Showing posts with label
Solicitation# VA118A-12-RP-0118.
Show all posts
Showing posts with label
Solicitation# VA118A-12-RP-0118.
Show all posts
This detailed paper addresses:
1. Developing an actionable plan for a visionary transformation
2. Getting distinguishable proposals from a talented community
3. Focuses on developing an acquisition plan around surgical instruments, endoscopes, and dental tools
4. Points to how vendors should respond to a solicitation based on these recommendations
Send inquiries to alfordhardy@gmail.com
President Barack Obama appointed retired General Eric Shinseki as Secretary of Veterans Affairs in 2009. The President charged this visionary with transforming the Veteran's Administration. The Veterans Health Administration, VHA, is a major sector of that transformation.
General Shinseki has expressed his vision and ideals for that transformation. In turn, this allowed the current RTLS initiative to come to the forefront.
As he applies Be Know Do leadership principles to the environment, federal regulations outside his area to control present a problem for the end-result.
First though, a comment about transformation:
From Covering Your Assets by Exposing the Butt-Ugly Truth, "The implementation of EAM and RTLS within one year didn’t mean just a quantum leap for us. It meant we successfully folded space to take a 30-year step from the 1980s into the 21st century, a relatively easy step at that."
The book was specifically written for those managing a project like the VHA's RTLS project, transcendent, transforming, and very high risk. The back cover clearly states this point.
About those federal regulations: one example is federal acquisition law. I have noticed a significant governmental effort to address visibility, access, and to shift toward a problem-solving approach in these areas. The VHA and the General Accounting Office have been responsive and professional in handling my inquiries.
There are mandates and there is guidance in acquisition law. Parts of the regulations have great guidance on the acquisition strategy and the structure of the request for proposal. Other parts seem to have limiting mandates. I believe the problem is such an emphasis on adherence to the regulations leads to guidance being treated like mandates - as to not cause any conflicts. Writing an effective acquisition plan becomes a problem when buying a vision of the future. Fair trade, fair play, and avoiding even the appearance of impropriety are very important. But, being able to craft specific and creative approaches can't be lost in the process.
How to Buy a Vision, Part 2.
IBM-U S Federal
Solicitation Number: VA118A-12-RP-0118
Agency: Department of Veterans Affairs
File Number: B-406934.3 Outcome: Sustained Date Decided: Oct 3, 2012
IBM-U S Federal
Solicitation Number: VA118A-12-RP-0118
Agency: Department of Veterans Affairs
File Number: B-406934.2 Outcome: Sustained Date Decided: Oct 3, 2012
IBM-U S Federal
Solicitation Number: VA118A-12-RP-0118
Agency: Department of Veterans Affairs
File Number: B-406934.1 Outcome: Sustained Date Decided: Oct 3, 2012
I found articles listing the GAO's (General Accounting Office) recommendations for courses of action but I haven't seen any documentation directly from the VA.
Here is a portion of the statement I received from the Vetaran's administration. "FOIA Exemption 5, [5 U.S.C. § 552 (b)(5)], which protects from disclosure all inter-agency or intraagency memorandums or letters which would not be available by law to a party other than an agency in litigation with the agency."
Basically, they are saying I can't have the information. The letter goes on to say that it is not within the function of the Veterans' Office of the Freedom of Information Act to provide other than copied documents and I can't have that either.
I was referred to the General Counsel's office. My rebuttal was pretty simple. What is asserted as not in compliance with the regulations?
Even in matters of national security or Security and Exchange Commission violations, we can know the charges. Not that anyone broke the law. If the protest claims that some function within the regulation was not followed, we should be able to obtain that right?
I am putting together the information that the General Counsel requires. What do you think? For a bid protest, should the public have access to the information about specific regulations a plaintiff says the government did not follow?
As part of the normal bid protest process, there is a protective order concerning the solicitation. Redacted copies may have been provided to those who are an "interested" party in the solicitation. But there are limits. The regulation states: Interested party means an actual or prospective bidder or offeror whose direct economic interest would be affected by the award of a contract or by the failure to award a contract. - Source GAO
When speaking to the Veterans Administration, I did make a remark that a lot of peoples' economic interest may ride on this one.
Anyway, according to General Accounting Office, GAO, guidance on redaction: Each individual covered under this protective order shall take all precautions necessary to prevent disclosure of protected material. In addition to physically and electronically securing, safeguarding, and restricting access to the protected material in one’s possession, these precautions include, but are not limited to, sending and receiving protected material using physical and electronic methods that are within the control of individuals authorized by this protective order or that otherwise restrict access to protected material to individuals authorized by this protective order. Protected material may be sent using electronic mail unless objected to by any party in this protest. The confidentiality of protected material shall be maintained in perpetuity. The freedom of information act may offer a solution.
However, I am not necessarily seeking a redacted copy, only the nature of the protest. For example, is the protest an issue with the manner in which the Request for Proposal was constructed, meaning that it may not adhere to the law? Or is the issue with the evaluation process?
I do not see anything proprietary in this information.
Hopefully, I can get this information to you soon.
