Labels and Tags

Accountability (69) Adequate documentation (6) ADR in procurement (3) Allocation of risks (5) Best interest of government (11) Best practices (19) Best value (15) 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 (29) Competitive position (2) Compliance (33) Conflict of interest (31) Contract administration (25) Contract disputes (1) Contract extension or modification (8) Contract terms (2) Contract types (6) Contract vs solicitation dispute (2) Contractor responsibility (19) Conviction (3) Cooperative purchasing (3) Cost and pricing (13) Debarment (4) Determinations (8) Determining responsibility (34) Disclosure requirements (7) Discussions during solicitation (9) Disposal of surplus property (3) Effective enforcement requirement (35) Effective procurement management (3) Effective specifications (36) 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 (14) Frivolous protest (1) 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 (7) Materiality (3) Methods of source selection (32) Mistakes (4) Models of Procurement (1) Needs assessment (11) No harm no foul? (8) Other procurement links (14) Outsourcing (33) Past performance (12) Planning policy (33) Politics of procurement (48) PPPs (6) Prequalification (1) Principle of competition (93) Principles of procurement (24) Private vs public contract (15) Procurement authority (5) Procurement controversies series (78) Procurement ethics (19) Procurement fraud (27) Procurement lifecycle (9) Procurement philosophy (16) Procurement procedures (30) Procurement reform (63) Procurement theory (11) Procurement workforce (2) Procurment philosophy (6) Professionalism (17) Protest - formality (2) Protest - timing (12) Protests - general (37) Purposes and policies of procurement (10) Recusal (1) Remedies (16) Requirement for new procurement (4) Resolution of protests (4) Responsiveness (13) Restrictive specifications (5) Review procedures (12) Scope of contract (16) Settlement (2) Social preference provisions (59) Sole source (47) Sovereign immunity (2) Staffing (7) Standard commercial products (2) Standards of review (2) Standing (6) Stays and injunctions (6) Structure of procurement (1) Substantiation (9) Surety (1) Suspension (6) The procurement record (1) The role of price (10) The subject matter of procurement (22) Trade agreements vs procurement (1) Training (32) Transparency (60) Uniformity (6) Unsolicited proposals (2)

Thursday, August 27, 2015

It's no contest

With all the focus on protest, and the slew of aspersions about "frivolous" protests and delays caused by procurememts, consider these two articles popping up on my radar today.

No Protests After $9 Billion Pentagon Contract
When Leidos and its partners, Cerner and Accenture Federal, secured a monster Pentagon health records contract worth up to $9 billion in late July, eyes turned to losing bidders IBM and Computer Sciences Corp., expecting a bid protest.

That hasn’t happened. IBM and CSC – big players in the defense contracting space – would only protest if they felt the financial reward of a win trumped both risk to damaging DOD relations and a prolonged legal battle. “After receiving a debrief from the government and careful consideration, CSC’s Global Health Alliance did not protest the DHMSM award,” said CSC spokesperson Heather Williams. “CSC is a long-standing partner to the Department of Defense and strong supporter of military personnel and their families. As such, we wish the program much success and will move forward focused on the future.”

The Defense Healthcare Management Systems Modernization contract’s based value is $4.3 billion over 10 years, with an 18-year lifecycle valued at up to $9 billion. The contract charges Leidos with building a next-generation health records system that will eventually be responsible for DOD’s 9.6 million beneficiaries, deployed at more than 1,200 DOD sites.

Lot's more at the link above.
Milpitas Sports Center pools to close for nine months of repairs
Milpitas City Council voted Aug. 18 to authorize and execute a more than $1.4-million contract to Glendora, Calif.-based California Commercial Pools Inc. to repair the pools at 1325 E. Calaveras Blvd. The council's vote also authorizes the city's engineer to execute contract change orders for the sports center pool repairs in an amount not to exceed $144,000.

In June, the city council approved the project plans and specifications and authorized the advertisement for construction bid proposals for the Milpitas Sports Center Pool repairs project. The engineer's estimate for the project was $1.5 million. The project was later advertised and three sealed bid proposals were received in July.

Bid pricing ranged from $1.34 million to $2.29 million and no bid protest was filed.
The best defense against protests is planning and flawless execution of the solicitation.

We judge bidders against their record of past performance. We also judge governments, particularly government acquisitions, by the same standards. Nothing puts the light on a truly frivolous protest than one popping up against a backdrop of proper procurements.

No comments: