1

Determining Responsible Prospective Contractors

Antwan G. Reid

PIP Level II Presentation

May 20, 2004

2

Introduction

Federal Government Procurement

-Largest consumer in the world

-Importance of finding responsible contractors

-How does a contracting officer determine if a potential contractor is responsible?

(pg.1)

3

Purpose

Gain subject-matter expertise Explore the idea of developing a guide for contracting officers. Find answers to questions developed by

interest in “Determining Responsible Prospective Contractors”.

(pg. 1)

4

Sources

Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) NASA FAR Supplement Books (Business, Financial, Ethics, etc.) Popular Electronic Search Engines

(pg.1)

5

Background

Final Rule Published in the Federal Register by the FAR Council

Language Added to FAR 9.104-1(d) General Accounting Office Opposition to the Final Rule Bush Administration Proposed Revocation Previous Responsibility Rules Reinstated

(pg.1)

6

Components

The guide would analyze and break down the following:

-Part I-General Standards (FAR 9.1)

-Part II-Preaward Surveys (FAR 9.1)

-Part III-Certificates of Competency (FAR 19.6)

(pg.3)

7

FAR 9.102 Applicability

Applies to proposed contracts located -In the U.S. or its outlying areas -Elsewhere (unless inconsistent with laws or customs where the contractor is located) Does not apply to proposed contracts -Foreign, State, or Local Governments -Other U.S. Govt. Agencies -Agencies for the blind or other severely

handicapped

8

FAR 9.103 Policy

Contracts shall be awarded to responsible prospective contractors only.

No purchase or award shall be made unless the contracting officer makes a determination of responsibility.

Award of a contract to a supplier based on lowest evaluated price can be false economy.

Note: Check for debarred or suspended offerors before evaluation and

award.

9

Part I-General Standards

FAR 9.104-1(a) Analysis - General Business Information - Financial Statements - Issues with Financial Statements - Financial Ratios/Equations FAR 9.104-1(b) Analysis - Discussion

(pg.4)

10

Part I-General Standards (cont’d)

FAR 9.104-1(c) Analysis

-Application of Standards (FAR) Importance of NF1680 “Evaluation of

Performance”

-Big Asset in Determining Responsibility

-Input from end users, financial, administrative

(pg.8)

11

Part I-General Standards (cont’d)

FAR 9.104-1(d) Analysis -Integrity -Business Ethics -POGO Investigation -Determining an Ethical Business FAR 9.104-1(e) Analysis -Discussion

(pg.9)

12

Part I-General Standards (cont’d)

FAR 9.104-1(f) Analysis

-Discussion FAR 9.104-1(g) Analysis

-Discussion

(pg. 12)

13

Part II-Preaward Surveys

Preaward Surveys can be accomplished by:

-Data already obtained

-Data from another Govt. agency

-Data from a commercial source

-On-site inspection of plant and facilities

-Any combination of the above

(pg.13)

14

Part II-Preaward Surveys (cont’d)

In Obtaining Information, use the following: -List of Parties Excluded from Fed. Procurement and nonprocurement Programs -Records and experience data -Commercial sources of supplier information -Preaward surveys -Publications, subcontractors, customers, etc.

(pg.14)

15

Part II-Preaward Surveys (cont’d)

Disclosure of Preaward Information -Discussion Contract Audit Responsibilities -Discussion Reports -Discussion (pg.14)

16

Part III-Certificates of Competency (COC)

Background Purpose Referral: C.O. must do the following:

-Withhold contract award

-Refer the matter to the cognizant

SBA Govt. Contracting Area Office

(pg.18)

17

Part III-Certificates of Competency (COC) (cont’d)

Referral must include along with a notice -Solicitation

-Final Offer submitted by the concern -Abstract of bids or C.O.’s Price Neg. Memo. -Preaward survey -Technical data package -Any other justification or documentation

(pg.19)

18

Part III-Certificates of Competency (COC) (cont’d)

Issuing/Denying a Certificate of Competency COC Referrals vs COC’s Issued Resolving Differences between the Agency and

SBA Awarding the Contract

(pg.19)

19

Summary and Conclusion

Summary Conclusions -Contracting officers need to compare the benefits of an evaluation against the cost. -Issue of contracting officers placing more

value on one general standard over another. -Contracting officers comfort level with respect to

evaluating a prospective contractor. (pg. 23)

20

Recommendations

Recommendations -Submission of the “Determining Responsible

Prospective Contractors” guide to the appropriate reviewing committee.

-The creator would remain responsible in order to continuously update the guide.

-NASA Goddard should develop more subject- matter experts.

(pg.23)

21

Questions