NEW CONTRACT PROCUREMENT
Author JIM DEMOCKER at internet Date 4/15/1999 12:32 PM. For my fellow Technical Evaluation Panel (TEP) members...The following chronicles the efforts of a research biologist working through the Contracts Management Division of his Federal Government agency to obtain a duck for the purposes of non-invasive, cruelty-free avian research.
Researcher Hi. I need a duck. It's for some research.
Contracting Official Fine. We're here to help you serve the needs of the American people.
Researcher What do I need to do?
Contracting Official Submit a Scope of Work (SOW) defining the work areas to be performed by the duck (D), your Contract Officer Representative (COR) certification authorizing you to manage Duck Work (DW) on behalf of the Federal Government (FG), an Independent Government Contract Estimate (IGCE) detailing the expected cost to the FG of your DW – including Professional Level (PL) labor rates and hours, overhead costs, photocopying, telephone usage and rates, courier charges, computer costs, long-distance and local travel costs –
Researcher Excuse me. Travel costs...for a duck?
Contracting Official Yes. You need to specify the anticipated number and cost of trips between the duck's nest and locations away from his nest, as well as the anticipated number and cost of trips between those locations which are away from the duck's own nest. Oh, and you need to do this even if you have no idea what the location is of the nest of the duck who will be the successful offeror. (Note This is actually true.)
Researcher Oh, okay. Is that it?
Contracting Official No, but why don't you just get started on the SOW, the COR certification, and the IGCE and I'll tell you about the rest of the paperwork you need to complete later.
[Six months later]
Researcher (wearily) Okay, I've done everything you've asked. Can I have my duck?
Contracting Official We're almost there. You just have to fill out Technical Evaluation Panel Reports (TEPRs) which rate each of the offeror ducks according to their demonstrated skills, education, and experience as they relate to each of the work areas specified in the Scope of Work. Oh, and you have to provide examples of where, how, and why they may be UNABLE to meet the requirements of a particular work area in the SOW.
Researcher Wait. You mean I have to provide examples to prove a negative? To prove the duck CAN'T do something he needs to be able to do?
Contracting Official Yes. (Note Also true.)
Researcher Well, if I have to, I'll give it a shot.
Contracting Official Great. And when you finish the Technical Evaluation Panel Report (TEPRs) evaluating all of the offeror ducks according to all the criteria listed in the Scoring Sheet (SS), we'll be ready to determine the Competitive Range (CR) which defines which ducks have made it through the first cut and will be asked to prepare Best and Final Offers (BAFOs). (Note True again.)
[Four months later]
Researcher (really wearily) Okay. Here are all the Technical Evaluation Panel Reports (TEPRs). (Hands over 6 inch high stack of documents). Can I have the duck?
Contracting Official Ha ha. I love working with people who have a sense of humor. First I have to review and edit all of these Technical Evaluation Panel Reports (TEPRs) to make sure you, as a technically-oriented person, have not relied too heavily on technical terms when evaluating the offeror duck's technical qualifications. If we are sued by any of the losing offeror ducks who choose to protest the selection process, the official record of the technical evaluation of the offerors' skills and capabilities has to be written in non-technical terms so that your technical judgments can be second-guessed by non-technical people such as lawyers, judges, and contract personnel like me. (Note All true.)
[Two months later]
Researcher Have you finished making all the revisions to the TEPRs I submitted? Can I have my duck?
Contracting Official I just have a few questions left for you. You gave offeror #7 a low rating in Work Area (g) because you said it's neck was too long.
Researcher Well, the problem is that offeror #7 is a goose. I need a duck. I wrote in the Scope of Work that it had to be a duck.
Contracting Official No, we revised the Scope of Work after you submitted it so it would be understandable to us contracting people, the potential offerors, the general public, and the legal professionals who will process any protests. The final version replaced your technical term ‘duck' with ‘a web-footed and feathered, wild or domesticated waterfowl capable of swimming (in, on, and/or under the water) and flying (through the air) without reliance on artificial floatation equipment or aerodynamic devices.' Geese qualify according to these criteria so you can't give offeror #7 a low rating just because geese have longer necks than ducks. Neck length is not one of the criteria listed in the Scope of Work.
Researcher Okay, okay. My research project was on ducks, but I'll change the scope of my study if I have to. But what about offeror #13?
Contracting Official What about #13?
Researcher Um. It's dead.
Contracting Official And your point is...?
Researcher My research requires a live duck, not a dead one.
Contracting Official The Scope of Work does not state that the duck has to be alive. It states in Work Area (r) that it merely should ‘look like a duck and walk like a duck.' Offeror #13 looks like a duck. In fact, it looks more like a duck than that goose, offeror #7, does.
Researcher Okay, so it looks like a duck, but it certainly isn't WALKING like a duck.
Contracting Official No, we agree it has not adequately demonstrated in its proposal that it is now walking like a duck. However, just because it has not fully demonstrated ‘duck-like walking' in the Proposed Personnel Skills portion of its proposal, you still have to award offeror #13 reasonably positive scores in the areas of Educational Attainment and Corporate Experience. Offeror #13 has an advanced degree and an impressive resume of prior walking in a duck-like manner. (Note This is all true.)
Researcher But that's in the past! This duck is dead!
Contracting Official (blank stare)
Researcher (resignedly) Okay, okay. I'll give offeror #13 good scores for Educational Attainment and Corporate Experience, but I am NOT going to give offeror #13 a high score in the Proposed Personnel Skills area. That should at least disqualify #13 and drop it from the final competition.
Contracting Official Ha ha ha.
Researcher Wait. Why are you laughing now?
Contracting Official Just because an offeror doesn't score well in ALL areas of the Scope of Work doesn't mean they won't get the contract.
Researcher What? You're joking, right? Please say you're joking.
Contracting Official I don't joke about my work. The successful offeror does not need to have demonstrated an ability to do ALL the types of work listed in the Scope of Work. They only need to demonstrate that they have the general kinds of skills and experience which indicates they can do the KIND of work listed in the Scope of Work. For example, if it has flown once before, it doesn't matter whether it crashed or not, only that it got off the ground once.
Researcher Even if it only got off the ground because it fell off a cliff?
Contracting Official Now you're starting to get the hang of this contracting process. I'm proud of you. If we Contracting Officials decide that an offeror, such as your dead duck #13, represents a better deal for the government because, say, it's inability to self-propel through the air is offset by very favorable hourly labor rates, we might make the award to #13 based on cost criteria. (Note Very, very true.)
[Four months later]
Contracting Official Congratulations. Here is your duck.
Researcher Thanks anyway. The project was canceled when we failed to meet the legal deadline for the research. Oh, by the way...the winning duck just flew away.