Jump to content
The Wifcon Forums and Blogs


  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by Desparado

  1. I apologize for the font issue.. Apparently when I copied/pasted the protest info, it messed things up somehow.
  2. There have been at least 4 protest decisions (latest being Crosstown Courier Service, Inc., B-406262, Mar 21, 2012) which have stated that the VA must consider SDVOSB and VOSB businesses before it can consider using FSS procedures. Now that there is explicit authority to set-aside acquisitions in Part 8 (although per another discussion on WIFCON, it should have been going on all along), do you think the VA could set-aside an acquisition for and SDVOSB using FSS Procedures and be compliant?
  3. Interesting, but I would also point out that GSA Schedule contracts include the commercial clauses (52.212-3, 4, and 5). What additional clauses is your colleague recommending including? It is GSA's goal to make the ordering process simpler and more expedient than when using open market procedures.
  4. My opinion is that the effective date is just that... the date it is effective, and therefore you should not issue any task orders until that effective date. Where I have worked it is common practice to exercise the option several weeks (or in the case of GSA, months) prior to expiration so that there is no risk in a lapse of service or expiration of contract.
  5. I've always thought this subpart was oddly written, and no, I have not done this. In my past most of the items I added for administrative convenience were under the micropurchase threshold and therefore I did not run into any issues. On a side note, have you discussed with the FSS Contractors about adding these items to their Schedule contract?
  6. I have worked for the Army, VA and GSA, and have never heard that term used.
  7. Before the recent change, I believe the language of 8.404(a) had been widely interpreted as "If Part 19 does not apply, then we can't set anything aside". Before the rewrite of 8.405-5, Agencies have always been able to give "evaluation preference" to socioeconomic categories, but now that the rewrite has occurred, they have the ability to actually set things aside.
  8. Based on the scenario provided, I believe once you document the justification for the single-award BPA, you have no obligation to post justifications for calls against that BPA. The BPA was fully competed, so I see no reason you would need to prepare any further justifications.
  9. Perhaps I am missing something in your question. From the way I read it, it appears that a competition was done, and then the quote the contracting officer elected to select is offering product A. In this case, the decision for a specific brand name was not made by the requiring activity prior to release of the RFQ. It is merely the product of the winning quote. If this is the case, I do not see where a brand name justification comes into play. Now the decision for a Single Award BPA (especially if the RFQ stated it would be Multiple) may be another issue, but that does not appear to be your question. Or is it?
  10. Our office is 100% paperless. All offers are received via an electronic offer system, we process everything electronically, and sign all documents (awards, PNMs, etc...) via a digital signature. The conversion was tough, especially for workers who are less computer-friendly, but eventually everyone in our office has come to enjoy working in a paperless environment. This has been a gateway to working more in a telework environment, as our agency has issued each of us a laptop and a blackberry and we can work from anywhere. Our electronic contract filing system was very slow when we first converted to it, but as they have improved capacity and processing speed, we have found it to be very easy to use.
  11. I work for a GSA Schedule contracting office, and I can attempt to address some of the issues here. Please note I do not work for the IT Schedule, so I cannot be specific as to the particular issue you raise. There are several reasons we may cancel a contract, but the two most common I have ran into is because either the Contractor has requested it in accordance with this previously cited clause, or because they fail to meet the minimum sales criteria. In any event, when the modification is entered into our contracting system, an effective date is also entered. As our system automatically feeds into FPDS-NG, I do not know (and to be honest have never researched) what that feed looks like. However, it is our office's opinion that once that effective date has been reached, no orders could be placed against the Contract, or options exercised. In fact, if a contracting office were to attempt to place an order or exercise an option when they get into FPDS, they should receive an error message that the Schedule contract number is not valid. Now, as far as your question regarding eLibrary goes, I would not automatically make the assumption that because a contract is not listed, it has been cancelled. Yes, in a perfect world, that would make sense, however there are a couple of other circumstances that can also cause a contract to not show up in eLibrary. The first is that if a Contractor has not updated their information in the last 2 years, their entry is deleted in the eLibrary system. This does not terminate or cancel their contract, but does stop their information from being displayed in eLibrary. The second is the standard "systems issues" which we encountered last January and could easily come again. If you run into a situation, the best advice I would give is to call the GSA Contracting officer or Schedule Supervisor for information if you run into this again.
  12. 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.
  13. 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.
  14. 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.
  15. 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.
  16. 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.
  17. 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.
  18. I don't know about that particular company, but we receive many requests from companies represented by "agents" or "consultants".
  19. 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.
  20. 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.
  21. 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.
  22. 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...
  23. 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.
  24. @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.
  25. Do you have a reference for that requirement? I currently work for GSA and that information would be helpful. Thanks.
  • Create New...