HOME  |  CONTENTS  |  DISCUSSIONS  |  BLOG  |  QUICK-KITs|  STATES

Google

       Search WWW Search wifcon.com

To Contents

Discrepancy between Hard Copy and Digital Proposals
By FomerCO4AF on Tuesday, March 04, 2003 - 10:52 am:

Just last night I was reviewing a solicitation by an agency for a Multiple Award Task Order Contract. I am leaning towards utilizing this type of contract for multi-state road construction requirements and wanted to see another agencies format.

The solicitation was issued via CD with the documents in Adobe. Solicitation requires the contractor to submit the RFP hardcopy and on 6 CD's.

What I could not find defined in the solicitation is what rules. If there is a discrepancy between what's on paper and what's on the CD, what takes precedence? I would think this should be spelled out in the solicitation.


By ji20874 on Tuesday, March 04, 2003 - 01:29 pm:

I have asked for a paper submission and then an exact copy on CD in a major source selection -- we didn't specify a precedence, because we specified these were to be exact copies -- in case there was a discrepancy, I think use of the mistake in proposal rules will suffice. However, I don't think the solicitation should say that one will have precedence over the other -- the solicitation should require an exact copy.


By Vern Edwards on Tuesday, March 04, 2003 - 01:49 pm:

FormerCO4AF:

Are you asking about discrepancies between different formats of the agency's solicitation, or about discrepancies between different formats of an offeror's proposal?


By AnotherAnon on Tuesday, March 04, 2003 - 01:51 pm:

I agree with FormerCO4AF -- it should be spelled out in the solicitation. Otherwise, if there's an inadvertent discrepancy between the CD and the hard copy, how would you know which of these contained the mistake?


By Eric in Alaska on Tuesday, March 04, 2003 - 02:54 pm:

Vern,
Nice touch with your very subtle slam of the all-too-typical misuse of the phrase "submit the RFP", when a person means to say "submit the PROPOSAL" !! A contractor normally does not "submit" a solicitation (i.e., RFP), but instead hopefully reads it and responds to it.
This has been one of my "pet peeves" also.

Happy Trails to you ... (with apologies to Joel Hoffman)
Eric


By FormerCO4AF on Tuesday, March 04, 2003 - 03:18 pm:

Vern,

Solicitation requires the contractor to submit their "proposal" in print and on CD.

My opinion is, if you require electronic and hardcopy you should state what takes precedence if there's a difference. Ie; last minute change to the schedule was reflected on the hardcopy but not the electronic. Or, as in this solicitation, harcopy references/past performance meets the "relevent" standard but CD copy does not. (Could happen if working multiple proposals)

To be able to support the referenced ability to award without discussions, you should reflect a distinction in precedence in the solicitation package.

I'm not too keen on this package anyway because of the lack of specified evaluation standards and a few other things. I just want to get a "feel" of others thoughts since I am seeing more and more solicitations requiring electronic and hardcopy proposals.

Eric in Alaska,

Aren't you worried about copyright violations with Joel? lol


By Anon2U on Tuesday, March 04, 2003 - 04:01 pm:

Wouldn't a difference between the two be considered a clerical error that can be clarified prior to the completion of the evaluation?

If I was writing the proposal, I would QC the electronic file, burn it onto the disk, print the disk, and submit. Thus, no discrepancies between mediums. I have never seen a problem like this before but one way to avoid it is to require only the disk and print copies after receipt if needed. We have one CO in our office that does that now.

I also heard of a GSA technology office who awards without a single piece of paper utilizing electronic signatures. That includes the synopsis, solicitation and award. They are the leader of the pack if true.


By Eric in Alaska on Tuesday, March 04, 2003 - 04:37 pm:

FormerCO4AF: Glad you see the polite humor in my friendly jab at Joel's standing sign-off! And in my jab at the term "RFP", so commonly used for everything.
I was going to even try one like "Soupy Sales!"
Remember him?
But seriously, on your topic, I would agree that it is always best to be very specific in instructions, and if there is a possibility of difference (error) between printed "hard" and CD "soft" copy of a proposal, then why not specify a precedence rule for that solication which should avoid confusion and extra "error resolution" processing?


By Eric Ottinger on Tuesday, March 04, 2003 - 05:01 pm:

FormerCO4AF,

An bit mapped Adobe PDF file is effectively a photocopy of the paper document.

If this were a Word file I would share your concern. However, this is just as though the Agency had asked you to submit identical paper copies.

Eric


By longtimer on Tuesday, March 04, 2003 - 05:22 pm:

Interesting question, but perhaps not for obvious reasons. There is a difference between the soft and hard copies. Which reflects the original intent? Which is closest to the mind(s) responding--or in the case of an RFP originating?

Let me see now; people sit down on an old Selectric and make that old typing ball fly! They cut-n-paste or white out away until they have a final. They run that through a scanner and make a digital for the CD. Yeah. Sure!

Logically the digital must be the origin of the paper in today's world. (Is anyone out there an exception? If so, we need a living museum display!) Now we write in softcopy and print the result. There is only one case in which the two can become different. Someone either dumped to the printer or dumped to CD different versions. Personally I'd not want such a sloppy contractor or to deal with such a ditzy contracting office. I'd prefer to declare whoever so lazy and inexact that no further dealings are envisioned--good bye! Such certitude isn't PC so I propose a rule.

Define the digital as the presumed parent of any paper copy and closest to the intent of the writer. State that condition in all documents. Then make sure your QC includes comparison of digital original with digital copies--a very easy thing with most software--and with paper copies. Since most printers actually do print what is sent to them a good versioning system will usually suffice to make sure the paper is in fact the last product of the latest digital.


By AnotherAnon on Tuesday, March 04, 2003 - 07:13 pm:

longtimer:

You say "Logically the digital must be the origin of the paper in today's world." On the surface that does sound logical. But FormerCO4AF said "The solicitation was issued via CD with the documents in Adobe." If there's a way to fill out Adobe Acrobat forms electronically, I hope someone will tell me what it is. In fact a colleague of mine just spent the entire day today filling out forms for an RFP like that. He did it by using -- you guessed it -- an old Selectric, some white-out, and a scanner. Can you suggest a better way? My colleague is anxiously awaiting your response. ;-)


By cherokee21 on Tuesday, March 04, 2003 - 07:19 pm:

AnotherANon:

One of my Admin Assistants has a program called "Adobe Writer" (I was at a lose too!) I will check with her tomorrow and see how this works and forward info to you.


By Vern Edwards on Tuesday, March 04, 2003 - 07:23 pm:

Gang:

FormerCO4AF asked: "If there is a discrepancy between what's on paper and what's on the CD, what takes precedence?"

My answer is that if a firm submits one offer to the government in two formats, paper and compact disk, and the two are not the same, then the contracting officer had better ask which is the one the firm intends to be bound by before accepting either. Only a fool would accept one or the other without clarification and then try to argue that there is some legal rule about which took precedence.


By FormerCO4AF on Tuesday, March 04, 2003 - 08:05 pm:

Sorry I hadn't been on for a bit. I'm monitoring an A&E COTR course and need to sit in and provide our program specific answers and policies.

AnotherAnon,

If you purchase Adobe Writer software, there are text tools available to you where you can change some PDF files. This particular solicitation, they somehow set up the forms (SF1442) where you can fill in the blanks just using the included Adobe Reader software. I've got some research to do in Adobe now. That could be a very useful tool.

All,

What I gather as a concensus is, it is not unreasonable and CO's should be expected, to spell out what takes precendence when requiring contractors to submit multiple versions of their PROPOSAL. (The caps were just for you Eric in Alaska)

Joel,

If you'r out there, do you know if USACE formats their Adobe forms/documents so that some of the blanks can be filled electronically?


By AnotherAnon on Tuesday, March 04, 2003 - 10:14 pm:

Thanks to FormerCO4AF (and thanks in advance to cherokee21) for the info on Adobe Writer. Will definitely check this out - though I think, as FormerCO4AF suggests, that the accessibility of an Adobe form depends heavily on the format chosen by the person who creates it.

For any CO's interested in expediting the transition to electronic proposal submission by making e-forms more accessible, here's a link I just found to a paper which explains some of the options available:

http://www.adobe.com/products/acrobat/pdfs/acrforms_cs.pdf

Thank you on behalf of white-out-covered, Selectric-pounding, scanner-cursing contractor employees everywhere.


By FormerCO4AF on Wednesday, March 05, 2003 - 11:04 am:

Vern,

Of course if there is a disparity between electronic and hardcopy it will have to be clarified with the offeror.

I just think stating a precedence in the solicitation clearly identifies expectations and establishes some boundaries for both parties to clear up error's.


By Vern Edwards on Wednesday, March 05, 2003 - 12:00 pm:

FormerCO4AF:

My concern is that it is not going to be legally sufficient to merely state in a solicitation that if there is a disparity between the electronic and hard copy versions of an offer, then one or the other format will take precedence.

The use of such a solicitation provision might lead some contracting officer to award without discussions despite a disparity in the contents of an offeror's different offer formats, without seeking clarification, based on the "order of precedence" solicitation provision. (The CO might not seek clarification because he or she fears that such "clarification" would constitute "discussions.") The CO might instead proceed in reliance on the solicitation provision, presuming that the GAO or a board or court will enforce it. Those tribunals might or they might not enforce the provision, probably depending on what they think is fair and reasonable under the circumstances. No one in his right mind would rely on what they predict that such a tribunal would do, not if they have reasonable alternatives, like asking for clarification.

And if you think that clarification is necessary in any case, as I do and as it appears that you do, then what is the point of having an "order of precedence" provision with regard to different offer formats? In my opinion the use of such a provision would only lead to trouble.


By jerry zaffos on Wednesday, March 05, 2003 - 02:25 pm:

Really, is the situation under discussion any different than an offeror submitting two inconsistent hardcopies? Why should the media on which the proposal is submitted make a difference? There is still a duty on the part of the contracting officer to seek clarification.

ABOUT  l CONTACT