Posted on April 15, by Scott Alexander [Disclaimer: None of these immediately set off alarms, but I have not double-checked all of them to make sure they are accurate.
The agency concedes that, for contract reference numbers one and three, the contract numbers and the size values are incorrect, because they are based on the swapped background information. For the "Recent," "Scope" and "Complexity" columns, the values are the same for the first and third contract references, such that reliance on the incorrect background information did not result in incorrect values being listed.
The agency repeated this mistake in the PPET report's finding sections, which are the only sections of the report that explain DHS's basis for its assignment of confidence ratings to the two contract references.
In these sections, DHS expressly based its confidence ratings for the first and third contract references on the incorrect size information. As a result of these errors, substantial portions of the PPET report are either inaccurate or are based upon inaccurate information, including those portions of the report where the agency documented its rating determinations.
We further note that the SSA, in turn, relied on these findings in the source selection decision, even citing the incorrect size information for Inserso's first and third past performance references in the tradeoff section.
The above demonstrates that the contemporaneous record is inconsistent with the post-protest statements provided by the agency, which attempt to downplay the agency's reliance on the incorrect size information.
We therefore give little weight to the agency's post hoc representation that it would have reached the same result even if the PPET had considered the correct size information. Further, we note there is reason to question the correctness of this representation.
For example, while the agency contends that it would have assigned a substantial confidence rating to the third contract reference, which received outstanding past performance questionnaire PPQ ratings but was only partially similar in size, scope, and complexity to the instant requirement, it contemporaneously assigned only a satisfactory confidence rating to a contract reference reference number one that it believed had similarly received outstanding PPQ ratings but was only partially relevant in size, scope, and complexity.
It is therefore not clear from the contemporaneous evaluation record what a past performance evaluation that considered the correct size information would have concluded. Ace Info Solutions, Inc. In this connection the RFP provides: SRTR argues that the agency simply failed to evaluate the considerations noted above at the time it evaluated proposals and maintains that, had it done so, it would have concluded that SRE's technical approach was not viable.
However, SRTR argues that this study does not demonstrate the viability of SRE's proposed approach, and instead shows that its approach may in fact not be possible. We sustain this aspect of SRTR's protest.
As noted, the RFP specifically required the agency to evaluate the viability of the offerors' technical approaches and to consider the offerors' key technical assumptions and justifications. As the foregoing discussion demonstrates, SRE's technical approach relies on processing waste at [deleted] than has ever been demonstrated, either in a laboratory setting or in practice.
The agency's evaluation record is devoid of any discussion of this concern, or any conclusion regarding the agency's view of the probability for success of the SRE technical approach. During the protest, the agency submitted an affidavit executed by the chairman of the technical evaluation board TEB.
In his affidavit, he states that the agency was aware of the report referenced by the protester and quoted above, that the report was reviewed by the chairman and several members of the TEB, and that the agency also sought input from a subject matter expert on this question.
TEB Chairman's Affidavit at The affidavit goes on to represent that, during discussions with the subject matter expert, it was noted that there were several possible approaches to mitigating levels of Isopar L in the DSS.
He also specifically stated the following with respect to the findings of the test report: Finally, he characterized any potential solution to this problem as a "yet[-]to[-]be[-]fully[-]developed technical improvement that would be required to facilitate the high rates of processing contemplated by the RFP.
First, and perhaps most significantly, there is nothing in the contemporaneous record that shows that the agency actually considered this question during its evaluation of proposals. The only evidence in the record is the declaration prepared by the TEB chairman submitted during the course of the protest.
In addition, even the evidence tendered--the TEB chairman's affidavit--suggests that there are reasons for concern about the viability of the SRE technical solution. As noted, SRE based its proposal to process waste at [deleted]M entirely on the results of the test report. However, the TEB chairman himself characterizes the test results as significantly uncertain and not a predictor of SRE's possible success in implementing its technical solution.
TEB Chairman's Affidavit at 2.
He also characterized solution of the Isopar L concentration problem as a "yet-to-be-fully-developed technical improvement. In other words, the TEB chairman himself concludes that the test report--which provides the sole underlying scientific support for SRE's never-before-tried technical approach--provides, at best, uncertain evidence to demonstrate its viability, and that resolution of the Isopar L concentration problem itself is a yet-to-be fully developed technical solution.
Moreover, as noted, although the TEB sought the input of a subject matter expert, it did not inform her that SRE proposed to process the waste at[deleted]M; it follows that the TEB did not have the benefit of her views concerning viability of SRE's technical approach.Subjective performance evaluations are subject to several rater errors, which makes objective measures seem a better alternative.
Discuss when subjective performance evaluations might be better (or more feasible) than objective ratings. In summary, the number of articles from each journal is shown in Table 1, with only the accounting journals which contain more than four articles being included.
5 It is notable that, although a reasonable number of authors were located in the USA, the main journals in which this work was published are European- or Australasian-based, rather than US-based.
Clinton supporters are more likely to describe themselves as enthusiastic about their candidate than Sanders supporters. No! Clinton supporters are more likely to describe themselves as enthusiastic about voting in ! It’s killing me how this is being reported, and I’m not even a Sanders supporter.
Learning Objectives. This is an intermediate level course.
After completing this course, mental health professionals will be able to: List four goals in the assessment of children referred for possible ADHD. 1. 1 Background of the Study Information technology (IT) revolutionized many aspects of a business.
There is hardly any organization which has not installed at least one ubiquitous computer. “Quantifiable” means the description can be counted more than once, or measured using numbers.
• Our children regularly bring home objective measures of their performance at school (i.e., track whether actual performance is getting better, staying the same, or getting worse over time.