Jump to content
The Wifcon Forums and Blogs


  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

0 Neutral

About contractor100

  • Rank
  • Birthday 01/19/1910

Profile Information

  • Location
    bethesda maryland

Recent Profile Visitors

18,274 profile views
  1. Well some competition is required, see 8.405. There are for sure some loopholes connected with setasides though. As was previous discussed in this forum: Large business files subcontract plan agreeing to subcontract x percentage to small company. Large business subcontract x to small business y. Y subcontracts 100 percent to a large business. As far as i know, this is still okay?
  2. Retread, you are right, it is not awarded to the CTA. There are technically three contracts, one each awarded to A, B, and C ( I believe for the full contract value for each). But the CTA members don't have to meet the limitations clause on their own individual contracts. GSA says the 50 percent can be allocated across the total contract value, as the CTA members please: 16) How does the “Limitations on Subcontracting” (FAR 52.219-14) rule work under a Multiple Award Schedules (MAS) Contractor Team Arrangement (CTA)? For example, does the Team Leader have to perform at least 50 percent (50%) of the work or is the 50 percent (50%) requirement aggregated across all team members? Under an MAS CTA the Team must perform fifty percent (50%) of the value of the work in the aggregate. For example, on a team consisting of three contractors, the Team Leader could perform thirty percent (30%) of the work and each Team Member could perform ten percent (10%) of the work to meet the fifty percent (50%) requirement. The remaining fifty percent (50%) of the work may be performed by subcontractors working under any of the team members Schedule contracts. Socioeconomic restrictions do not apply to subcontractors; i.e., they may be large business. https://www.gsa.gov/buying-selling/purchasing-programs/gsa-schedules/small-business-utilization H2H, I agree, it's perverse, isn't it!! I don't think what D is billing C is relevant, though - D doesn't even have to have a schedule contracts or rates. There certainly are a lot of ways for large businesses to benefit from setasides, aren't there. Happy New Year to all!
  3. sorry, out of town. It is awarded to the CTA. The limitation on subcontracting clause is the one that's currently included in the GSA schedules, which at present is: 52.219-14 LIMITATIONS ON SUBCONTRACTING (JAN 2017) As far as I know, the FAR has not yet been modded for the new SBA limitations rule, correct? See case 2016-011 https://www.acq.osd.mil/dpap/dars/opencases/farcasenum/far.pdf
  4. I am pretty sure I know the answer to this. The minimum performance on a setaside contract that's awarded to the members of a CTA can be satisfied by work from any of the CTA members, in any combination, right? So there are three CTA members. Small setaside. A (small)- does 25 percent of the work, billing its rates and ODCs B (small) - does 25 percent of the work, billing its rates and ODCs C (small) - subcontracts 50 percent of the work to a large company, which does the work, billing C's rates and ODCs This is okay, right?
  5. Except, not for GSA BPAs, which are in question? 2) With respect to “Agreements” including Blanket Purchase Agreements (BPAs) (except for BPAs issued against a GSA Schedule Contract), Basic Agreements, Basic Ordering Agreements, or any other Agreement that a contracting officer sets aside or reserves awards to any type of small business, a concern must qualify as small at the time of its initial offer (or other formal response to a solicitation), which includes price, for the Agreement. Because an Agreement is not a contract, the concern must also qualify as small for each order issued pursuant to the Agreement in order to be considered small for the order and for an agency to receive small business goaling credit for the order.
  6. I didn't say I had or was planning to do this. But there is a lot of gamemanship in federal contracts, we all know that, right? it's such an obvious strategy, I would think there would be specific rules against it and hoped someone could point me to them. Or does everything at GSA just come down to who you know... https://www.gsaig.gov/sites/default/files/audit-reports/A170118_1.pdf
  7. assuming for the sake of argument there are no significant changes to the RFP
  8. If they accepted the first offer they should hypothetically accept the second one, right? They would be identical.
  9. Suppose a company knows it'll outgrow the NAICS associated with its GSA schedule in a year. Company is in year 3.5 of a GSA option and would like to be small on its GSA schedule for more than 1.5 years. So company would like to cancel its GSA contract, immediately reapply with all offered terms and conditions identical, to remain "grandfathered in" as small for five years, vice 1.5. Obviously there's a practical risk that the negotiations won't go through quickly, company will miss opportunities, etc. But is there anything else that would stop companies taking this gamble?
  10. So what happened. We negotiated a bit back and forth, then got notification we were awarded. Very close to the end of the FY. Called the CO, and let her know that we didn't have the facility clearance. She removed the requirement! We signed the award. I will note that our CAGE code was right there in the paperwork. If the CO would have checked, she would have seen we had no FCL before awarding.
  11. Yeah, I thought that too. Can't find it written down anywhere.
  12. We don't have an agency lined up. we have another cleared company - with no connection to the contract. So that's an acceptable sponsor?
  13. These cases don't seem on point to me, please tell me what I am missing. My RFP says the FC is required for performance. Not for award, and not before proposal submission, as in the cases above. The idea is that, if my company won, we could then secure the FC. (This is not my idea. This is my boss's idea. The question isn't whether it's a good strategy, it's whether it's possible.) So to restate my questions, with a little more info: 1 The first block of the DD-254 says, "level of security clearance required - secret." The RFP requires me to submit the DD-254 with the proposal. If I put my company's name and address on that form, put in the Cognizant Security Office for my address,and submit, I am not representing that I have an FC - do you agree? 2 In the unlikely event my company is awarded this work it would be the only company on the contract. No subs, no prime. The awarding agency (GCA) has stated they will not sponsor clearances. So can any cleared company sponsor my company, once we've established the need for a clearance by being awarded a contract that requires an FC? I always thought the sponsoring cleared company had to been awarded the justifying contract or a subcontract against the contract, but that does not appear to be what the NISPOM says: "A contractor or prospective contractor cannot apply for its own FCL. A GCA or a currently cleared contractor may sponsor an uncleared company for an FCL. A company must meet the following eligibility requirements before it can be processed for an FCL: a. The company must need access to the classified information in connection with a legitimate U.S. Government or foreign government requirement. b. The company must be organized and existing under the laws of any of the fifty states, the District of Columbia, or Puerto Rico, and be located in the United States or its territorial areas.c. The company must have a reputation for integrity and lawful conduct in its business dealings. The company and its key managers must not be barred from participating in U.S. Government contracts. d. The company must not be under FOCI to such a degree that the granting of the FCL would be inconsistent with the national interest." Chapter 2. https://www.esd.whs.mil/Portals/54/Documents/DD/issuances/dodm/522022M.pdf
  • Create New...