Download presentation
Presentation is loading. Please wait.
1
1 Determining Responsible Prospective Contractors Antwan G. Reid PIP Level II Presentation May 20, 2004
2
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
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
4 Sources Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) NASA FAR Supplement Books (Business, Financial, Ethics, etc.) Popular Electronic Search Engines (pg.1)
5
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
12 Part I-General Standards (cont’d) FAR 9.104-1(f) Analysis -Discussion FAR 9.104-1(g) Analysis -Discussion (pg. 12)
13
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
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
15 Part II-Preaward Surveys (cont’d) Disclosure of Preaward Information -Discussion Contract Audit Responsibilities -Discussion Reports -Discussion (pg.14)
16
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
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
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
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
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
21 Questions
Similar presentations
© 2025 SlidePlayer.com. Inc.
All rights reserved.