All Activity

What are some procurement arrangements I can use in our situation -see below - other than using a P-Card? (I think this is contract admin issue more than anything else, but if this question is a better fit elsewhere let me know) Situation: - A civilian agency's remote facility housing many small heterogenous laboratories. Their scientific and laboratory supplies are a constant procurement problem. They use P-Cards, but are wondering if there are alternative solutions. - Heterogenous labs means different types of specialized supplies. Most supplies come from a few big well-known companies (like Thermo Fisher), but lots of different items and some items have a single source. For the crown-jewel instruments (like this one) we have support contracts & warranties, so not a major problem here. - Small means very low dollar volume of these supplies. Almost all purchases are under micro, many are under $100. Annually in sum, maybe $500K - $1.0MM. - Remote means delivery is relatively slow and expensive given the low $. A lab assistant can't just grab the P-Card, and drive to a nearby warehouse full of, for example, special gloves resistant to particular chemicals that leach through latex. - Because of funding and non-contracting reasons, creating a mini-stockpile or better supply management at this facility aren't feasible in the short-term. Comments: - My guess is that P-Cards are the best and only method of procurement for this situation. There isn't anything else that would be effective. But... maybe I'm wrong - this isn't my area of expertise. - A BPA doesn't seem like the right fit given the small scale, because at these very low dollar values, issuing a BPA Call for something under micro seems excessive. Takes too long, administrative cost of a call exceeds the value of the supplies being purchased, etc. - This sort of situation is probably much more common in DoD world, which I know very little about. I was activity duty logistics but didn't deal with the supply chain. Where the stuff came from wasn't my concern. - No department or government-wide acquisition vehicle or civilian equivalent of DLA that we could use, at least none I am aware of. Caveat - some of their scientific/laboratory/medical supplies are indeed purchased from GSA or VA, but those common items aren't the main problem. The problem is with niche specialized supplies that aren't on any vendor's FS schedule (or whatever they are called these days). - Made in America makes this more difficult. For example, they need a type of Xylene-resistant gloves. I've been told these need a waiver.

What do you mean by "good" in this statement? If you are using appropriated funds, they must be obligated within their period of availability for obligation. Once obligated, they remain available for expenditure until five years after the period of availability for obligation expires. Why are you concerned if the order is for supplies?

Thanks jjj and C Culham. That's kind of where I was leaning as well. It just seemed like that interpretation would make the clause so narrow in application that I thought maybe I was missing something. I mean how often does the Government rely on contractors to procure services for itself - in essence contracting out its contracting responsibilities? I can't imagine it happens very often and I can't think of a scenario outside of facility maintenance and operation or maybe base ops services - which I suppose could be quite a bit, between GSA and DOD, now that I think about it.

Generally speaking Block 28 when a Request for Proposal is used to solicit pricing and Block 29 when a Invitation for Bids is used. See Block 2 of the form. But as it goes it gets complicated from this general view. Possibly do some futher research on your own such as reviewing FAR subparts 14.408-1 and 15.504 and think about how the SF-1442, while not referenced in these two subparts, would be used rather than the forms noted. I say this noting that FAR subpart 36.701 provides the imperative to use the 1442 for construction. Beyond my thoughts here is a GAO decision that I hope will help refine your reserach and help with undertanding the use of the SF 1442. https://www.gao.gov/products/b-235261

As formerfed pointed out, FY24 funds can be obligated as long as this is an FY 24 requirement (i.e. the agency wants the widgets now, but it takes a year to get them for some reason). If the initial 12 month delay and the phased deliveries after that are at the discretion of the agency, for example if the agency knows they will need the widgets beginning next year and then will use them at a rate of 250/month, that is probably not an FY 24 requirement. In addition to the Wifcon link the Contract or Fiscal Law Attorney Deskbooks here can be useful (although some is DOD-specific, statutory exceptions to bona fide need, for example).

I think the "for government use" is implied in the 41 CFR text. If an agency needs services included on the list, and those services are included in a larger procurement for services, the contractor must use the list for the services included on the list. For example, if janitorial services for a government facility in a location is on the list, and a government agency includes those services in a larger procurement for broader services, the contractor will use the list for the janitorial services. However, the contractor will not be required to use the list for its own facilities in the same location, even though it may require janitorial services in order to comply with cleanliness standards on its other government contracts.

It is an interesting dance of discretion by CO's yet I think you are on the right track on literal application of "for Government use". https://nib.org/supply/ https://www.abilityone.gov/laws,_regulations_and_policy/documents/Policy 51.542 (final version).pdf https://acc.army.mil/contractingcenters/acc-nj/CreditCard/PolicyAndSOP/Contractor Use of Mandatory Sources of Supply or Services.pdf https://www.abilityone.gov/abilityone_program/faqs.html (Search 52.208-9 on this one)

The short answer is you are fine using FY 24 funds since it appears your agency need is a FY24 requirement. But the detailed and precise answer is found by researching this from here at Wifcon Bona Fide Need rule

FFP delivery order is fully funded at award. Award made April 1, 2024. So, 3000 widgets are ordered, first delivery is 12 months (April 1, 2025) after award for a qty of 250, 13th month qty 250, 14th month qty 250, etc. Am I correct, that the funding will need to be good until the last delivery is made? Meaning, FY24 procurement funds need to be used? In addition, if the award was made April 1, 2024, then first delivery is April 1, 2025, should the last delivery be Mar 30, 2026. My concern is the order crosses 2 fiscal years.

Hello, I am newer to federal contracting and our agency uses the SF 1442 for awards for construction contracts. I have been trying to research when a CO would check block 28 or block 29 of the back of SF 1442. Any assistance would be greatly appreciated as well as links to policy if any!

The prescription for clause 52.208-9 Contractor Use of Mandatory Sources of Supply or Services, at FAR 8.005, states the following: I don't know if it's just me, but I'm really thrown off by the "for Government use" part. What does that mean? Does it have to be for direct Government use - e.g., a contractor who has a contract to operate and maintain a Government facility at which Government people work, and they have to provide janitorial services, toilet paper, cleaning supplies, etc. In that case, the contractor is providing services directly for the Government's use and their contract should include this clause, and they should be using AbilityOne to provide the service. Or does it mean "for use on (or in support of) a Government contract" - i.e., for the ultimate (though indirect) benefit of the Government? The clause clearly applies when the contractor is providing supplies or services for the direct use of the Government, but does the use of the clause also extend to broader use - like providing services in support of a Government contract? I looked up the Proposed Rule and the Final Rule to see if it would shed any light on it, but the FR notices just use the same language ("for Government use"), so they weren't very helpful. I went back to the regulation the rule was implementing (41 CFR 51–5.2(e)), and the language there seems to encompass the broader usage. It states: The way I read that, it includes the procurement of any service (which includes services on the Procurement List) and it doesn't have to be (and it does not reference) "for Government use". It almost seems like that FAR Councils wanted to restrict the implementation to just those contracts where the contractor was providing supplies and services "for Government use" (i.e., direct use), otherwise the use of that language doesn't make sense to me. I mean ultimately, any contract issued by the Federal Government is for "Government use (or benefit)" in the broadest, most inclusive sense. Any thoughts?

I think the exception for synopsizing pursuant to FAR 5.201 is FAR 5.202(a)(11) "The proposed contract action is made under the terms of an existing contract that was previously synopsized in sufficient detail to comply with the requirements of 5.207 with respect to the current proposed contract action;" I think the reference above by @formerfed is the requirement to issue an RFQ (solicitation), not to synopsizing.

What is the TO for (supplies, services, etc.) and what is the period of availability for obligation of the funds used for the TO?

Can we use a 24 month PoP for a TO issued off a single award IDIQ? The IDIQ itself does not have any language prohibiting it WRT a 24 month PoP. //// This has been resolved. Thank you all for the feedback.

Profit is not cost. Your cost estimate, whether for direct or indirect costs, should include your best guess as to the costs you will incur during contract performance. Nothing more; nothing less. Why did you bid a "best case" proposal instead of a "most probable case" proposal? Go back and review your estimated costs, both direct and indirect. Use a "best case" and a "worst case" scenario to develop a "most probable case" estimate. Be prepared to explain to the contracting officer how you arrived at your cost estimate. Once you have a solid cost estimate, add to it the profit you believe is reasonable. As others have noted, it is difficult to get a profit percentage greater than 15% of estimated costs, but it can be done with the right arguments.

Agree with the above posts. If I were you I would not try to build a case for higher profit using weighted guidelines or restructuring assumptions. It would be different to get much over 15-18%. What I would do is start negotiations emphasizing risks your company is assuming in the fixed price arrangement. Be prepared to explain in layman’s terms the complexity and potential complications in performance. I recently saw data showing 25-30% profit is fairly common in the commercial sector within the technology sectors. If the government wants to attract the best in the marketplace, it needs to better understand what’s happening from the business perspective especially with the latest technology. You just need to decide on the minimum profit level you can get by with and the government needs to decide how important you and your contract performance is to them. Maybe you both decide agreement can’t be reached and it’s not worth it.

What you are describing is a common practice.

Need more information, but if I was a for-profit entity in this situation as I imagine it ("As this would be our only non-profit making project"), I would first make myself aware of the multitude of terms and conditions that are required to be flowed down by recipients of Federal awards to subrecipients through subawards under 2 CFR 200. I'd first read through the "Subrecipient vs. Contractor Checklist" and determine whether my entity's services are truly that of a recipient/subrecipient vs that of a contractor/subcontractor. If the latter, I'd push back on T&Cs with the prime recipient and price accordingly. If the former, like here_2_help stated, not enough info here.

Is there anything in the FAR that states multiple similar requirements cannot be combined into one RFP/RFQ document for streamlining the solicitation process and then make more than one independent award? I am not talking about a multiple award IDIQ contract. For example, I have 3 locations that need a service. One may have 2 types of items to service, one 3 and one 5. In the solicitation are 3 different price schedules, a list for each location of what type of services, site information, drawings as well as the usual admin and C/P sections. On the 1449 I state that 3 independent awards will be made, one per location. Vendors can choose any, all, or none to send a proposal for. The SSB only has to read one proposal per vendor instead of one each of the same for how many the vendors are offering. They may be C or D contracts; each awarded contract has only its own single location information, price schedules, maps, drawings etc.

Nor does it limit the government in what it can agree to. As Don pointed out, the weighted guidelines are supposed to be used to establish a negotiation position, not a limit on profit.

Revisiting this thread because the latest FAR Final Rule to arise from an Executive Order is a case study in civic action. It shows what happens when the public simply acquiesces to the regulators. Compare its comment I located here (at regulations.gov, Tracking Number ln9-m78q-sml9) that does not shine FASA's light on the FAR Council's proposed rule: ...To this one (at regulations.gov, Tracking Number luh-gcv4-yszk, also viewable here) about the instant thread's Proposed Rule, that does shine FASA's light on it: I will be interested to read the FAR Council's response when the instant one goes to Final Rule. The two distinct groups may have their individual motives for commenting, I understand. I, on the other hand, am only interested in furthering a just society. So far, we have the FAR Council's response to the first comment above, which I provide below. Once the second one receives its response, I will edit this post or start a new thread in the "What Happened" Forum here.

1. A profit exceeding 10-15% is not necessarily unreasonable. The Weighted Guidelines method is required in some instances for the Government to arrive at a prenegotiation objective, but it does not limit what a prospective contractor can propose. It has as much relevance to the negotiation as the method the prospective contractor used to develop their prenegotiation profit objective. As far as what the contracting officer said about the board, that may be true. But that doesn't mean you have to lower your profit. The Government will need to decide if what they need is worth agreeing to what they consider an unreasonable profit. Is the Government ok with your bottom line price? 2. See FAR 31.205-7 regarding the inclusion of contingencies in cost estimates.

@Atlas STS is a very small business that is in negotiations with the government to produce a product. The contract is FFP over $10M and subject to TINA and Certified Cost and Pricing Data. We were the only bidder and only source of supply for this product and it is not COTS. We have supplied this data to the best of our ability, but are receiving pushback on our requested profit rate as being too high. Our buyer has said that anything near 20% is unprecedented and likely a non-starter. They proposed a 9% rate. This seems very low to me for a FFP contract. However, when I attempted to fill out the DAU Weighted Guidelines spreadsheet, I see that it is nearly impossible to get to 15% profit without exceeding "allowed" ranges in the spreadsheet. I mentioned that we are very confident in our price, but we are unfamiliar with providing cost data in this manner and may have put some of our risk mitigation costs into profit that should be allocated elsewhere. They seemed receptive to having us move costs from profit into overhead or G&A pools. All that being said, I have a few questions: 1) Am I being unrealistic to expect over 10-15% profit on a FFP contract? This seems very low to me. Is the Weighted Guidelines Method required for contracts with Certified Cost and Pricing Data? Are their any alternatives to this method? The contracting officer said they have to take our contract before a board and they will not approve anything near our profit request. 2) Is it typical to put technical/schedule/execution risk contingencies or mitigations elsewhere in the proposal? What are those costs called? What pool do they fall in (overhead or G&A)? I bid a reasonable "best case" proposal, but I know that issues will spring up based on the nature of our product and past performance. How do I correctly capture those risks in my proposal if not in the profit? Any insight or guidance would be greatly appreciated.

thanks to jtolli and Witty_Username for their replies👍

There is not enough info here. What costs are you planning to incur? How does the LLC currently charge those costs? What is going to change -- if anything -- because you receive a new project? And, really, you have no W-2 employees? None? Not even the CEO or CFO?