TArticles tagged with: FAR

Increase Your Confidence Rating Score

Confidence ratings are another form of an adjectival rating

If your proposal is evaluated in accordance with Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) subparts 8.4, 15.3, 16.505, and Part 13, the Government can use a confidence rating to score all or part of a proposal. Confidence ratings are another form of an adjectival rating. However, only FAR Subpart 15.3 requires documentation of relative strengths, deficiencies, significant weaknesses, and risks. The Government uses a confidence rating for several reasons. First, it may mitigate controversies associated with a more detailed adjectival (red, yellow, green, blue) or numeric scores. Second, it enables the Government to score the proposal holistically rather for a certain part of the proposal like the technical, management, past performance, or transition plan. Third, it makes it easier for the Source Selection Authority to rationalize a decision for an award. The Government has the leeway to define adjectives applied to a confidence rating. The Government may use a high-level confidence rating … Continue reading Increase Your Confidence Rating Score

Continue reading...

The Rationale for Eliminating Win Themes in Proposals

The Government is clear how they evaluate best value bids

If you attended a proposal writing class years ago, the instructor taught you to include win themes in every major proposal section. The instructor told you to link win themes to discriminators found in your offer and that the most powerful win themes discriminated your offer from those of your competitors. While it is good to differentiate your solution from competitors, it is only part of the equation needed to win. To win, you must consider the Government’s own instructions describing how they evaluate bids when using Federal Acquisitions Regulations (FAR) Part 15 15.101 Best value continuum, as opposed to FAR Part 15.101-2, where they look for the lowest price technically acceptable bid. In FAR Part 15.305 Proposal Evaluation, the Government is clear how they evaluate best value bids, “Evaluations may be conducted using any rating method or combination of methods, including color or adjectival ratings, numerical weights, and ordinal … Continue reading The Rationale for Eliminating Win Themes in Proposals

Continue reading...

Here’s what you need to know when the customer asks you to write the PWS

Understand why the government takes this approach

Proposal professionals are accustomed to responding to the Federal Government’s requirements as detailed in the performance work statement (PWS) included in the RFP. Here’s what to know when the government asks you to write the PWS. According to the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Title 48 Subpart 37.101, the PWS is the preferred performance-based acquisition (PBA) approach because the focus is on “structuring all aspects of an acquisition around the purpose of the work to be performed as opposed to either the manner by which the work is to be performed or broad and imprecise statements of work.” The Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) 37.602 allows either the government or the bidder to prepare the PWS. If the government issues the PWS as part of the solicitation, then bidders must respond to the requirements by presenting the features, benefits, and proofs of their proposed solution and highlighting Strengths. In contrast, highlighting a discriminating value … Continue reading Here’s what you need to know when the customer asks you to write the PWS

Continue reading...

Does the latest CIO-SP4 amendments create inequities?

NITAAC’s sudden shift might put small businesses without large partners at a disadvantage

The National Institutes of Health Information Technology Acquisition and Assessment Center (NITAAC)’s highly anticipated Chief Information Officer – Solutions and Partners 4 (CIO-SP4) RFP, released June 25, has already seen four amendments and a proposal due date extension to July 8. But the latest amendment, #4, has caught some bidders, especially small businesses, off-guard. A Change to CIO-SP4 Self-Scoring In the original solicitation, bidders with Contractor Teaming Arrangements (CTAs) or Joint Ventures (JVs) could use only prime contractor Corporate Experience, Leading Edge Technology, Federal Multiple Award contracts, and Executive Order 13779 experience examples as documented on the self-scoring worksheet. With the exception of the latter, the higher the dollar value of these experiences, the better the score. In Amendment #4, NITAAC removed the prohibition on using first-tier subcontractor experience examples. The rationale for the change is that “it is not NITAACs intent to remove the ability of offerors to utilize first … Continue reading Does the latest CIO-SP4 amendments create inequities?

Continue reading...