|
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.
|
