joel hoffman

6 hours ago, creyes814 said:

@Don Mansfield That is what we are being instructed to do.  

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?

4 hours ago, Don Mansfield said:

Why are there still funds remaining on the contract? Was it a CR contract?

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.🫣

11 hours ago, Don Mansfield said:

Why do you need to deobligate funds? Closing out a contract file doesn't necessarily mean that you will have to deobligate funds.

@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.

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…

On 4/10/2024 at 6:28 PM, creyes814 said:

@joel hoffman Yes this is a closeout/de-obligation.  Thanks.  

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! 

Im surprised that this topic is still open. @TippHill, can you advise what the resolution was?  Thanks. 

I wonder if the same “key dog personnel” are still available…🤪

13 hours ago, EGovCon said:

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?

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 ??? 

Perhaps a BPA with the several arbitrators , with the proviso that the arbitration procedures would apply to selection of the arbitrator. 

14 hours ago, Jamaal Valentine said:

@adt110549601

Have you considered stating that you will only evaluate prices of offers and offerors that are eligible for award? That will put everyone on notice.

That can be tricky. If you decide to conduct discussions and have one or more firms with deficiencies that may be curable, You need to consider pricing and non-price aspects of the proposals in establishing the initial competitive ranges.

However, technically, materially deficient proposals aren’t eligible for award unless and until the firms can clear the deficiencies during or after discussions.

4 hours ago, adt110549601 said:

Not including an unsat offeror in the price analysis and/or trade-off analysis feels like you are eliminating them from competition and therefore creating a competitive range.  Is there a way to eliminate an unsat offeror from the competition without creating a competitive range?  If so, how do you speak to this in your award decision document?

Please read FAR 15.306 (c) Competitive range. Read (1) through (5).

Why would you “eliminate an offeror from the competition without creating a competitive range? Competitive range is only used for conducting discussions. You don’t need to remove an unsatisfactory offeror from the competition if there are no discussions. You evaluate proposals, make a selection and then inform unsuccessful offerors per 15.503 and following paragraphs…
: 

Does your contracting system or organization require that the contract or task order be modified for closeout?

Unless there are price adjustments or quantity adjustments to unit priced line items, why would you have to modify the contract or task order for closeout? 

Procedures for the final payment invoice and payment , including a release of claims, would normally suffice back “in the day.”

57 minutes ago, Sam101 said:

When an offeror is unacceptable (un-awardable), by the definition of Marginal OR Unacceptable in the RFP, the government must consider their price for the green text but not the red text:

1) When determining competitive range.

 

…for inclusion in conducting discussions. If no discussions, there is no competitive range or competitive range determination.

57 minutes ago, Sam101 said:

2) When documenting trade-off analysis.

If the firm is initially included but no longer in the competitive range after discussions at the time of a trade off analysis for selection, it’s not included in the trade-off analysis and its price isn’t considered.

57 minutes ago, Sam101 said:

3) When determining price reasonableness.

…of the selected vendor.
If the firm is not included in the competitive range for discussions or is no longer competitive (unawardable) due to unacceptable ratings (and/or price) the government doesn’t have to and might be unable to consider its price (per the previous reasoning in this thread ). 

6 hours ago, Jamaal Valentine said:

Your questions cannot be definitively answered without reviewing the entire evaluation scheme.

The key question is does the priced offer satisfy the Government’s expressed requirement? See Contract Pricing Reference Guide, Volume 1, paragraph 6.1.1. (Any proposed price used for comparison must be a part of an offer that satisfies the Government’s requirement. In negotiations, don’t compare prices of ‘technically unacceptable’ offers).

I think you should start with the basic concept that price analysis involves comparisons. The comparisons have to support the purpose. How does comparing the price of an offer that doesn’t satisfy the Government’s need help establish price fair and reasonableness? What factors affect comparability? Can you adjust for them?

NOTE: 

Common usage of ‘technical acceptability’ can refer to (1) a rating of any non-priced factor or (2) conformity with the material terms of the solicitation.

Thanks, Jamaal. This ought to be obvious. But apparently isn’t to everyone.

2 hours ago, Witty_Username said:

I think we're talking about "price analysis techniques and procedures to ensure a fair and reasonable price" as described in FAR 15.404-1(b)(2)(i), which says "Comparison of proposed prices received in response to the solicitation. Normally, adequate price competition establishes a fair and reasonable price (see 15.403-1(c)(1))."

Thanks, Witty. I forgot the citation. 

41 minutes ago, jtolli said:

If it is just a one time event, what is the cost?  Can it be done with the Government Purchase Card?

Agree

1 hour ago, G-Man_KO said:

Ok, so the agency I support (DOD) just received some funding in the 2024 appropriations bill as "Congressionally Directed Spending" (the new moniker for "earmarks").  There are no instructions on these funds, just a name of the program, so no vendor is named, but I know the vendor that does the program.  

There is no congressional identification of the vendor or authorization or direction to specifically use this vendor, correct? If so, then the 6.302-5 exemption isn’t applicable.

More info is required.  Based on the lack of any other information,  I’d think that you need to find out if the program is such that no other vendor could take over.

Determine status of program and perform market research if it isn’t limited to current provider or isn’t impractical to allow others to compete…

11 minutes ago, Sam101 said:

Assuming a solicitation says that it's OK to award to a marginally rated offeror, then the price reasonableness analysis can look like this:

Offeror A: $750,000.00

Offeror B: $789,000.00

Offeror C: $775,000.00

Independent Government Estimate (IGE): $783,000.00.

Choice 1: Apparent awardee's, Offeror B's price is reasonable, their price is close enough to the IGE, and other offers received are lower than offeror B's, but not too much lower, and by the way, Offeror C was rated marginal.

Choice 2: Apparent awardee's, Offeror B's price is reasonable, their price is close enough to the IGE, and other offers received are lower than offeror B's, but not too much lower.

Which way is more proper? Choice 1 or Choice 2?

I don't think I ever mentioned non-price ratings in a price reasonableness determination... but is there a good reason to include the fact that one or more offerors' prices whose price you're comparing the apparent awardee's price to rated marginal for a nonprice factor in a price reasonableness determination? Or does it not matter?

You are only discussing prices, not why B is a better value than A or C, considering both price and non-price factors.

46 minutes ago, Sam101 said:

Right, in the instant case of Six3 Systems, Inc. - B-405942.4; B-405942.8, the marginally rated offeror was properly not included in the trade-off analysis, and I assume also was not included in the price comparison with other offers received for price reasonableness purposes.

I guess another way of phrasing my question is:

When is it proper to not include an offeror's price in the price comparison with other offers received for price reasonableness purposes? Only when they are not included in the trade-off analysis?

I think that this has been discussed earlier in the WIFCON Forum that the prices for non conforming (thus unacceptable) offers should be excluded from comparisons in a price analysis. But I don’t have time to do the search and still dont know if the Search feature has been fixed. I’m pretty sure that Vern Edwards explained it at least once. But it makes sense that the price may be affected by the proposal weaknesses, non-conformance or other deficiencies **or undesirable aspects, thus exclude it from comparisons of prices for conformance with the solicitation requirements.

It may depend upon the basis for the unacceptably of the offer, whether or not the unacceptable **or undesirable aspect or aspects of the proposal or quote are material to the basis of the price.

Does that make sense to you ?

P.S., in reading the Protest cited above, the basis for the marginal rating very likely would have affected the protestors price. 

**Edit: added “or undesirable”

I don’t understand your questions. One must not make broad assumptions without understanding and considering  the specific context of the referenced protest.

Here is a link to the protest:

https://www.gao.gov/products/b-405942.4%2Cb-405942.8

Note that the agency stated that the non-price factors were significantly more important than the price,  that it intended to award without discussions and that marginal ratings in the evaluation would not be considered for award.

There would no need to evaluate price reasonableness in the instant example because award was to be made without discussions, price was least important factor and the marginal rating was clearly unacceptable for award. 

If the scenario were different and discussions were contemplated, the answers to your questions might be “yes”. 

Set it up ahead of time so you can make the call when it occurs. Is it’s matter of on-call availability of a bus?

If there is a possibility of non-availability from any one company, how about prearrange with a couple companies for a rental and whoever is available gets the call. Or something like that… it just doesn’t seem to be that complicated. If they are both available for the same price, the tiebreaker would be flipping a coin. Fair enough…

Well, good luck.

Don’t know the basis of the initial selection or a protest or the basis of the protest decision. 

But if it is a one time event can you simply issue  a new BPA? Does it need to be a BPA for a single event? 

Does it necessarily need to be with the existing vendor? 

I’ve had to deal with a several Federal contracting initiatives as a member of a Design-Build Institute of America Committee that deals with Federal laws and Regulations as part of its subject matter jurisdiction.

As an Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) active employee and  and rehired annuitant, I also was involved with those issues, general construction and Architect Engineering contracting legislation, FAR/DFARS/Agency regulations and Policy and Procedures.

From those experiences. I can tell you that the Congress members and their staffers know very little about the implications or impacts to contracting or the technical subject matters that they propose legislation for. There are many single issue advocacy groups constantly raising issues (often rightly so) that proposed solutions to them often add complications, additional cost, complexities or other impacts to contracting. 

6 hours ago, Vern Edwards said:

Vern, is leaving the building. Going to France on Monday to spend a month on the Seine and the Loire in Spring.

Enjoy your time there. My Pastor has a River barge house boat in Auxerre on the River Yonne. Least it will be in May, it’s in a shed at the moment. They have invited us to visit before the Olympics.

17 minutes ago, Vern Edwards said:

We old-timers have failed the younger folk to the extent that we have not taught them how to think things through, and to the extent that we have engaged in too much hand-holding. Knowledge and competence are the products of career-long struggle.

Forgive any typos. I can barely see my screen.

Thank you for your responses here, Vern!.🌹❤️

My phone broke earlier this week - just got it back plus we had company all week. Just catching up now on WICON Forum…