Learn secrets used by countless organizations to win
contracts through an RFP-based selection process.
FAQ about RFP and Proposals:
MADM-Based ERP Software Selection
Compare ERP NEW!
Sealed Bids NEW!
What is Competitive Procurement?
Uniform Contract Format (UCF)
What is Sole Source?
Abstract vs. Executive Summary: Discover The Main Differences NEW!
The Bid/No-Bid Analysis NEW!
Best-known Readability Scores
Bormuth Readability Score
List of Work Words NEW!
47 FREE Affidavit Form Samples NEW!
Bidder Responsibility Determination
Bid Responsiveness Determination
Food Court RFP Examples NEW!
Meta Tag Generator NEW!
Depending on the amount involved in the procurement of new goods, products, or services, you may choose the option best matching your needs amongst the following solicitation and selection methods:
Also known as: micro procurement methods
A micro-purchase does not require obtaining competitive quotations if you determine that the price to be paid is fair and reasonable.
Micro-purchases should be equitably distributed among qualified suppliers in the local area and purchases should not be split to avoid the requirements for competition above the micro-purchase threshold
Minimal documentation is usually required:
Also known as: small procurement methods
Small purchase procedures may not be used if the services, supplies, or other property costs either less than the micro-purchase threshold or more than the small purchase threshold. If small purchases procedures are used, price or rate quotations shall be obtained from an adequate number of qualified sources.
As a method of procurement, small purchase procedures recognize that, up to some statutory level (the small purchase threshold), it could cost more to conduct a formal competition than the value expected to be yielded by the formal competition. This procedure requires obtaining only limited competition from an adequate number of qualified sources (at least two). Solicitations and quotations for small purchases may be either oral or written.
Also known as: best-price procurement, lowest-price procurement, or lowest-priced technically acceptable method.
The Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR), document setting forth basic policies and procedures for proper acquisition by all federal agencies, defines this process as follows:
(FAR § 15.101-2, Lowest price technically acceptable source selection process)
So, best-price procurement is used when:
To solicit offers from providers, the best-price purchase process relies on an Invitation to Bid (ITB), also known as Invitation to tender (ITT), Invitation for Bids (IFB), or Sealed Bids. Although simply one of many procurement methods that may be used, the best price purchase based on sealed bid method is sometimes more appropriate for particular projects, like construction or purchase of goods. When used, the sealed bid method defines specific requirements that have to be followed:
Also known as: best-value procurement, greatest-value procurement, or tradeoff process
The Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR), document setting forth basic policies and procedures for proper acquisition by all federal agencies, defines best value as follows:
"Best value means the expected outcome of an acquisition that, in the Government's estimation, provides the greatest overall benefit in response to the requirement." (FAR § 2.101)
FAR also defines this process as follows:
So, best-value procurement is used when:
To solicit offers from providers, the best-value purchase process relies on a Request for Proposals (RFP). The RFP sets forth acquisition requirements and ask providers to submit a competitive proposal. Although simply one of many procurement methods that may be used, the RFP-based solicitation and selection method is more appropriate than the sealed bids method for specific projects. Indeed, it's particularly the case when provided specifications focus more on outcomes and benefits whatever features are proposed by providers in order to achieve rather than for particular projects, like construction or purchase of goods. When used, the best-value purchase procurement method defines specific requirements that have to be followed:
Also known as: noncompetitive procurement
The non-competitive proposal or sole source procurement process is accomplished through solicitation or acceptance of a proposal from one single source only when other procurement methods, namely micro-purchases, small purchases, and competitive procedures like sealed bids, or competitive proposals, are not applicable or lead to an unrealistic process.
Such circumstances could be:
Sole sourcing is not appropriately justified and justifiable when used as a method of selecting a preferred vendor. Notwithstanding the fact that they could be voided by potential sole source solicitation protests, purchases of this king, when put under scrutiny, will surely attract auditors' interest in their quest for details suggesting a bit of favoritism, partiality, and other bias.
In the sole source solicitation context, a sole source protest letter may be sent by a prospective provider who is aggrieved in connection with the sole source solicitation process and resulting award of the contract to another provider, and would like to file a protest.
To help you identify what kind of facts are deemed valid, thus acceptable grounds for such a sole source protest letter, you might read the discussion "How to protest against Sole Source Solicitation" and, to create your own sole source protest letter, use the templates and samples provided in your FREE RFP Letters Toolkit.
Failing to be able to honor the contract agreed, the non-responsibility of the provider is established, so such provider is declared as non-responsible. The responsibility of a provider is established, so such provider is declared as responsible, when the organization is able to properly and successfully execute the proposed contract under the terms and conditions agreed. May be taken into account such considerations as integrity of the organization, compliance with public or internal policies, client references as record of past performance, financial viability, and whether technical or administrative resources to be dedicated to the project.
A non-responsible provider, although supplying all necessary information, would, for example, not be able to fully satisfy requirements defined in the RFP or would be financially unstable or unable to complete the project in a timely manner.
Failing to be able to honor the requirements as set forth in the solicitation document, the non-responsiveness of the proposal is established, so such proposal is qualified as non-responsive. The responsiveness of a proposal is established, so such proposal is qualified as responsive, when the proposed solution is conformed with all the requirements, terms, and conditions set forth in the solicitation document. May be taken into account such considerations as Return on Investment (ROI), cost analysis, installation, implementation, training, or support.
A non-responsive proposal would, for example, neglect to provide mandatory information or documents requested in the RFP.
Source Selection Answer Book (2nd Edition)
by Vernon J. Edwards
Hardcover: 443 pages
The newly expanded and updated second edition of this best selling and practical handbook is designed to give hands-on contracting professionals a solid working knowledge of this critical process.
This proven resource covers the entire source selection process, including acquisition and source selection planning, preparation of requests for proposals, proposal solicitation and preparation, proposal evaluation, award without discussions, discussions and final proposal revisions, final proposal evaluation, contractor selection, and debriefings and protests.
Source Selection Answer Book, Second Edition provides concise, straightforward answers to common questions about the Federal government's rules and procedures in selecting contractors including:
SubPart 13, Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR)
This part prescribes policies and procedures for the acquisition of supplies and services, including construction, research and development, and commercial items, the aggregate amount of which does not exceed the simplified acquisition threshold (see FAR 2.101). Subpart 13.5 provides special authority for acquisitions of commercial items exceeding the simplified acquisition threshold but not exceeding $5 million ($10 million for acquisitions as described in FAR 13.500(e)), including options. See Part 12 for policies applicable to the acquisition of commercial items exceeding the micro-purchase threshold. See FAR 36.602-5 for simplified procedures to be used when acquiring architect-engineer services.
SubPart 14, Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR)
This part prescribes:
The basic requirements of contracting for supplies and services (including construction) by sealed bidding;
The information to be included in the solicitation (invitation for bids);
Procedures concerning the submission of bids;
Requirements for opening and evaluating bids and awarding contracts; and
Procedures for two-step sealed bidding
Contracting by Negotiation:
Competitive and Sole Source Acquisitions
SubPart 15, Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR)
This part delineates policies and procedures governing
noncompetitive negotiated acquisitions like:
WANT TEMPLATES AND
FOR WINNING RFP LETTERS?
Learn tips on how to write professional, very impressive, and bullet-proof Request for Proposal letters in our FREE Request for Proposal Letters Toolkit.
You will find in it lots of templates and samples of professional Request for Proposal letters.
"No doubt that these letters save time"
- Pascal PERRY
POGO Urges OSTP to Ensure that Agency Scientific Integrity Plans Include Contractors and Grantees
POGO is pleased to see that most federal departments and agencies have finally made public their draft or final scientific integrity plans in response to President Obama's March 2009 Memorandum on Scientific Integrity. However, POGO is concerned that several agencies have not included contractors or grantees in their plans. The failure to ensure the integrity of science performed outside the government but funded with taxpayer dollars is particularly troubling given that some of these departments or agencies—such as the Department of Energy (DOE)—rely heavily or nearly entirely on contractors and grantees for scientific research. .
14 Federal Agencies Fail to Fulfill the President's Directive: Billions in Taxpayer-Funded Science Not Included in Integrity Plans and Policies
The Department of Energy (DOE) and the Food and Drug Administration were two of 14 federal agencies that failed to set proper scientific standards for contract and grantee researchers, despite the fact that tens of billions of dollars in taxpayer money funds this science each year, the Project On Government Oversight (POGO) said in a letter sent today to the Obama administration..
POGO Supports DoD Effort to Redefine Commercial Items
The Project On Government Oversight (POGO) urges you to support the Department of Defense's (DoD) legislative proposal for the National Defense Authorization Act that will result in improved oversight of billions of dollars' worth of so-called "commercial" goods and services..
POGO Supports Proposed Defense Contractor Crime Reporting Rule
The Department of Defense (DoD) seeks input on a proposal to amend the Defense Federal Acquisition Regulation Supplement (DFARS) to expand coverage on contractor requirements and responsibilities with regard to the reporting of crimes committed by or against contractor personnel. .
POGO's Response to Professional Services Council Letter Regarding Reducing Civilian Workforce
Senators and Representatives recently received a letter from the Professional Services Council (PSC) responding to their letters to Secretary of Defense Leon Panetta, in they criticized the Department of Defense's (DoD) efficiency initiative, which aims to reduce costs by scaling back the civilian workforce to 2010 levels rather than compliance with mandates to reduce reliance upon contractors. We would like to offer some perspective on a number of points raised in the PSC letter..
POGO and Partners Strongly Support Passage of the DATA Act
We, the undersigned organizations, are writing in strong support of the Digital Accountability and Transparency Act (DATA Act), H.R. 2146, which is planned for a floor vote this Wednesday. The DATA Act is an important step towards improving federal financial transparency and would empower the public to better understand how their federal dollars are being spent. .
A Test Case on Sanctions?
If there's one thing most Americans support in foreign policy, it's sanctions against Iran to halt its alleged drive for nuclear weapons. From President Obama to Mitt Romney, Rick Santorum, and Newt Gingrich, leading candidates all want to put the economic squeeze on Tehran and to signal their support for Israel. President Obama recently announced he will ratchet up sanctions on the country's oil exports and declared a "national emergency" to deal with the Islamic Republic. The Senate will try to iron out its differences over anti-Iran measures in coming weeks, as bus stations around Washington, DC, are studded with advertisements questioning the President's resolve on the issue..
U.S. Wasting Billions on Over-Priced Service Contracts; Government Lacks Data to Make Informed Contracting Decisions, POGO Tells Congressional Subcommittee
The federal government more than doubled its spending on service contracts over the last decade, despite having inaccurate data on the "true" cost of those contracts—largely because of the misguided notion that outsourcing is more cost effective than using federal workers, the Project On Government Oversight (POGO) told a Senate subcommittee today..
POGO's Scott Amey testimony on "Contractors: How Much Are They Costing the Government?"
I want to thank Chairman McCaskill, Ranking Member Portman, and the Subcommittee for asking the Project On Government Oversight (POGO to submit written testimony about the important, but often ignored, issue of service contracting costs. Although there are many initiatives in place to cut federal agency spending and reduce the costs associated with the federal workforce, the cost of contractor services has escaped scrutiny. Such avoidance is extremely disturbing because the government annually spends more taxpayer dollars on contractor services than it spends on goods, over $320 billion and $210 billion in FY 2011, respectively. To put that level of spending in perspective, total contract spending was $205 billion in FY 2000, of which services accounted for $128 billion of the total..
Last Modified: Tuesday, August 28, 2012 9:25:11 PM