All Activity

I find it hard to believe that a contracting organization wouldn’t have contract closeout procedures. The DOD Appropriations Regs likely cover the basics of deobligating excess funds but I don’t have the inclination to research it. Our organization had the resources available to call or visit and ask…

Has final payment with release of claims been made? If so, it would likely be an admin mod adjusting the quantities and final contract price - unless the electronic, tail wagging the dog (TWTD), contracting system won’t allow a price adjustment for an admin mod… In that case, I would suggest issuing a unilateral change order under the changes clause - unless the TWTD contracting system doesn’t allow that, either!

Here is a couple of process guides developed by a couple of Federal Departments that might help address the question........ https://www.dau.edu/sites/default/files/Migrated/ToolAttachments/Contract Modification Authority Decision Help Guide.pdf https://www.energy.gov/sites/prod/files/PF2013-35a.pdf

Please join us for an in-depth exploration of past performance management in government contracting. Gain valuable knowledge to leverage your past successes for future growth and competitive advantage. Past performance management holds significant weight in the success of government contractors. Government agencies now place a premium on a contractor’s ability to deliver on promises, emphasizing the adage that “actions speak louder than words.” Contractors with a strong track record of past performance gain a competitive edge in the government contracting arena. Nicole Pottroff and Greg Weber, will discuss the essential components of past performance crucial for building a solid foundation for success. Register here. The post Govology Webinar: Past Performance: A Critical Factor For Success in the Government Marketplace (2024 Update), April 25, 2024, 1:00-2:30pm EDT first appeared on SmallGovCon - Government Contracts Law Blog.View the full article

@EGovCon, based on what looks like an "official" GSA blog site, the plan would only be effective on new orders. You can follow up by contacting as indicated to ensure it applies to your situation .https://buy.gsa.gov/interact/community/6/activity-feed/post/8ab1cd64-028c-444c-a14d-b43cf288771c/Updated_Model_Subcontracting_Plans?utm_medium=email&utm_source=govDelivery

Im surprised that this topic is still open. @TippHill, can you advise what the resolution was? Thanks.

Hi, In FAR 19.705-2 Determining the need for a subcontracting plan-- "(f) If a subcontracting plan has been added to the contract due to a modification (see 19.702(a)(1)(iii)) or a size re-representation (see 19.301-2(e)), the subcontracting goals apply from the date of incorporation of the subcontracting plan into the contract..." Hope this helps.

I wonder if the same “key dog personnel” are still available…🤪

I doubt that you would report subcontracting prior to the requirement for a subcontracting plan or reporting. However this is a question that you should contact GSA directly to ask, not here on an informal Forum. You must have dealt with someone at GSA when they modified your contract, correct ???

We have recently graduated from a small business to a large business and a modification was completed to our GSA schedule to include a small business subcontracting plan. For my reporting do I include previous orders under my GSA schedule contract in the subcontracting report OR do only new orders after the modification date of the incorporation of the subcontracting plan to the GSA schedule apply?

The Rule of Two is the federal contracting rule requiring agencies to set aside a solicitation for competition only between small businesses when there are at least two small businesses that could do the work for a fair price. But that rule does have some exceptions. These exceptions can make it difficult to know the situations that would justify filing a Rule of Two protest. Read on to find out. First, a primer on SBA’s Rule of Two. Note that this particular post relates solely to the SBA’s Small Business Rule of Two. The Department of Veterans Affairs has its own Rule of Two for service-disabled veteran owned businesses. For more information on the VA’s SDVOSB Rule of Two, visit our post here. FAR 19.502-2(a) requires that all acquisitions for supplies or services that have an anticipated dollar value above the micro-purchase threshold ($10,000 at the time of this post) but not over the simplified acquisition threshold or SAT ($250,000 at the time of this post) be set aside for small businesses. That is, unless the contracting officer does not have a “reasonable expectation” that it would receive offers from two or more responsible small businesses that were competitive in terms of fair market prices, quality, and delivery. The rule in FAR 19.502-2(b), which pertains to acquisitions above the simplified acquisition threshold, is worded a little differently. As noted in the prior paragraph, acquisitions between the micro-purchase threshold but below the SAT must be set aside for small businesses unless the contracting officer does not have a reasonable expectation that it would receive offers from two or more small businesses. In contrast, those over the SAT must be set-aside for small businesses when there is a reasonable expectation that offers will be obtained from at least two responsible small business concerns and award will be made at fair market prices. (In practice, both formulations should typically result in small business set-asides under the same circumstances). However, an acquisition should not be a total small business set-aside unless such a reasonable expectation exists. Otherwise, the acquisition may be partially set-aside under FAR 19.502-3. This leads us to the question of how a contracting officer will know whether there is a reasonable expectation or not? Well, that is a decision that the contracting agency must make if market research shows at least two small businesses that meet the criteria. When should you file a Rule of Two protest? Now that we have the background out of the way, what situations are appropriate to file a Rule of Two protest? Rule of Two protests are filed in situations where the protester believes that a procurement should have been set-aside for small businesses, but it was not, or those in which the protester believes the procurement was improperly set-aside for small businesses, when it should not have been. Simple, right? In nearly all GAO Rule of Two protests, no matter which way you argue it, the protest will be won if GAO determines that the agency’s basis for its decision is inadequate. Such decisions are generally based on market research. Sometimes market research will include issuing a sources-sought notice, internal meetings, conducting research (generally, online searches looking for capable potential offerors), market surveys, looking back at prior procurements for the same or similar products or services, speaking with small business analysts, and more. Though there is no specific method that must be used in market research, the basic rule is that the decision “must be based on sufficient facts so as to establish its reasonableness.” (See Mountain West Helicopters, LLC). In some capacity, the market research must examine the capabilities of the potential offerors to determine not only whether two or more small businesses will submit offers, but whether they are capable of performing the contract requirements. You can read more about that in this previous SmallGovCon blog post. Therefore, if your company is a small business that can do the work on a solicitation that is unrestricted, and you know of at least one other company that can do the work, you have the basis of a small business Rule of Two protest. Other Important Details Remember how I said that it’s up to the contracting agency to determine whether a small business set-aside is appropriate? Well, in a protest, GAO will not second guess unless there has been an abuse of discretion, which it is up to the protester to show. (See Nordic Sensor Tech., Inc.). Unfortunately, it doesn’t matter if the protester is a small business protesting because it believes that an unrestricted solicitation should have been set aside for small business competition, or whether the protester is a large business protesting the fact that a solicitation is limited to small business offerors only. The requirement that the protester prove a clear abuse of discretion when protesting a set-aside (or unrestricted) solicitation is the same. GAO has sustained a protest and held that a contracting officer should conduct additional research into the existence of additional firms that could meet the Rule of Two. In that decision, GAO held that an Agency must contact firms that meet requirements of a set-aside if it is aware of any. (See SWR, Inc.). Additionally, because a protest involving the Rule of Two is an issue with the solicitation, most Rule of Two protests must be filed before bid submissions are due. 4 C.F.R. § 21.2(a)(1). This covers situations when you believe there was a mistake in setting a contract aside, or not setting a contract aside, for a small business. This covers most Rule of Two protests. Therefore, if you think that there was a mistake in setting aside, or not setting aside, a procurement, raise the protest early! Otherwise, you may miss the opportunity. If you think you may have grounds for a protest, it’s best to act early in the solicitation process. Questions about this post? Email us. Need legal assistance? Give us a call at 785-200-8919. Looking for the latest government contracting legal news? Sign up for our free monthly newsletter, and follow us on LinkedIn, Twitter and Facebook. The post Why File: A Rule of Two Protest first appeared on SmallGovCon - Government Contracts Law Blog.View the full article

I saw that ... insanity

This wifcon thread is a good supplement to this thread: So, the way I see it, there are 2 instances of price reasonableness analysis when a competitive range is formed: One for the competitive range formation, and one during trade-off documentation.

@adt110549601 No worries. Thanks for the explanation. Two things: First, verify that your use of the term ‘best value’ aligns with FAR [if that’s your goal]. Start with FAR 2.101 and then check FAR part 15. I think a search of “best value” will return 10 hits in FAR part 15. Lastly, let us know what you find.

@Jamaal Valentine, first, thx for hearing me out! With two offers, there would be a trade-off best value decision (adequate competition); with one offer, award could be made to a responsible offeror with fair and reasonable pricing (no longer best value, if one of the offers was no longer considered).

Keep reading through FAR 15.403-1(c)(1)(ii). What do you mean by “sole source award decision or a best value award decision?” What’s the difference between the two?

Can you have adequate price competition with two offerors, when one of them receives a marg/unsat/no condidence past performance rating? FAR 15.403-1(c)(1) Adequate price competition. (i) A price is based on adequate price competition when— (A) Two or more responsible offerors, competing independently, submit priced offers that satisfy the Government’s expressed requirement; So is it possible for a marg/unsat/no confidence rated offeror to submit an offer that still satisfies the Government's expressed requirement? If the answer is, no, would you remove the marg/unsat/no confidence offeror from the competition? This changes whether you would make a sole source award decision or a best value award decision.

Answers to a couple questions will help with advice. How often over the course of a year are arbitrators needed and how large is the potential pool of BPA holders?

Happy Friday, readers. Around these parts, we’ve been enjoying some nice spring weather as we try to fill the void left by the end of March Madness. But it will be heating up soon, so enjoy the spring weather while you can and have a great weekend! Here are some recent updates from the world of federal contracting, including some new congressional initiatives to streamline federal contracting processes, as well as create new cyber standards for federal procurement. SBA Recognizes 2024 Government Contractors and 8(a) Graduate of the Year Wyden bill requires new cyber standards in federal tech procurement Evaluation of DoD Financial Responsibility Reviews on Prospective DoD Contractor FACT SHEET: Vice President Kamala Harris Launches Call to Action to Bring the Benefits of Space to Communities Across America Technology Modernization Fund announces targeted investments to improve security at NASA, Department of Labor Mace sponsors bill to ban educational requirements for government contractors Senate Bill Introduced to Streamline Federal Procurement Processes How Government Contractors Can Plan for a Bright Future by Forecasting the Right Metrics Lawmakers push skills-based hiring for federal contractors Highlights from the Defense-Wide FY 2025 Unclassified IT Budget Request General Services Administration announces $23.8 million for projects to improve federal facilities and benefit local communities as part of President Biden’s Investing in America agenda Libby woman admits stealing mail while working as a contract carrier Disadvantaged Business Enterprise and Airport Concession Disadvantaged Business Enterprise Program Implementation Modifications The post SmallGovCon Week in Review: April 8-12, 2024 first appeared on SmallGovCon - Government Contracts Law Blog.View the full article

How long does the process normally take if, after the initial 15 day review, the SBA determines that the company could apply for a CoC through the submission of added information?

The SAM registration thing seems like it could be the biggest issue if the individual arbiters do not work for firms and aren't willing to register. What kind of dollar value is each requirement? Under the micro-purchase threshold (which maybe you could make the case is $10k for these services, I'm not sure what kind of training arbiters require) you could avoid SAM with a government purchase card order (or call under a set of BPAs you establish in advance). Over the MPT it seems like you would need to convince the arbiters to register in SAM (or subcontract with a vendor who is registered in SAM) if they want to be allowed in the pool.

Global K9 Protection Group LLC, vs. U. S. and American K-9 Detection Services, Nos. 23-210, 23-311, April 11, 2024. The Long and Winding Road Now, after four years, two remands with related remand extensions,1 two formal re-solicitations,2 two injunctions,3 three re-awards splitting the contract into two procurements,4 and approximately 34 total dog years,5 this case has finally reached its end. Judge Ryan T. Holte There is a companion opinion on the Home Page.

Maybe not. Possehn Consulting, B-278579.2, July 29, 1998 and other cases suggest it’s not an issue to eliminate unacceptable offers from the competitive range without any consideration of price. How would they establish themselves as an interested party in that regard?

But it's like that by default, isn't it? Even if the solicitation does not state that unacceptable offerors are not eligible for award, the definition of unacceptable (and probably marginal as well) in the solicitation likely means the same thing as if the solicitation does state that unacceptable offerors are not eligible for award, since the government cannot award to an unacceptable offeror (an offeror who cannot meet the critical requirements of the SOW, at least based on their proposal) by default, right?

Emphasis added. Right, so, the way I see it, a firm being ineligible for award CAN become eligible AFTER discussions. And you need to consider pricing when forming a competitive range, so that's why this is true: When an offeror is unacceptable (un-awardable), the government must consider their price for the green text but not the red text: 1) When determining competitive range. 2) When documenting trade-off analysis. 3) When determining price reasonableness.