Numerous solicitation amendments indicate a poorly thought out and written section C and often sections L&M. Murder boats usually eliminate much of this, as do issuing draft RFPs for industry comment along with tedious market research. Another big problem is agency programs assign technical people to the acquisition who lack the expertise and/or the time to do it. When questions from industry arise, getting a timely response isn't a priority. Often one bad or incomplete answer causes another question to arise. Also they conduct the proposal evaluations in between multiple other duties so what should take a week or so takes months.

If getting an acquisition done quickly isn’t a priority with all parties involved on the government team, it doesn’t happen. And I mean “priority” beginning with upfront planning when a budget gets prepared.

By Anon2U on Monday, March 31, 2003 - 06:56 pm:

At my agency it is too slow at every step in the process and no one seems to care. The average large contract takes well over a year. It is rare that we don't exercise the continuation of services clause. I finished off one award that took two and a half years and had been through 4 contracting officers (it took so long that they had retired, transferred, or been promoted). Good thing they started the recompete in the 2nd option year due to hitting an IDIQ ceiling that later got disregarded.

I couldn't believe it when OMB put a 1 year limit on the A-76. How is agencies like mine ever going to make that time limit?

By FormerCO4AF on Monday, March 31, 2003 - 07:16 pm:

Anon2U;

Sounds to me like outsourcing in your agency may be an improvement.

I would be ashamed to work in an agency that makes it a standard practice to exercise the Extension of services clause. Seems like they are abusing something that is supposed to be an exception.

I think the 1 year limit is reasonable. Why should people, whose jobs may be on the line, have to wait for so long and put their lives on hold because someone is slow?

Just personal opinion.

By Phil C. on Tuesday, April 01, 2003 - 03:38 am:

I think more than 6 months is too long. Like others who have posted, it is an indicator the activity does not have their ----together.

Moreover, I would think the customer/program office/etc needs the contract in-place, so I don't know how they put up with such unsat service by the contracting activity.

My experience working in Govt. contracting offices soliciting/award contracts is that 1. the customers I've dealt with wouldn't put up with this type of thing. 2. The contracting offices I've worked in wouldn't put up with it, as they were dedicated professionals and took timely delivery of a quality product seriously.

By Vern Edwards on Tuesday, April 01, 2003 - 09:11 am:

Drawn-out evaluations are not always the fault of contracting offices. Technical evaluations may take a long time for any of several reasons.

One reason may be poor source selection planning and preparation. The evaluators may not have seen the RFP before sitting down to evaluate proposals. They may not understand the requirement or the evaluation factors and lose time while trying to figure them out and resolve factional disputes among themselves.

The proposal preparation instructions may have been poorly written, with the result that the offerors didn't send the proper information relative to the evaluation factors.

The technical evaluators may not be assigned to the job on a dedicated basis, so they work in fits and starts, running off to meetings and to their desks to work on other tasks and even going TDY instead of working full time on the proposal evaluations.

Poor S.O.W. or specification development may require RFP amendments after receipt of proposals, which will cause lengthy and costly delays.

Premature acquisition starts and requirements or funding turbulence may also lead to post-proposal amendments.

By Linda Koone on Tuesday, April 01, 2003 - 11:14 am:

And don't forget, since we are in the small business thread, the time needed for processing Certificate of Competency referrals if issues related to responsibility are involved.

By P Cook on Tuesday, April 01, 2003 - 06:06 pm:

Vern, thanks for your comments on some of the challenges that occur that cause delays. They are what make are jobs fun!

I would like to comment on part of the statement from Anonymous, the initiator of this discussion. Part of the concern appears to be that "Companies were kept competitive for this entire period of time. At cost with maintaining available capacity, as well as ongoing efforts expended." Depending on the method of procurement, the solicitation should state the acceptance period of either your sealed bid or proposal. If it was sealed bid, then 14.404-1(d) would guide extending the bid acceptance period.

If the procurement was conducted under FAR Part 13 (Simplified) then FAR Part 13.004 would apply to offer and acceptance of your quotation.

So check your solicitation document and see if you can tell what procurement method was being used and if there was an acceptance period stated.

By Phil C. on Wednesday, April 02, 2003 - 08:39 pm: