Labels and Tags

Accountability (66) Adequate documentation (5) ADR in procurement (3) Allocation of risks (5) Best interest of government (11) Best practices (19) Best value (14) Bidder prejudice (11) Blanket purchase agreement (1) Bridge contract (2) Bundling (6) Cancellation and rejection (2) Centralized procurement structure (12) Changes during bid process (13) Clarifications vs Discussions (1) Competence (9) Competition vs Efficiency (28) Competitive position (2) Compliance (32) Conflict of interest (28) Contract administration (24) Contract disputes (1) Contract extension or modification (8) Contract terms (2) Contract types (6) Contract vs solicitation dispute (1) Contractor responsibility (18) Conviction (3) Cooperative purchasing (3) Cost and pricing (13) Debarment (4) Determinations (8) Determining responsibility (32) Disclosure requirements (7) Discussions during solicitation (9) Disposal of surplus property (3) Effective enforcement requirement (34) Effective procurement management (3) Effective specifications (35) Emergency procurement (14) eProcurement (5) Equitable tolling (2) Evaluation of submissions (22) Fair and equitable treatment (14) Fair and reasonable value (23) Fiscal effect of procurement (13) Good governance (8) Governmental functions (26) Guam (14) Guam procurement law (12) Improper influence (11) Incumbency (12) Integrity of system (29) Interested party (7) Jurisdiction (1) Justification (1) Life-cycle cost (1) Limits of government contracting (5) Lore vs Law (4) market research (6) Materiality (3) Methods of source selection (28) Mistakes (3) Models of Procurement (1) Needs assessment (11) No harm no foul? (8) Other procurement links (14) Outsourcing (31) Past performance (12) Planning policy (33) Politics of procurement (46) PPPs (6) Prequalification (1) Principle of competition (88) Principles of procurement (21) Private vs public contract (15) Procurement authority (5) Procurement controversies series (75) Procurement ethics (17) Procurement fraud (27) Procurement lifecycle (9) Procurement philosophy (15) Procurement procedures (29) Procurement reform (57) Procurement theory (11) Procurement workforce (2) Procurment philosophy (6) Professionalism (17) Protest - formality (1) Protest - timing (10) Protests - general (35) Purposes and policies of procurement (9) Recusal (1) Remedies (16) Requirement for new procurement (4) Resolution of protests (3) Responsiveness (11) Restrictive specifications (4) Review procedures (12) Scope of contract (16) Settlement (2) Social preference provisions (59) Sole source (46) Sovereign immunity (2) Staffing (7) Standard commercial products (1) Standards of review (2) Standing (5) Stays and injunctions (6) Structure of procurement (1) Substantiation (9) Surety (1) Suspension (6) The procurement record (1) The role of price (9) The subject matter of procurement (22) Trade agreements vs procurement (1) Training (32) Transparency (59) Uniformity (5) Unsolicited proposals (2)

Friday, May 31, 2013

RFP to manage two nuclear weapons plants explodes

Parts of Y-12, Pantex contract protests upheld; GAO says procurement should be re-opened
The U.S. Government Accountability Office also recommended re-opening the contract procurement, raising questions about the status of the $22.8 billion contract awarded to Consolidated Nuclear Security LLC, or CNS, in January. CNS was one of three bidding teams who competed for the contract to manage and operate the Y-12 National Security Complex in Oak Ridge and Pantex Plant near Amarillo, Texas.

At the heart of the GAO decision, announced Monday, were questions about proposed savings. In particular, the agency seemed to question whether the National Nuclear Security Administration, which awarded the consolidated contract to CNS on Jan. 8, had properly evaluated the expected savings.

“NNSA failed to follow the publicly stated solicitation criteria, which provided that the agency would evaluate the feasibility and size of each offeror’s proposed cost savings resulting from the consolidation of the management and operation of these sites,” Ralph O. White, GAO managing associate general counsel for procurement law, said in a statement released Monday afternoon.

“Specifically, GAO concluded that NNSA failed to meaningfully assess the majority of each offeror’s proposed cost savings, and based its source selection decision on the unsupported assumption that all cost savings proposed by every offeror would be achieved,” White said. “The protesters raised various other protest allegations, which were denied.”

Earlier this year, federal officials said CNS had promised to help the federal government save $3.27 billion during the next decade, but many of the details would have to be announced later. The expected savings of the other two bidding teams have not been publicly disclosed.
The GAO decision is reported here.

B&W team says it’s the best choice for Y-12, Pantex contract
One of the two teams that did not win the $23 billion contract to manage and operate two nuclear weapons plants in Tennessee and Texas said newly released federal documents show it had the best bid.
And more tidbits at the last linked webpage.

No comments: