Jump to content
The Wifcon Forums and Blogs

C Culham

Members
  • Content Count

    1,015
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

0 Neutral

About C Culham

  • Rank
    Contributing Member

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Not Telling

Recent Profile Visitors

12,960 profile views
  1. C Culham

    Amended Solicitation - Fair Opportunity

    I want to reiterate that this thread majority topic is fair opportunity under FAR 16.505. I continue to fear that the continuing discussion confuses the complexity of a FAR part 15 trade-off procurement with that discretionary approach (within limited sideboards) that the FAR allows under fair opportunity. With this said ji's posts continue to emphasize the minimalist approach noted by the FAR to provide all holders of the parent contract a fair opportunity. Comments I might add that spin off of REA'n Makers approach which I agree meet the intent of 16.505(b) for procurements up to $5million. Why? I have not seen a position that supports that REA'n Makers approach does not meet the standard of 16.505(b)(1)(iii)(B). I say this noting as well that if basis used by REA'n Maker works truly is as reflected, and parties to the contract find no quarrel with it then is it not fair opportunity in their combined view? Noting my above comments I then wonder if Retread's statement (above) is with regard to a fair opportunity process or a FAR part 15 process as by my experience a fair opportunity process that follows the ideal of FAR subpart 16.505(b) does and has encouraged communication different than portrayed by the statement.
  2. C Culham

    Use of Two-phase design-build selection 36.301 question

    Mine is limited but from the experience of a couple of agencies from years ago. First thought is you might check your own agency supplement to the FAR and other policy as there may be further discussion of criteria and what needs to be addressed. Beyond the agency requirements other factors considered were - The complexity of the project, the history of similar projects being done via design build, and even the location of the project as it relates to unique needs that need to be addressed in the design. I have to same something about (v) as well. Not only capability of agency to manage the selection process but to administer the awarded contract too. I may be over simplifying but from my view the administration of an awarded contract is much more complex than managing the selection process.
  3. C Culham

    COTS Services?

    And I yours. Interesting read, thank you, but I am struck first by this comment in the paper on page 8 - "Conversely, no clear-cut definition exists for a supply or product." Seems the authors overlooked "supplies" definition from FAR 2.101 that you already noted. So are fixes, patches, codes the "alteration or installation of" for software? To me it is more in how you frame it. I can buy a training and its COTS buy I can't buy a trainer as COTS. I will leave it at that.
  4. C Culham

    COTS Services?

    I think it is Yes it does - Further reference to support yes it does (emphasis added) that can be found in full here - https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2009/01/15/E9-551/federal-acquisition-regulation-far-case-2000-305-commercially-available-off-the-shelf-cots-items “Paragraphs (F) and (G) of the definition deal with commercial services. These paragraphs were not referenced in the statutory definition of a COTS item. Services are therefore necessarily excluded from the definition. To make the definition clearer, the reference to the definition of commercial item has been revised to point to the first paragraph of the definition of commercial item" Also consider the definition from FAR 37.101 - "Service contract" means a contract that directly engages the time and effort of a contractor whose primary purpose is to perform an identifiable task rather that to furnish and end item of supply.
  5. Agreed with a little twist. Funding availability changes. The government might award an option at award but also might wait until the 11th hour of the option availability to exercise said option. By experience there were many times where options were added to solicitation/contracts with the hope and I might even say knowledge that additional funding will come down the line at some later date. That said I have also seen options used based on premise that the government knows it has the money but does not know it will want the option items. Anything is likely but using the scenario as offered I do not see it being likely in this particular situation.
  6. C Culham

    COTS Services?

    Doesn't this quote directly from the definition as you provided it answer the question? I see no mention of any item of service>
  7. Best quote I can use for my thought. I am familiar with the noted 52.217 clauses. I would not go to them for definitive reasoning on whether to accept the contingent pricing. Why? Because my understanding of the wording and use of clauses is to overcome (lack of better term on my part) the requirement for competition or not when awarding options not for the purposes of what is being discussed in this thread. Agreed but I am a little leery about the first one. Asking the agency could result in a non-answer and still leave the offeror wanting . If there is a response that is yes, do it, my concern is that an idea that the offeror has for making their proposal in their eyes look more favorable may be offered to all offerors to do the same thing once the answer of yes go a head and do it is provided. Submitting multiple responses is the best fit, as long as already noted, there is no prohibition in doing so. PS - Throughout this thread I have avoided the conjecture of what is in the actual solicitation and attempted to deal in generalities because as noted - I think Lotus has enough to contemplate in moving forward.
  8. Joel - My effort to explain once more my view. Take it as you may as I fully understand what you are trying to say about the wording with my view that we are talking pricing of items that Lotus wants to provide not whether Lotus will provide an item or a combination of items as Lotus has already said that he/she wants to provide all of the items (combination). Or in other words the offeror (Lotus) has decided to provide (and price) not just any item but a combination of items. Yet the offeror wants to also provide contingent pricing on some of the items that it has combined, contingent pricing that does not seem to be allowed for in the current CLINs as described. By description of Lotus the Schedule that includes the CLINs does not carry an "if" that circles back to CLIN #7 it only, by Lotus's post, says that CLINs#8/9 are options that the government wants and needs to be priced. Lotus wants its pricing to be dependent (contingent) on whether the government takes the #7 option something by my read so far of the scenario that the government has not said it wants with regard to pricing or pricing that is allowed by the solicitation. The government wants a price for each option in case by example they do not want to take option #7 but option #8. In effect for evaluation purposes with no other action by the government I suspect the government would either say hey we are going to only evaluate your pricing all at $130 or we are not going to evaluate at all because you have placed a contingency on your pricing. Carry on as you will 52.215-1 is done in my view.
  9. Joel...It goes back to my earlier post. My view is that it is not a combination of items it is contingent pricing on the items. I guess others could read it as you do.
  10. FAR part 12 solicitation that utilizes 52.212-1 not tailored - Maybe depending on the FAR part utilized for evaluation. FAR part 13 solicitation asking for quotes and specifically being evaluated under FAR part 13 ideals - less risk of being tossed. FAR part 14 solicitation - most likely would not survive. FAR part 15 solicitation - LPTA most likely would not survive. Trade-off less risk of being tossed but still a maybe of not surviving. In all cases as a multiple offer, if allowed by the specific solicitation, it would most likely survive.
  11. C Culham

    Amended Solicitation - Fair Opportunity

    I fear over complication in the manner chosen for the selection process of a TO as you express and in this thread as well. Too much concentration on FAR part 15! Get rid of the idea of even using it (emphasis added). Instead read and re-read FAR 16.505(b) exercise broad discretion in developing appropriate order placement procedures, keep submission requirements to a minimum! In fact just make your CO's, reviewers and evaluators read it too! The offerors will love you and your TO award efforts will be much simpler. This too is a good route but for goodness sake get rid of offer, quote, amendment or anything that insinuates a FAR part 13 or 15 process. You send notices of fair opportunity, you send changes to notices of fair opportunity and you get answers to fair opportunity notices. Keep it in FAR 16.505(b) and use the innovation that you have been granted.
  12. Us in the acquisition world, inside or outside the government, go to FPDS-NG due to our familiarity. And yes a non-gov type can register for more advanced searches. There is another way you might try that as I understand gives the same info - https://www.usaspending.gov/#/ Valuable resource for tracking government procurements to gain that competitive advantage!
  13. So there is the issue of the CLIN being FAR subpart 4.10 compliant as well as the fact that we are not talking about different quantities of a CLIN we are talking about how an offeror wants to price the CLIN. The government, at least at this point, wants one price, the offeror wants to offer two prices for the same thing and quantity, contingent upon something happening. I guess it would look something like this - CLIN 7, X Quantity - $130 each CLIN 8, X Quantity - $130 each (To be exercised only if CLIN 7 is not) CLIN 8A, X Quantity - $100 each (To be exercised only if CLIN 7 is Exercised) CLIN 9, X Quantity - $130 (To be exercised only if CLIN 7 is not) CLIN 9A, X Quantity - $100 each (To be exercised only if CLIN 7 is Exercised) By the way, again guessing on how the solicitation might be formatted, if a commercial item and FAR 52.212-1 is included in exact wording as found in the FAR multiple offers are encouraged and therefore allowed.
  14. Lotus - First just to be specific where did I say "non-compliant". I really suggest that word not be used. Material defect that is either non-responsive or unacceptable. With the above said I am not as poster here or would not as the CO make a determination without adequate information regarding the type of solicitation, the terms and conditions of the solicitation as they relate to offer submission and exactly how the offer is presented. But there dang sure is a possibility that as a bid presented in the manner you have stated would be determined to be non-responsive.
  15. C Culham

    RFPs for Commercial Items

    Just a guess but it could be that the electronic tool that they use to create a solicitation does have this feature included in it.
×