Wifcon.Forum Archives

To Contents	Content of Letters to Losing Offerors
By anonsep11 on Wednesday, September 11, 2002 - 08:52 am: As a technical evaluator of many "best value" (FAR Part 13.5) commercial acquistions (using performance specifications), we often ask that certain companies be eliminated from the competitive range. Although the loser is usually (and often subjectively) deficient in one or more technical aspects, we often feel the potential winners are so strong technically, that the losers would never offer an equivalant product without leading them on into a redesign through discussions with them (something wrong to do, right?). My contracting officer always insists that the content of the loser letter be that "your product is technically unacceptable", and we must make a case solely against his product. Is there anything wrong with adding something like; "there are other proposals which are offering products the government considers technically superior to your offering". By anon2 on Wednesday, September 11, 2002 - 09:48 am: Why can't you explain, using your example or something to the effect that the offer wasn't commercially competitive without a complete new effort, restructuring, or technical design development to overcome its short comings? I would think that this would be fair to the offerors. I'd rather know I'm not competitive, than to continue investing my resources on a losing proposal. The competitive range is exactly that - the most highly rated offers, which have a competitive chance for award. One reason for the FAR 15 re-write of the competitive range process was avoid keeping marginally competitive and non-competitive offerors hanging on, wasting their time and money, chasing a contract they have no realistic chance of winning. The firm will learn what product was selected after award, so it can re-evaluate future strategies. By Vern Edwards on Wednesday, September 11, 2002 - 10:03 am: anonsep11: Two things-- First, yes you can use language such as you described. In fact, you can be more specific: "The company we selected offered better [functionality, speed, strength-to-weight, durability, reliability, maintainability... you name it] than you." Second, you said that you're doing procurements under FAR Subpart 13.5. If so, then why are you establishing a "competitive range" and conducting "discussions"? Those are Part 15 procedures and you don't have to use them under Subpart 13.5. Instead, you're supposed to be using simplified procedures. Ask for proposals, read them, pick the one you like best on the basis of whatever criteria you announced, negotiate to final agreement with the selectee, then tell the others who you picked. If you can't reach agreement with the one you initially selected, then see if you can reach agreement with one of the others. You don't have to establish a competitive range and conduct discussions with everyone in it. If you use Part 15 procedures, then the GAO will hold you to them. Use simplified procedures. By anonsep11 on Wednesday, September 11, 2002 - 12:05 pm: Thanks, both replies were very helpfull. I am always trying to get my CO to see it your way Vern regarding using strictly simplified, but they are finding it very hard to change and move on....they even still offer debreifings to all losers, which causes me untold grief, because these debreifings end up being stressfull for everyone. By Vern Edwards on Wednesday, September 11, 2002 - 12:12 pm: anonsep11: Your CO is not alone. Many COs simply cannot bring themselves to simplify their contract formation processes, even when the FAR and the GAO encourage them to do so. I sometimes wonder if they think they have more power and control if they keep the process complicated. Vern By anon2 on Wednesday, September 11, 2002 - 01:33 pm: My point regarding the Part 15 rewrite was that the whole approach to "competitive range" was changed to recognize that competitors would rather have an honest opinion as to whether or not they're competitive, as early as possible. Tell them they aren't competitive, don't just tell them what is "wrong" with their offer. The bottom line is "Am I competitive or not - what are my chances?" If such philosophy is applicable to more formal acquistion processes, it is applicable to commercial acquisition, using simplified procedures.

Content of Letters to Losing Offerors

By anonsep11 on Wednesday, September 11, 2002 - 08:52 am:

As a technical evaluator of many "best value" (FAR Part 13.5) commercial acquistions (using performance specifications), we often ask that certain companies be eliminated from the competitive range. Although the loser is usually (and often subjectively) deficient in one or more technical aspects, we often feel the potential winners are so strong technically, that the losers would never offer an equivalant product without leading them on into a redesign through discussions with them (something wrong to do, right?).

My contracting officer always insists that the content of the loser letter be that "your product is technically unacceptable", and we must make a case solely against his product.

Is there anything wrong with adding something like; "there are other proposals which are offering products the government considers technically superior to your offering".

By anon2 on Wednesday, September 11, 2002 - 09:48 am:

Why can't you explain, using your example or something to the effect that the offer wasn't commercially competitive without a complete new effort, restructuring, or technical design development to overcome its short comings? I would think that this would be fair to the offerors. I'd rather know I'm not competitive, than to continue investing my resources on a losing proposal.

The competitive range is exactly that - the most highly rated offers, which have a competitive chance for award. One reason for the FAR 15 re-write of the competitive range process was avoid keeping marginally competitive and non-competitive offerors hanging on, wasting their time and money, chasing a contract they have no realistic chance of winning.

The firm will learn what product was selected after award, so it can re-evaluate future strategies.

By Vern Edwards on Wednesday, September 11, 2002 - 10:03 am:

anonsep11:

Two things--

First, yes you can use language such as you described. In fact, you can be more specific: "The company we selected offered better [functionality, speed, strength-to-weight, durability, reliability, maintainability... you name it] than you."

Second, you said that you're doing procurements under FAR Subpart 13.5. If so, then why are you establishing a "competitive range" and conducting "discussions"? Those are Part 15 procedures and you don't have to use them under Subpart 13.5. Instead, you're supposed to be using simplified procedures.

Ask for proposals, read them, pick the one you like best on the basis of whatever criteria you announced, negotiate to final agreement with the selectee, then tell the others who you picked. If you can't reach agreement with the one you initially selected, then see if you can reach agreement with one of the others. You don't have to establish a competitive range and conduct discussions with everyone in it.

If you use Part 15 procedures, then the GAO will hold you to them. Use simplified procedures.

By anonsep11 on Wednesday, September 11, 2002 - 12:05 pm:

Thanks, both replies were very helpfull. I am always trying to get my CO to see it your way Vern regarding using strictly simplified, but they are finding it very hard to change and move on....they even still offer debreifings to all losers, which causes me untold grief, because these debreifings end up being stressfull for everyone.

By Vern Edwards on Wednesday, September 11, 2002 - 12:12 pm:

anonsep11:

Your CO is not alone. Many COs simply cannot bring themselves to simplify their contract formation processes, even when the FAR and the GAO encourage them to do so. I sometimes wonder if they think they have more power and control if they keep the process complicated.

Vern

By anon2 on Wednesday, September 11, 2002 - 01:33 pm:

My point regarding the Part 15 rewrite was that the whole approach to "competitive range" was changed to recognize that competitors would rather have an honest opinion as to whether or not they're competitive, as early as possible. Tell them they aren't competitive, don't just tell them what is "wrong" with their offer. The bottom line is "Am I competitive or not - what are my chances?" If such philosophy is applicable to more formal acquistion processes, it is applicable to commercial acquisition, using simplified procedures.