ashleyh

Thankyou for your response Vern. Question, after reading the GAO Dec, it states that as the extension was not evaluated as part of the initial competition, a "sole source" justification was required. However the clause itself states that rates cannot be adjusted except for prevailing labor rates. So if you evaluated the base year and any subsequent options (meaning the -9 clause) havent you in essence evaluated the -8 rates? I hope that question makes sense.

Hello, I recently began working for a new agency that requires an approved J&A for exercising the extension clause. My previous Agency did not require this and when I asked why (for my own personal knowledge base), I was just told it is always required unless the pricing was evaluated at time of award. However, per the clause, the 6 month pricing remains the same unless adjusted for prevailing labor rates. Can anyone point me in the right direction on why a J&A is required....

Vern, Thanks for your input. In regards to the inflating of prices, for funding purposes, most KO's just utilize the 3 quotes as market research, and then competitively solicit for quotes (which results in a cheaper price). KOs do have the ability to call/email for quotes via a standard solicitation (wither 1449 or paper combined synopsis/solicitation). The argument here is to skip the step of preparing the solicitation, and just utilize the quotes we already have in order to save time. It just took me be surprise as I have never not solicited (as in provided provisions/clauses, etc), and to me, confirming the low quote isn?t even orally soliciting. But if nothing prohibits from not soliciting then I guess I can argue against the practice. Thanks for your thoughts.

All, As I have stated earlier, I am in a contingency operation (Afghanistan). I would like your thoughts on a common practice that is done here. Our requirement pacakges come in with 3 local quotes (Resource Management mandates the 3 quotes for IGE purposes). Some KOs look at the 3 quotes, have each contract confirm their price, and then award to the low offeror (C3 mandates LPTA). They do not provide a CLIN structure, PWS, etc.The KO states this is an acceptable process under 13.106-1© as an oral solicitation (as long as it is under the SAT which is 1M here). I have grave reservations on awarding in this matter, as the customer who obtains these 3 quotes regualarly go to high contractors (in order to obtain more funds), etc. However, with that said, I have never used this process and am unfamiliar with the process. Based on the scenario I have described, is this an authorized way to solicit (I realize oral solicitations are authorized but is the process in which they orally solicited correct)?

Vern thank you so much for your help. I told the KO that I did not believe it was necessary to state upfront how the competitive range was to be established. However she stated that it had to be included. When I asked why, I was told various GAO decisions? I didnt have a response to that, so I dropped the issue. Anyways, I appreciate your help in this matter.

Thanks all for the reply. My next question would be what if the evaluation instructions do not state how the competitive range would be determined (as we didn?t not anticipate establishing a competitive range)? Is it still appropriate to establish the competitive range? Or must the solicitation be cancelled and re-issued to include that information? i apologize if I am asking rather basic questions. I tend to operate under Part 13 procedures.

I guess my question is it is appropriate to just make a determination when exercising an option rather than utilizing a D&F? Or another example, FAR 5.202 states that a KO may not submit a notice when the KO determines, etc. So does that mean a simple MFR with your determination is sufficient, or a D&F is needed?

I agree in regards to your assessment of discussion vs. clarification. And I wish I would have brought my Cibinic and Nash books, but when I was already toting 5 duffels, I had to limit what I was taking!

This is for a construction contract so would fall under FAR Part 15. I told the KO that I would establish a competitve range. However she feels that competive rangs is only for best value source selections and not appropriate for LPTA. I have never heard that competitive ranges were only for best value/trade off. In regards to the translation, the propsals are in english. The Tech Board feels the error occured when the contractor internally translated the solicitation and then drafted their proposal in english.

Im going to start out by saying im in a contingency environment. Tech evaluations just occured and the source selection is LPTA. All offerors are technically unacceptable except 2 (well, they are the "most" acceptable). However the 2 technically acceptable proposals have statements within their proposals that are confusing that may be a result of the solicitation being translated. 15.101-2((4) states exchanges may occur. Can the Government ask the 2 most acceptable proposals to clarify their proposals without going to the other unacceptable offerors?

I recently sent a modification package to exercise an option to our contract attorney. When I received my legal review of the package our lawyer noted that findings were not needed on my D&F. That 17.207© states that ?the contracting officer may exercise options only after determining? anf that the "findings" are not required. I have never seen this done, and as our lawyer has been our lawyer for the past 10 years and never mentioned this in his previous reviews, I found it somewhat confusing. Any thoughts?

It's just a FFP service contract. I will double check what payment clause is in included.

Ok, so I am adminstering a contract where the contractor (a small business) wants to be able to invoive and be paid bimonthly. We have not problem doing this, but we cant dtermine what clause to use. I have asked 2 KO's and looked in the FAR and cannont determine the clause. I thought prompt payment, but that is for 30 days. Can anyone point me in the right direction? TIA

I wish we could, but legal already has the documents for review. And trust me, I will never make the mistake I made. Lesson learned.

Information as in letter of intent from their PM, proof of insurance, etc.

Ok, So I had and RFP that recently closed. Prior to closing, I notices some mistakes (i.e missing information) in a few of the proposals. With previous requirements, if I had noticed mistakes prior to closing time, I let the contractor know so they could correct them (at the direction of my KO). I did the same with this requirement and even gave a heads up to my KO (or CO). Everything is fine. So we are evaluating proposals and notice that some of the same contractors were missing other items that I had not told them about. Our Director comes in, and says no, no, no under no circumstances can you talk to contractors prior to closing as it would constitute discussions and be unfair to the other contractors. So now, in order to cover ourselves we are entering discussions with everyone and allowing them to submit missing or incorrect information. The part that seems so unfair to me is there are contractors that clearly are not techinically acceptable (dont have the necessary liscenses/certs) that we are going to enter into discussions with. I guess what I am asking is if there is anyway to not enter into discussions with these contractors even though the Govt (i.e me) made a mistake in notifying some contractors of mistakes.

I guess the quote below sums up my concerns. I want to have a contract vehicle in place that will allow for changing technologies and unknown types of vehicles/brands. I realize that I am inexperienced and have "dribbled" in information. But I thought this was the purpose of these boards- to increase one's knowledge to become better contracting professionals. I wish I could give you more definitive information, but my end users dont even ahve a good grasp of what they need/want. In addition, I havent worked on this at all for the past two weeks (at a DAU course- thanks Don from San Diego for mentioning that these forums exsist) and was just given the requirement only a week or two prior. I was trying to get a jump on the gun and start researching so when I got back to work I could have a place to start. Clearly I should have waited until I had more information available.

Thanks for all the suggestions. I will do some further research on the ideas presented as well as additional market research (I just got this requirement not too long ago so I have only done very basic market research). I am going to post a sources sought and see what companies are interested and can meet the requirements. Part of the problem is that the work site for the installation must be within 60 miles and that the installation person must have a certain type of certification in order to install some of the equipment (otherwise it voids the warranties). As of right now I know of only one company that has the certification that is small business, so I may have to widen the pool to large business. Again thanks so much for your suggestions. If the certification wasnt required, it would greatly increase the amount of small business capable of performing.

Well we did consider your first point. However, we already have several brands in exsistence. So for our T&M clin, would we have to have a price list for a replacement siren for the explorer, escape, tahoe? Which im not opposed to, that just means my end user would have to come up with that list which could run in the hundreds. And we all know how end users love to provide the needed and necessary information On your second point, our office has always done option years for services (which we are a very young office experience wise so that's not saying much). So we could do a multi year ordering period with just maxes? If so, and I understand that correctly, where could I find additional information to bring to my KO?

Well each new car that the MP and rescue repsonders get have to have the same thing. So a patrol SUV (regardless of brand and model) would all get lights, siren, computer system, etc. The admin car (regardless of brand and model) would have small scale sirens/lights and a more in depth computer system. And then all fire trucks would have the same type of equipment.

We have a list of the possible makes/models. It's just that there is a vast price diffence between a tahoe and an explorer price wise for parts. So having the list isnt as helpful as knowing exactly what brands we are getting. Oh, and I forgot that this will have 4 options years as well.

I have spoken to a few companies. It is cheaper to have them do the work in packages. So each SUV would have a specific package put on. Where it gets tricky is that different parts are priced differently based on the brand (ford, chevy, etc). We are assuming that they will quote based on historical data. As in, if we normally get a lot of explorers and only one or two escapes, they would quote based on some sort of average. Now, if we get a ton of escapes (which im assuming would be cheaper to do bc they are smaller), then Govt who lose out a little. If discussed having a lengthy price list for parts based on brand, but it would be much more expensive to go item by item then it would be to do the packages. It's just very frustrating bc I feel as if we have thrown out several different ideas and not one of them is ideal.

Hello, I am relative new to the contracting world (right at 2 years) and have mostly dwelled in the FFP Commercial world. I have a new requirement for maintenance of emergency vehciles. Essentially, GSA provides the vehicles and then we would outfit them with lights. sirens, computer system, etc as well as replace any broken or outdated components. The problem is that GSA never notifies the end user of the brand of vehicle they are going to provide. They just provide 5 suvs or 3 cars, etc. My KO believes that we need to come up with "packages" that would be FFP. So we would have an SUV package, car package, etc and give historical data on the types/brands that GSA has provided in the past. Additionally, we would have a T&M clin that would allow for misc replacement parts that would not be a part of the "packages." In addition, this would be a single award IDIQ. Im concerned because for every SUV or car package we would have 3 subpackages as well as the T&M clin. So we are looking at up to 13 clins on top of writing task orders. Is there any other way you can think of that would be more streamlined and not as confusing. If I were a contractor I wouldnt even know how to quote. Also, if we do the T&M clin, how do we evaluate that? Any help that you could give me would be much appreciated.