14. Can Socioeconomic Status Be Used as a Weighted Best Value Evaluation Factor...
Posted by Dave Clemens at 4/27/2009 7:40 AM 
Categories: 5. Small Business Issues, 3.2 Evaluation Factors
Tags: trade-off policy MAS factors schedules factor evaluation schedule best value socioeconomic FSS tradeoff small business socio-economic business size
Categories: 5. Small Business Issues, 3.2 Evaluation Factors
Tags: trade-off policy MAS factors schedules factor evaluation schedule best value socioeconomic FSS tradeoff small business socio-economic business size
...and not merely as a tie-breaker or go/no-go factor?
Answer: Yes. There does not appear to be any controlling authority prohibiting the designation and weighting of a “Socioeconomic Status” evaluation factor for Schedule BPAs and orders nor is there any restriction on the use of such a factor only to break ties on quotes of equal price. In view of the clear FAR intent and consistent GSA policy on broad, discretionary use of such a best-value factor, the inclusion of socioeconomic status as an evaluation factor appears to be a matter within the reasonable discretion of the Contracting Officer.
Read the facts/issue/rationale here.
See the full text of all the cited references here.
But how could a factor called "Socioeconomic Status" have any evaluation score other than Pass or Fail? The Schedule contractor is either Large or Small, right?
An anonymous but creative 1102 suggested this approach in a hypothetical RFQ:
[Instructions] Socioeconomic Status
Your quote shall identify the business size and socioeconomic status of each team member, based upon both your basic GSA Schedule contract and your self-certification at time of RFQ closing. The Contracting Officer will compare your self-certification against what is designated for your firm within CCR, and in the event of a conflict, may refer any final Small Business determinations to the Small Business Administration. If the size status listed in CCR is different than the size status in the Schedule contract, this difference should be explained in narrative form. Task Order contracting officers may, at their discretion, allow recertifications for individual Task Orders but are under no obligation to do so. This submission shall not exceed two pages in length.
[Evaluation] Socioeconomic Status
It is the policy of the Government to encourage the full participation of small businesses in the procurement process. As a result, this RFQ includes a preference for small businesses. The Government will review the size standard of you and your Team Members under both your basic GSA Schedule contract and your self-certification at time of RFQ closing. The Contracting Officer will compare the self-certification against what is designated for you within CCR, and in the event of a conflict, may refer any final Small Business determinations to the Small Business Administration. A Team Member composition in which the majority of the members are designated as small businesses under BOTH their basic GSA Schedule contracts and under their verified self-certifications, will be rated more favorably than a Team Member composition in which a majority of the proposed Team Members are designated as small under ONE BUT NOT THE OTHER. In turn, a composition in which a majority of the Team Members are designated as large businesses under BOTH their basic GSA Schedule contracts and their verified self certifications, will be evaluated least favorably under this Factor.
Anybody have any thoughts on this approach?
What about the (different than above) use of Socioeconomic Status as a factor but only as a "Pass-Fail" evaluation factor? Is that somehow too close to being an impermissible set-aside? Why or why not? A set-aside says you won't evaluate the quotes from Large businesses, but a pass-fail Socioeconomic Status factor means you aren't rejecting the Large Business quotes out-of-hand - - simply that all the Large business quotes will get "0" (or "Fail") for that factor. That may be a big deal or maybe it won't, depending on how the various factors are weighted with respect to the Socioeconomic Status factor.
Reply to this