All Activity
- Past hour
-
I don't understand your situation. You state that you "graduated" to a large business. Were you an 8(a) participant that graduated from that program? Is FAR 52.219-28 in your contract? If it is, were you required by the terms of that clause to recertify your size status? If you were, what was the basis of the recertification? Was the requirement to submit a subcontracting plan accomplished by including FAR 52.219-9 in your contract? Was the effective date of the modification requiring a plan the effective date of your contract or some later date?
-
FAR REFERENCE ON SF-30 MODIFICATIONS FOR CLOSEOUTS
joel hoffman replied to creyes814's topic in Contract Administration
Gee Wiz. Is there any more detail to provide than that? If it is a fixed price contract, there must be some unit priced line items. If so, are you going to reconcile actual vs. contract estimated quantities and adjust the final contract price? - Today
-
FAR REFERENCE ON SF-30 MODIFICATIONS FOR CLOSEOUTS
Don Mansfield replied to creyes814's topic in Contract Administration
Why are there still funds remaining on the contract? Was it a CR contract? -
FAR REFERENCE ON SF-30 MODIFICATIONS FOR CLOSEOUTS
creyes814 replied to creyes814's topic in Contract Administration
@Don Mansfield That is what we are being instructed to do. -
FAR REFERENCE ON SF-30 MODIFICATIONS FOR CLOSEOUTS
joel hoffman replied to creyes814's topic in Contract Administration
I now realize that despite many of us asking why or commenting about the OP’s need to issue a de-obligation mod, the OP didn’t respond. by simply saying that all he/she wants to know is a FAR reference for what to include in Box 13. The FAR doesn’t specify what to cite for every modification action. Another nebulous, speculative rabbit hole and waste of time fueled by lack of engagement by an OP. Silly me, again. Sorry if I lured others down the hole.🫣 -
FAR REFERENCE ON SF-30 MODIFICATIONS FOR CLOSEOUTS
joel hoffman replied to creyes814's topic in Contract Administration
@creyes814, you didn’t identify what agency you work for. Your agency should have contract closeout procedures. Why do you need a “FAR reference” on how to do a closeout mod? These are agency specific procedures which should be referenced in agency acquisition regulations and/or in Financial Management Regulations. I don’t think that you are being forthright by declining to identify your agency. Individual agencies have varying closeout procedures, I Googled The DOD Financial Management Regulation procedures for contract closeout deobligating excess funds. Here is one example of the search results: Deobligating excess funds at contract closeout “If a deobligation occurs before contract closeout, a modification is required (FMR Volume 3 Chapter 8 081612B. 2). At closeout a DD form 1594 or electronic equivalent can be used to deobligate funds, a modification is not required (FMR Volume 3 Chapter 8 081612 B. 1).” I also found a State Department site that does require a closeout mod: https://www.acquisition.gov/dosar/604.804-70-contract-closeout-procedures.… “DOSAR 604.804-70 Contract closeout procedures…. “(d)Specific Procedures …(5) The contracting officer shall reconcile the contract obligations and contractor payments, and then deobligate any excess funds remaining in the contract by issuing a contract modification on a SF–30. Close coordination with the finance office is necessary in order to receive the required information to perform a funds status review.” If you issue a modification, one hit simply cited that a closeout mod (after final completion and payment) is a unilateral, citing that it is a “de-obligation of excess funds” modification. You could Check block 13 d Other and describe the de-obligation of excess funds after final payment (you can cite the agency reference for the mod)- if your automated contracting system allows it. Check your agency specific SOP. Automated contracting systems may have specific requirements or limitations on how to do a de-obligation mod… Agency SOP’s might require a reconciliation of affected CLINs and/or final contract price in the body of the mod. The agency SOP may suggest or require sending the contractor a copy of the reconciliation, close-out mod. What goes in Block 13d isn’t necessarily specified in the FAR I personally find it difficult to believe that your (unidentified) agency doesn’t have standard operating procedures for de-obligating excess funds. You aren’t re-inventing the wheel for one of your agency contracts. I’m willing to bet that this isn’t something new in your agency. We shouldn’t have to research the numerous agency references for you. -
FAR REFERENCE ON SF-30 MODIFICATIONS FOR CLOSEOUTS
Don Mansfield replied to creyes814's topic in Contract Administration
Why do you need to deobligate funds? Closing out a contract file doesn't necessarily mean that you will have to deobligate funds. - Yesterday
-
Shav joined the community
-
FAR REFERENCE ON SF-30 MODIFICATIONS FOR CLOSEOUTS
joel hoffman replied to creyes814's topic in Contract Administration
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… -
FAR REFERENCE ON SF-30 MODIFICATIONS FOR CLOSEOUTS
joel hoffman replied to creyes814's topic in Contract Administration
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! -
FAR REFERENCE ON SF-30 MODIFICATIONS FOR CLOSEOUTS
C Culham replied to creyes814's topic in Contract Administration
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
-
Neil Roberts started following Subcontracting Plan under GSA as newly graduated Small Business
-
@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.
- Last week
-
David823 joined the community
-
EGovCon joined the community
-
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
-
Carolyn Sulla joined the community
-
Morax joined the community
-
JonPickel joined the community
-
Including marginal rated offeror in price reasonableness analysis?
Sam101 replied to Sam101's topic in For Beginners Only
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).
-
FAA1102 joined the community
-
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.