Jump to content
The Wifcon Forums and Blogs

Desparado

Members
  • Content Count

    338
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by Desparado

  1. We have to keep in mind that FAR Part 8.4 was recently changed, and prior to that multiple-year single-award BPAs were permitted. Also, some agencies have issued waivers for long-term O&M BPAs (PBS is an example). There is a requirement (and has been for as long as I can remember) for an annual review of a BPA, which must be documented. See FAR 8.405-3(e). Other than that requirement, based on what you have described, there is no requirement for a formal "option exercising" process, imho. However, if this BPA was awarded after the re-write of FAR Part 8, I would agree with Napolik's comments.
  2. If it is an Open Market acquisition, you are not tied to your company's GSA Advantage prices. However, please note that if your federal customers find out that you sold the items at a higher price than you have on Advantage, your company's reputation will surely take a hit.
  3. Vern - I am curious as to your opinion of Dan Gordon's "Mythbusters" campaign. I was at the Coalition For Government Procurement's conference last week, and the entire theme of the conference was Mythbusters, and included Mr. Gordon speaking on the topic. I found the conversations interesting, but still have concerns.
  4. Another question: Was the GSA BPA a single-award or multiple-award BPA? See FAR 8.405-3© for ordering procedures against GSA BPAs. There are different rules for ordering against a single-award versus multiple-award BPAs. Hope this helps.
  5. I am assuming that your MFC and your Basis Of Award (BOA), which can be different, are in this case the same classification (for profit entities). By giving a deeper discount to a different class of customer, this may create a new MFC. If you are now giving non-profit entities a better price, they may now be deemed as the MFC. This would need to be disclosed when you prepare your next CSP-1 document (which could be at an Option, or at another time as your contract dictates). Now, although this new category of customer may end up being the new MFC, it may not in fact be the BOA if the buying patterns are different. This is definitely a discussion you should have with your GSA CO. I have many times seen situations where the MFC and/or the BOA may change depending on the mandatory disclosures on the CSP-1 document. I have also seen where the MFC is not the BOA because the buying patterns are significantly different.
  6. I checked some of the recent awards for one of the schedules I oversee, and this company did represent the contractor for one that was awarded recently, so I would have to say they are "legit". This statement does not endorse the aforementioned company.
  7. I don't know about that particular company, but we receive many requests from companies represented by "agents" or "consultants".
  8. For more information about ordering from a Schedule contract for a timeframe beyond the expiration date, I have pasted the below from the site http://www.gsa.gov/portal/content/101193: Options may be included on orders placed against GSA Multiple Award Schedule (MAS) contracts, provided that the options are clearly stated in the requirement and are evaluated as part of the ordering activity's best value determination. Such options may be exercised on GSA Schedule contract orders, provided that: Funds are available; The requirement covered by the option fulfills an existing government need; Prior to exercising an option, the ordering activity ensures that it is still in the government's best interest; i.e., that the option is the most advantageous method of fulfilling the government's need, price and other factors considered; and The options do not extend beyond the period of the Schedule contract, including option year periods. Under the preceding conditions, Blanket Purchase Agreements (BPAs) under Schedule contracts may be established with options that extend beyond the end of the basic Schedule contract period. The length of the order and the risk to the ordering activity could be considered as part of the overall evaluation of best value.
  9. A couple of points on this topic. Please remember that a GSA Schedules Contract is a 5yr contract with 3-5yr option periods, so it is highly likely that the contract you reference will have its option exercised and will run beyond 2013. This should eliminate the "open market" scenario. If the option is not exercised, then no further task orders could be executed or task-order-options exercised under the contract. A GSA Contractor can not charge a price as part of a Delivery/Task Order that is higher than their negotiated price on their schedule contract. To do so would be in violation of their contract and if caught they would have to refund the government, with interest. If they quote prices for 2013/2014 and those prices end up being higher than what is on their schedule contract, they are required to reduce the amounts to be no more than what is in their schedule contract. If you have any concerns with the GSA Schedule Contract, I would recommend contacting the contracting officer who administers the contract. They should be able to help you.
  10. Govt - There is a difference between a Schedule and a Schedule Contract. Our schedules (yes, I'm with GSA) run continuous without an end date. The contracts awarded under the schedules program however, are a different story. They are awarded as a 5yr contract with 3-5yr option periods, so they could last up to 20 years. To address the original question, the link provided previously is correct, you can award a BPA under a schedule contract past the current expiration date if there are additional options available for that contract. If you have a question concerning the availability of additional options, you should contact the Contracting Officer that administers that contract. They could easily get that information for you. Hope this helps.
  11. I would base your discount off of your Commercial Price List and not your GSA rate. GSA will always go after the Most Favored Customer rate, and thus creates a vicious cycle. Why would you want a reseller's price to be lower than your's anyway, just out of curiosity...
  12. That's just it, the PGI should go by what the DFARS states when it says, "As many schedule contractors as practicable". It should be consistent... and not try to put in additional requirements.
  13. @napolik I note that in DFARS (used to work for the Army) it states "As many schedule contractors as practicable, consistent with market research appropriate to the circumstances, to reasonably ensure that offers will be received from at least three contractors that can fulfill the requirements, and the contracting officer...". I do not see that as mandating eBuy. As far as the PGI goes, it states that eBuy, "is one medium for providing fair notice to all contractors as required by DFARS 208.405-70?(2)". Again, I do not see that as a mandate. When I worked for the Army, I disliked using eBuy because in many cases I wanted to streamline the process as much as possible. Using eBuy for some item/services creates numerous "No Quotes", or so many responses that my estimated timeline for evaluation gets tripled. One of the advantages of GSA Schedules is supposed to be the ability to get things done quicker. For non-DoD agencies, they merely have to survey at least three schedule contractors (for items not requiring a SOW), or solicit quotes from at least three sources (if there is a SOW). FAR 8.4 does state that if it is a large procurement that you have to expand your search "to additional schedule contractors that offer services that will meet the needs of the ordering activity". DoD has taken what is supposed to an easy process and complicated it. @Woops85 I just wish GSA would organize their AAs, PINs, PIBs, and all their other "guidance" into a more inclusive site. eCats is getting there, but is far short.
  14. Do you have a reference for that requirement? I currently work for GSA and that information would be helpful. Thanks.
  15. I've heard that the President is wanting insourcing to be done, but haven't seen a "directive" on it. Do you have a link?
  16. Yes, thank you. It appears, per the article, that there is a "proposed rule" that may go into effect prior to the end of the year. Time will tell if it will actually happens. Thanks again.
  17. I apologize for not being more detailed. The types of duties I am referring to is basically everything a Contract Specialist without a warrant would do. Prepare all pre-award documents (to include the Pre-negotiation Memorandum, Responsibility Determination, Determination of Price Reasonableness, Price Negotiation Memorandum, etc...) for the CO's signature. The contractors also perform post-award functions to include everything except the actual signing of the document(s). To me, the level of knowledge required to prepare this documentation is at least that of the education/training that 1102s are required to possess.
  18. To me, it would make sense for it to be the same. It's doing the same work, so why shouldn't the qualification to do that work be the same? I can think of reasons you'd need 1102 work to be done and not hire Civil Service (temporary increase in workload being the first one I think of).
  19. Common sense aside, is there anything in writing that states that a Contractor providing "Acquisition Support" (1102 type work, other than signing the documents) has to have the same basic education requirements as the 1102s that would be doing the same work in the same office?
  20. Our solicitation has a NAICS code associated with each SIN that is listed on the schedule. If an offeror puts in for more than one SIN, we would pick the NAICS code for the SIN where a majority of the offeror's sales would be forecasted. That selection would affect the need for a Sub-K plan, the listing in eLibrary, and the entry into fpds-ng. There is no set-aside on the schedule that I work on, so I do not know it would apply to that. Our contracting system (FSS Online) does not permit a different determination for each SIN. The determination is made at the Contract level. If a company were to have more than one contract, conceivably it could be Small for one contract and Large for another based upon the NAICS codes. I hope this helps.
  21. Looks like you are dealing with a MOBIS contract, and their rules may be different. The GSA schedule I work with has multiple NAICS codes on it, depending on the SIN(s) applied for, so the statement that, "GSA has decided that all schedules have to have only one NAIC" is not entirely accurate, but may be for the MOBIS schedule (I am not familiar with that schedule). Our schedule utilizes the 121.407 rule that you cited to determine which NAICS code will apply in business size determination. I still do not understand if the GSA CO would or would not permit you to request to change the size determination via modification (admin or otherwise). I know that on my schedule we have done that on a few occassions.
  22. When you exercised your option, how was your ORCA completed? Usually, when we (I am currently at GSA) come up to exercise a 5-year option, we pull the most current ORCA certification and use that as the primary basis for size determination. I believe Don is correct in that your first step should be to notify your GSA Contracting Officer with the details of the error. If it was truly an administrative error, the contracting officer should be able to change the size determination via modification.
  23. Is the 8(m) progam authorizing WOSB Set-Asides in effect? I've heard conflicting information on this and haven't seen anything through official channels (but it always takes forever for info to flow down). I am curious, if it is in effect, has anyone out there starting receiving implementation instructions? Thank you
  24. I used PD2 when I worked for DoD, and it's clause chooser STUNK!! I ended up having to delete everything it put in and do it the old fashioned way, and now I'm glad that I did... It helped me to learn about the different provisions/clauses and their applicability. The matrix in 52.3 is a decent starting point. However, nothing replacing the research that is necessary for each Part and their provisions/clauses. It is a shame, that as an Intern, you haven't been introduced enough to the FAR to know how to determine which clauses are required. That is not a remark about you, but about the sad shape of our intern programs. I would recommend taking the initiative and bug your trainer/coach to provide you with some instruction.
  25. I would recommend reviewing FAR 15.306. It appears that the communications you have had with these offerors goes beyond the definition of "clarifications" and would enter the "discussions" arena, which should only occur after the establishment of the competitive range (if one is established). The only reference I see for reviewing offers prior to the closing date is in 15.207( c ) and that only deals with unreadable documents. You also mention that these are things that you discovered prior to the closing time. Do you give the same review to someone who walks in with 30-seconds left and submits their offer? It sounds like the playing field may not have been level. I would recommend (in the future) not doing any "reviews" of offers other than to ensure they are readable. Otherwise, you open yourself up to the issue you currently have. As a KO, I would not want to establish a competitive range under the circumstances you describe other than to include everyone in it (again, to attempt to have a level playing field). Since the discussions are tailored toward each offer, the ones that are technically unacceptable probably won't get any better and will be removed at a later point.
×
×
  • Create New...