All Activity

BOA as in basic ordering agreement? If so I am having a little trouble understanding the intended approach as "Application" as stated in the FAR doesnot seem to fit. Otherwise intriguing approach for a BPA. As it goes neither are a "contract" so I wonder what will happen when the ordering begins as the price(s)are not contractually binding. You say "per hour". Service Contract Labor Standards, if applicable, would seem to cause some issues with setting pricing consistently across the country. "Per Action" would seem somewhat easier sort of like the comments already offered regarding funiture and burgers.

I’ve released budgets for furniture buys and it worked great. We described the space and it’s intended use and then evaluated using the subjectivity of the government’s interior designer and customer.

I am intrigued by the thought of saying I'm willing to pay $10 per hamburger meal, for example, and inviting interested offerors to provide the best menus, ingredients, chef skills, and so forth -- the competition then will focus on quality and so forth rather than on price.

When it comes to calculating a company’s receipts for size purposes, the procedure for is (or at least was) pretty simple: Look at the company’s tax returns. Indeed, it has long been SBA’s position that they can only consider tax returns, as noted in Nordstrom Contracting & Consulting Corp., SBA No. SIZ-5891 (Mar. 7, 2018) (“[T]here is no authority for an area office to consider any evidence apart from tax returns…when calculating a firm’s average annual receipts.”) among other cases. In other words, if something was not mentioned in a tax return, it couldn’t be considered by SBA. The only exception was if the tax returns were not filed, in which case SBA will review financial statements or similar information in lieu. 13 CFR § 121.104. Therefore, other than that exception, a contractor only needs to rely on the information in its tax return when making its size representation. But the U.S. District Court of the District of Columbia (DDC) thinks otherwise. On May 18, 2023, it entered a decision on opposing motions for summary judgment in a size protest that had become a False Claims Act case. In this decision, it concluded the opposite: Contractors must in some cases consider information outside their tax returns. Let’s take a deeper dive. United States ex rel. Bid Solve, Inc. v. CWS Mktg. Grp., Inc., 678 F. Supp. 3d 53 (D.D.C. 2023) began as a standard size protest back in 2018. At first, the matter was simple enough: CWS Marketing Group’s (CWS) size was protested, it submitted its tax returns, and SBA sided with CWS over the protester, Bid Solve, Inc. (Bid Solve) after reviewing those returns. However, Bid Solve apparently knew there was something more going on and filed a False Claims Act case with the DDC against CWS. Bid Solve alleged that CWS had misreported its receipts by improperly subtracting expenses that it shouldn’t have subtracted. If these expenses were not subtracted, then CWS would be over the size standard. Proving this would necessarily require looking at information that wasn’t in CWS’ tax returns, and here is where the question arose: Was CWS justified in only relying on the information in its tax return? The DDC said “no” in light of 13 C.F.R. § 121.104: Defendants misread the regulation: They were not allowed to rely solely on CWS’s tax returns. And because of that, they should have never subtracted “flowthrough income” from CWS’s total revenue. … § 104(a) provides a clear formula: receipts are “all revenue … reduced by returns and allowances,” and “the only exclusions from receipts are those specifically” listed in § 104(a). Tax returns may be used to calculate receipts, but they cannot override § 104(a)’s basic rules. Looking at CWS’ argument, the DDC further explained why it was rejecting it: Defendants disagree, proposing a different reading. They urge that a subsection—§ 104(a)(1)—required them to use only CWS’s tax returns when calculating its receipts. That provision states that “The Federal income tax return and any amendments filed with the IRS on or before the date of self-certification must be used to determine” whether a business is small…(i)n other words, if they plugged in numbers from CWS’s tax returns, then they are in the clear, no matter if that calculation flouts other parts of the regulation. The DDC then noted that, basically, CWS was using the “only tax returns” argument to justify the fact that they violated the provision that “reimbursements for purchases a contractor makes at a customer’s request” may not be excluded from receipts. CWS’ position would basically make it impossible to enforce the rest of the regulation if the contractor in question made an inaccurate tax return (unintentionally or otherwise). The DDC then further explained how CWS’ position does not make sense. “For example, 13 C.F.R. § 121.1009(b) says that when making a size determination, the SBA will mostly rely on the information a bidder provided but ‘may use other information and may make requests for additional information.’” It would not make sense for the rule to be that others can submit other information but the contractor itself need only rely on its own tax returns. After all, the contractor would have the most access to its own information. Impact on SBA Rule Quite frankly, we think the DDC’s ruling here is just common sense. It does not stand to reason that a contractor could file inaccurate tax returns and then rely on those same inaccurate tax returns to its own benefit, or that tax returns could allow subtractions from receipts that SBA rules do not allow. It would completely undermine the size determination process. With that, we turn to the fact that, as we noted above, SBA has historically stated that area offices will only rely on tax returns, when filed, in making size determinations. Thus far, it does not appear any SBA decision has cited to the DDC’s decision, either to accept it or attempt to get around it (technically, the DDC did not overturn any SBA precedent, this was a False Claims Act case). That said, we think it would make sense for SBA to adopt the DDC’s ruling as its own standard for size determinations. However, that is basically something that SBA will have to do on its own, although we could see SBA continuing to rely on tax returns in the interest of efficiency. For it would have to be an odd situation indeed for a protester to have enough evidence about an awardee’s internal finances to be able to say that the awardee’s own tax returns are wrong. Generally, such an assertion is going to be pure speculation on the part of the protester, which means that a request that the protested firm provide additional information would be rejected by SBA. SBA will not act on requests or protests based on speculation alone. As such, it is going to be on SBA to change its own standard and ask protested firms to provide more than just their own tax returns in these protests. Whether it will do so remains to be seen. 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 Beyond Tax Returns: Federal District Court Says Contractors Must Include Information Outside Tax Returns in Calculating Size first appeared on SmallGovCon - Government Contracts Law Blog.View the full article

These eight are the only imperative "D&F" statements this community located a decade ago, in FAR: 6.202(b)(1) - establishing and maintaining alternative sources; 8.404(h)(3)(ii)(A) - use of T&M; 12.207(b)(1)(ii)(A) - use of T&M; FAR 16.401(d) - use of incentive- and award-fee contacts; 16.601(d)(1) - use of T&M; 17.502-2(c) - Economy Act; 25.202 - Buy American, construction materials; and 25.1001 - waiver of right to examination of records. Any FAC since then could have added one, so keep a look out in FAR. Also, your Agency FAR Supplement may add to this list. From a very good read:

Happy Friday everyone! Here in the Midwest we are enjoying some nice spring weather. But along with the beautiful flowers comes the allergies for some folks. In contracting news this week legislators in Washington have been working on bills in an attempt to make it easier for small businesses to work with the government and there is continued movement on cybersecurity for federal contractors. You can read more about that in the articles below as well as other contracting news. Have a great weekend. Former Veterans Affairs Procurement Supervisor Sentenced to Seven Years in Prison for Pocketing Kickbacks Readout of Roundtable on Project Labor Agreements for Large Federal Construction Projects Breaking Down the DOD’s New Defense Industrial Base Cybersecurity Strategy Accenture Federal Services acquires major federal contractor How legislators could make things a little easier for those companies working with the government Congressional minority caucuses call for data on government spending on contractors Investigating the US Army’s FY2025 Budget Proposal Virginia-Based Defense Contractor Pleads Guilty to Bribery Conspiracy Involving Government Contracts Worth More Than $100 Million Virginia-Based Defense Contractor Pleads Guilty to Bribery Conspiracy Involving Government Contracts Worth More Than $100 Million House Committee on Small Business Unanimously Reports Seven Bipartisan Bills Favorably to the House Ensuring Prevailing Wages: A Closer Look at the Davis-Bacon Act Former Federal Contract Employee Sentenced to 18 Years for Child Pornography US Department of Labor Recovers $34K in Back Wages, Benefits for 9 Workers Misclassified by Subcontractor on Federal Project in District of Columbia The post SmallGovCon Week in Review: April 15-19, 2024 first appeared on SmallGovCon - Government Contracts Law Blog.View the full article

I like it, Carl. All determinations require findings, but not all determinations require D&Fs under FAR subpart 1.7. Similarly, not all justifications require justification and approval under FAR part 6.

Does this help https://www.dcma.mil/Portals/31/Documents/Policy/DCMA-MAN-2501-07.pdf See Section 8

My thoughts in support of those already provided - Yes a justification (I have used lower case on purpose) in as much as you need to "justify" certain elements of the option being solicited per the reference you have already cited - FAR 17.205 - but not a D&F. I have always remembered this quote by Vern Edwards - "All determinations and findings include determinations, but not all determinations are determinations and findings." Maybe this is a twist on the quote - All justifications and approvals include approvals but not all justifcations include approvals.

“Determination and Findings means a special form of written approval by an authorized official that is required by statute or regulation as a prerequisite to taking certain contract actions.” FAR 1.701. Neither FAR reference you cited call for a D&F. FAR 17.205(a) is justifying the inclusion of options (pre-award). DAU says this: ”The contracting officer shall include a written justification for the quantities or the term under option, the notification period for exercising the option, and any limitation on option price under FAR 17.203(g) in the contract file (FAR 17.205).”

17.205 is preaward.

Is there a requirement to execute a pre-award D&F or Justification for using options in a non-Part 14 award? 17.202(a) seems to read like it only applies to sealed bidding, and I can't tell if 17.205(a) is talking about a pre-award requirement. Thanks

DoD uses the clause at DFARS 252.204-7022, Expediting Contract Closeout.

Is there a policy for closing or reopening contracts with low dollar amounts? Is there a threshold when a deob is not necessary?

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?

I have a 'chihuahua with attitude' that would probably fit in.

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