Tell me what is wrong with this procurement strategy. I am not comfortable with it but I want to consider some different opinions. Under consideration is a plan to submit a Task Order Request via two different GWACs for the same requirement. At some point in time after receipt of proposals, one of the requirements will be cancelled, with the goal being to continue with the GWAC which yielded the most favorable proposals. No determination has been made regarding the criteria to be used to decide which one would be cancelled. The decision to cancel could be based on either price or technical factors. Any thoughts and comments, favorable or unfavorable are appreciated.

By Anonymous on Tuesday, June 26, 2001 - 07:51 am:

Why not do it before awarding the GWACS or are you contemplating usinf existing vehicles?

By PWG on Tuesday, June 26, 2001 - 08:03 am:

The plan is to use two different existing GWACs for simultaneous task order competitions for a single requirement.

By joel hoffman on Tuesday, June 26, 2001 - 08:28 am:

Do the terms of the two GWACs indicate that the requirement could be competed? happy sails! joel

By formerfed on Tuesday, June 26, 2001 - 09:13 am:

Industry complains about these kinds of situations, and rightfully so. Companies spend lot of time and money competing for WAS awards. Once the awards are made, that's supposed to be the extent of competition.

By now competing a requirements between two Gases, two negative things occur. First you are driving up costs of the FWAC holders. This means higher costs that get passed on to the government indirectly, or we drive a good company out of the federal arena. The other thing is you waste resources at your own agency. It's going to take a lot of effort to compete among two FWAC holders. Why not just do some research upfront and select a FWAC? You still can negotiate after that if you want. Often some of the savings people think occur are false. Sure you might get something in terms of price reduction through competition, but I doubt the overall savings take place.

By formerfed on Tuesday, June 26, 2001 - 09:15 am:

Wow, something really went wrong with the spell check! Anyway, you get my thoughts.

By PWG on Tuesday, June 26, 2001 - 09:19 am:

Joel:

I'm not sure I understand your question. Take for example two very common and widely used GWACS,let's say GSA's ANSWER contract and NIH's CIOSP contract. Both authorize task order competitions but I not aware of any provision in either contract which contemplates that a Government agency would compete the same requirement under both simultaneously with the plan to ultimately cancel one of them. That is the plan under consideration. My initial thought on this plan is that it is inappropriate because it creates the scenario where an offeror could incur proposal preparation costs without knowing ahead of time that there is basically only a 50/50 chance of having any task order award under either instrument. I was wondering what others would think about this but I guess I am not doing a very good job of articulating the planned procurement strategy.

By PWG on Tuesday, June 26, 2001 - 09:26 am:

thanks formerfed.

I agree with you completely. The primary goal of my post was to obtain thoughts and comments like yours to enhance my ability to articulate my objection to this plan. Much appreciated! I also thought that maybe I was not considering all angles and that someone would provide me with a contrary opinion. Thoughts and opinions of others are still welcome.

By Anonymous on Tuesday, June 26, 2001 - 09:27 am:

Do each of the GWACS have multiplt holders individually? In other words are you competing two contractors or a dozen?

By PWG on Tuesday, June 26, 2001 - 10:56 am:

I should have been clearer. I am referring to Multiple Award GWACs which could theoretically involve more than a dozen contractors. For the two examples I gave, GSA's ANSWER contract was awarded to 10 prime contractors, while NIH's CIOSP2 contract was awarded to 48 prime contractors. Some companies are prime contractors on both GWACs.

By joel hoffman on Tuesday, June 26, 2001 - 11:13 am:

PWG, I agree with you that this drives up costs for contractors. If it wasn't contemplated that they would have to submit competing proposals, and/or they don't know they are competing (stupid idea to not tell them - known competition produces better proposals) and/or if there is no indication of the evaluation criteria used to select, it is an unfair government practice. happy sails! joel

By Anonymous on Tuesday, June 26, 2001 - 11:26 am:

Is'nt ten enough?

By PWG on Tuesday, June 26, 2001 - 11:35 am:

Ten is enough for me but it's not my decision to make. I am trying to encourage the selection of only one GWAC and competing a task order exclusively under that one. Consider also however that having 10 vendors on a multiple award contract does not ensure the receipt of 10 viable proposals from which to make a best value selection. On one prior occasion we competed a task order under NIH's original CIOSP contract and even though there were 20 prime contractors, we received only one technically acceptable proposal (three total but two were unacceptable).

By Anonymous on Tuesday, June 26, 2001 - 02:02 pm:

I suggest you use the one GWAC with the most holders. I see no value in using two seperate vehicles..if someone else does..consider issuing your own solicitation. Who wants to eval 48 proposals? Also would you not have to comply with the competition procedures established in those vehicles? Do you know what they are and are you prepared to do it?

By Loki on Tuesday, June 26, 2001 - 03:33 pm:

You must follow the fair opportunity process described in the GWAC ordering procedures. The protections from protests afforded by FASA will not extend to competition between GWACs.

By Anonymous on Tuesday, June 26, 2001 - 10:09 pm:

Interesting question: we had a thread a while back in which someone said they asked firms to quote based on their best contract vehicle (I guess several firms participate in GSA schedules as well as other Agency IDIQs).

I could never figure out how in the source selection one would balance the different terms and conditions of the various contracts (which I expect contribute to different pricing).

Finally decided that a market survey asking for expressions of interest (including applicable contracts) might be the best approach.