“One of my major concerns with the draft solicitation for the CIO-SP4 GWAC was the limited nature of the past performance NITAAC intended to consider. Under the draft RFP, NITAAC would not have considered the past performance of subcontractors–something I believed violated 13 C.F.R. 125.2(g) in certain cases, and was contrary to the guidance of FAR 15.305(a)(2)(iii), which says that agencies ‘should’ consider the past performance of ‘subcontractors that will perform major or critical aspects of the requirement.'”
“The good news is that the final CIO-SP4 RFP fixes this problem. That’s a relief for a lot of potential offerors. But now I’m concerned that NITAAC went too far in the other direction!”
“Section M.4.3. of the final CIO-SP4 RFP states:
‘The government consider and evaluate the past performance experience of affiliates, members of the offeror’s 9.601(1) CTA (if applicable), subcontractors of the prime’s 9.601(2) CTA, members of the offeror’s JV (if applicable), and all members of the offeror’s mentor protégé arrangement (if applicable).'”
“Other portions of the final CIO-SP4 RFP, such as L.5.7, make similar statements. This is a broad review and solves my concern about subcontractors. So what’s my worry?”
“’Affiliates.’”
“Affiliates, of course, come in many flavors. They might be parent/subsidiary companies, sister companies, or two companies owned by spouses. Heck, in one case, affiliation was based on the fact that an individual owned one share of a company–out of 120!”
“Needless to say, just because an offeror has an affiliate does not necessarily mean that the affiliate’s past performance has any logical relationship to how well the offeror will perform on the contract it is bidding–which, of course, is the entire point of submitting past performance…” Read the full article here.
Source: The CIO-SP4 RFP Allows Broad Past Performance Information – But Does It Go Too Far? – By Steven Koprince, June 1, 2021. SmallGovCon.
