Jump to content
The Wifcon Forums and Blogs

Desparado

Members
  • Content Count

    354
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by Desparado

  1. Joel - Yes, I read the decision and a key point was that the RFQ stated that. "The current RFQ limits competition to vendors who hold contracts under Schedule 84, “Total Solutions for Law Enforcement, Security, Facilities Management, Fire, Rescue, Clothing, Marine Craft and Emergency/Disaster Response,” SIN 246-52 for “Professional Security/Facility Management Services - Including Security Consulting, Training and Facility Management Consulting.” It was not stated in the question whether JI's RFQ had a limiting statement in their RFQ. I would agree that if JI's RFQ had language limiting who may submit a response, then it stands to reason that any response received from a contractor without that Schedule/SIN would not be accepted. Without such limiting language, I do not believe that specific GAO case would apply for the question cited here. BZ - I do not understand how do you interpret that 8.404 not to apply to acquisitions under 8.405-2? I would argue that since 8.404 is the general overall instructions that 8.404(f) does indeed apply. Since the FAR is silent on the eBuy topic but clearly states the language in 8.404(f), I stand by my original position that a copy of the RFQ must be provided. This does not state or imply that a quote received must be accepted and evaluated, merely that they are required to provide a copy of the RFQ.
  2. We deal with schedule contract holders that use subs all the time. However, they are limited in what they can charge, as they can only charge what the negotiated rate is in the Schedule contract. That discourages many "prime" contractors from doing this as they cannot charge a "pass-through" or "up-charge" for subcontract management.
  3. BZ, How does your post deal with 8.404(f)? (f) If the ordering activity issues an RFQ, the ordering activity shall provide the RFQ to any schedule contractor that requests a copy of it.
  4. I agree you have to provide to any Schedule contractor who requests it, but there are other circumstances that may factor in, and without the information I am not sure of how to reply. For example, did the solicitation state that any offerors must hold 899-1? Did the solicitation state that all responses must be through the eBuy system? If so, then any contractor that does not have that SIN would not be able to comply as only companies with that SIN awarded will have access to that RFQ in the eBuy system. Would a company that does not possess that SIN be able to meet the requirements via their Schedule contract? Under the Schedules program, a company can only sell via the Schedule those products/services at the prices/rates approved by the GSA CO. I ask this because if the company does not have 899-1 and you have deemed that Schedule to be the one that the scope of your SOW/PWS falls within, can they fulfill the requirement under whatever Schedule contract they have?
  5. As far as modifying your GSA Schedule contract, yes you can typically modify between option periods (except within the last 60 days prior to the end of the current contract period) The applicable clauses are: 552.216-70, if pricing is based on a Commercial Price List (CPL). I-FSS-969, if pricing is not based on a CPL and you wish to negotiate either a set escalation rate increase or a rate based on a market indicator of some sort. Can it be retroactively applied? Well, normally the answer is no (although I have seen stranger things). I have seen rare cases where the current rate is established based on what increases "would have happened" over the previous years, but again, that is not the norm. The best advice, as given by Vern, is to contact your GSA Contracting Officer .
  6. Just curious what everyone's take is on the latest "hot thing", the Federal Strategic Support Initiatives.
  7. I agree with Vern, as I know of no reasons why this would not be permissible. I also see it as an opportunity. I have been on many SSEBs where this situation existed with other members. In every case, the employees were able to provide intelligent input into the conversations and I would imagine they impressed their supervisors with their active participation. Personally, I never saw any situations where the supervisor attempted to influence the employee during the board meetings (of course what happened, if anything, before/after the board meetings is unknown to me).
  8. Another side-effect of this situation is that if you attempt to do a "call" on a BPA or exercise an option on a contract that is no longer active, the FPDS-NG record will reject the input. I know that back when I worked for the Army (just a few years ago), if FPDS-NG rejected the input, PD2 would not allow you to process the action.
  9. I would recommend contacting the contracting officer and asking him/her to review and advise the Acceptor. If the KO can state there are not missing pages and the page numbers were simply a clerical error or system issue, the Acceptor's concerns could easily be addressed.
  10. I have a solicitation where one of the requirements is that an offeror has to have the listed NAICS code in their ORCA in order for them to submit an offer. In 13 CFR 121.402( it states, "... Acquisitions for supplies must be classified under the appropriate manufacturing NAICS code, not under a Wholesale Trade or Retail Trade NAICS code..." Since this solicitation is for an IDIQ contract for supplies, I would assume that we should follow this CFR. I have been an 1102 for awhile, and when I came across this CFR reference in a WIFCON post, it surprised me. I wonder why this isn't incorporated into the FAR somewhere (or at least I could not find it), as I would imagine many (if not most) 1102s are not aware of this. I have seen many FBO posts listing wholesale or retail NAICS codes. If a company is a retail company (for example, a department store), they would logically not have the manufacturing NAICS code in their ORCA registration. Could they add these NAICS codes in order to be in compliance with the solicitation, or would they be violating some law/rule/etc..? Or should local policy of the solicitation requirement be removed? Thank you in advance for your input.
  11. GSA routinely removes products from their Schedules when they discover that the items are not TAA compliant. With over 19,000 companies and millions of products, the COs cannot police every item, and rely on self-certification from the contractors. In many cases the contractors don't even know the country of origin as they receive the items from their suppliers. There are plenty of helpful citizens that bring these items to GSA's attention and when that is done, they get the products removed. As far as your basic question goes, I believe your interpretation of the FAR is correct, and that for micro-purchases the BAA and TAA do not apply.
  12. Actually, the normal period for a Schedule contract is 20 years. A 5yr base with 3-5yr options.
  13. For Q1, I would recommend contacting the GSA Contracting Officer. Be prepared to send the CO the documents pertaining to the acquisition of XYZ, as that CO will probably need them to send to their Legal to determine if a novation is to be done, or if another course of action is required, or nothing at all. Q2. See Q1 above. Q3. It might. Do you know if Company B is an Inverted Domestic Corporation? There are some issues that may arise, so once again I would recommend contacting XYZ's contracting officer.
  14. I would love the supplements to disappear. As someone who has transferred agencies a couple of times, learning that agency's supplement can be a pain. However, is that feasible? With specific language going into DoD appropriations, or VA, or whoever, it is possible to get rid of the supplements?
  15. Agreeing with Vern, the standard FSS contract awarded by GSA are 5-year IDIQ contracts with 3 5-year options.
  16. Vern, thank you for the correction... I often miss my 5th grade English teacher. <laugh>
  17. I do not know that there is anything "wrong" with it. There are several product lines on GSA contracts with multiple resellers, so I don't know that there really is any issue. Reading your question, it appears you are eluding to a collusion situation, and I guess my question would be, "What is the incentive for the other two companies to put those products on their schedule if the major reseller (who probably has the lower prices) does so?"
  18. The FSS's Price Reduction Clause is not triggered by sales to federal agencies (see GSAR 552.238-75). You are correct in that the VA must ask for a larger price discount, and also correct in that the contractor is not required to provide it. I would recommend that the terms of the BPA be read and understood, as if there are any pricing specifications, it should be stated within this document. I would hope that the CO would use the potential of the increased coverage/sales as leverage to negotiate an additional discount, incorporate that into the BPA, and thereby pass the additional savings on to all the authorized BPA users.
  19. My guess (and I'm sure Vern will correct me if I am wrong) is that it is because under a FFP it really doesn't matter to the gov't how much they pay for the items, since the price the gov't will pay is unchanged.
  20. Upon further review, perhaps I should put this into context. If you are sending a nationwide survey to hundreds (if not thousands) of 1102s, the survey should not be 30-45 minutes and should not include text-box answers. With that many respondents, it is not practicable that the text box answers will really be taken into consideration. If you want to maximize participation, keep the survey to no longer than 15 minutes (as opposed to the 5 I stated before). Any longer than that and I believe most people lose interest and the validity of the responses decline as people get to the point where they are just answering questions quickly to get through the survey.
  21. A lot would depend on your agency's requirements for documentation requirements. It also depends if you're using the GPC as the purchase method or the payment method. If a FSS BPA is established, I would think that the payment method could be the GPC, but the purchase method was probably done via a RFQ or other type of solicitation. The BPA could easily be written to include the GPC as the payment method. As far as FPDS-NG goes, each agency handles differently. A few years ago when I worked for the Army, they would consolidate it quarterly and report. I agree with Vern (and really, who doesn't?) that more information is needed before a more detailed response could be given.
  22. One reason. It is way too long. When you see that it takes 30-45 minutes to complete, a person thinks, "I don't have that much time" and they skip it. I think no survey should be longer than 5 minutes.
  23. You are correct that GSA Schedule contracts will lag when it comes to new clauses (as do most IDIQ-type contracts). The current policy is that the Schedule contracts be refreshed at least semi-annually. In regards to the second part of your question, an ordering activity may add any clause to their RFQ and resultant DO/TO as long as it does not conflict with clauses already in the Schedule contract. This makes it easy for DoD agencies to add the DFARS clauses where needed, as an example.
  24. Subject Matter Expert is the most common use of SME that I'm aware of.
×
×
  • Create New...