Desparado

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.

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).

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?

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.

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.

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.

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

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.

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.

While working for DoD, I ran across this several times while processing ratifications. Nothing ever happened to the offender and in many cases, that person was congratulated for "getting the mission accomplished". Most requiring activities have the opinion of, "Here's what I want, here's my money, make it happen". They don't care about the rules and see the FAR as a hinderance to mission accomplishment. The sad part is if they had come to us prior to breaking the rules, we could have gotten their precious mission accomplished legally.

For me, it's Part 15. All of the FAR is applicable, of course, but Part 15 is the one that is utilized the most (in my humble opinion).

Vern - It will be nice when a re-write comes out. Since the current version specifically states, "... listed below in descending order of priority" many people interpret that as written... Even with the recent GAO decisions, my old boss interpreted it to be "Yes, you don't HAVE to buy from a non-mandatory source", but you have to consider it before you can go open market and justify why you're not using it." so the re-write needs to be done.

When I worked for the VA, they took 8.002 very seriously. I had to document in my Market Research memorandum what FSS research I did before I could purchase Open Market. It didn't have to be verbose, but it did have to detail what schedules I reviewed and then I had to make a "determination" that no FSS schedules applied before I could initiate an Open Market purchase. To directly answer your question. If your agency views 8.002 as a literal policy, you probably just need to document your market research and then drive on.

Ft. Monmouth used to do some reverse auctioning, but then the Army fell in love with FedBid and I haven't heard much from Monmouth since. I wish the government had a government-owned/operated reverse auctioning site instead of using FedBid. The surcharge that FedBid charges to the Contractor (who of course passes it on to the Government) raises the costs the taxpayer pays. Now FedBid will argue that the reverse-auctioning process will save more than the surcharge charges, but my experience with reverse-auctioning does not bear that out. In fact, most times Contractors will bid only once (the same amount minus the surcharge that they would have sent in response to a normal RFQ). To be applicable for services, the services would have to be well defined with no room for negotiation. Reverse-auctioning is only good for a pseudo IFB, because it is based on price only. There used to be a long discussion thread on FedBid (where FedBid themselves participated in the discussion). I wasn't able to find it however.

1. Per 13.202(a)(2), the timeline is simply as long as it takes to make the purchase as long as the contracting officer or individual appointed considers the price to be reasonable. 2-5. The timeline for acquisition planning, market research, etc... will depend on the complexity of the purchase. It can be a few days or several months. It is often the requirement, not the threshold, that will determine the length of time for these tasks. In the Commercial realm, the FAR gives us maximum flexibility in some areas of timeline. For example, 5.203 allows the KO to "Establish a shorter period for issuance of the solicitation". There are some KOs that use this flexibility to synopsize the requirement in the morning, and release the solicitation in the afternoon. 12.205 states that "... the contracting officer may allow fewer than 30 days response time for receipt of offers for commerical items, unless the acquisition is covered by the World Trade Organization Government Procurement Agreement or a Free Trade Agreement..." I have seen this (especially at year-end) be used as the justification to release a solicitation on September 27th with a due date of September 29th for a simple purchase of supplies. Once the bids/offers are in, the evaluation time has mitigating factors as well. Was this lowest price? LPTA? SSEB? Each of these have different time requirements. Simple low price will take as long as it takes to look at the numbers and do the responsibility checks. The SSEB process can take months. And then there are the pre-award reviews, which depending on the agency can take a few days to several weeks. I'm not trying to duck your question, but there really are several factors that play a part on the timeline. I have worked on simple commercial purchases that the entire process has taken less than a week, but I have worked on other more complex purchases that have taken over a year. Sorry I can't provide more of a definitive answer for you.

JLJordan, It has been a couple of years since I worked with SPS... thanks for the update! I note that you say that you "can now choose", so does that mean it is still non-mandatory and the KO can elect whether or not to use the UCF for commerical purchases?

I think we will need more details before we can properly respond... There are many variables that affect the timeline. Commercial / Non-commerical Internal Review Requirements Dollar thresholds Etc...

I believe the FAR is flexible enough to allow you to either use the UCF or not. The UCF is in Part 15.204-1 of the FAR, so if you are doing a Part 12/15 acquisition I would think that you "could" certainly use the UCF. However, if you don't want to use the UCF, you can look at 12.204 which does not require anything other than the SF1449 (and for purchases not exceeding the SAT, that isn't even mandatory). I know that the DoD's "wonder" SPS program does not use the UCF on commercial purchases, and neither does the VA's eCMS program. Now, as it has been pointed out several times on various discussion boards, we should not let the tool dictate the process but since the developers of both programs did not included this in their respective systems, it also leads me to believe that it is not required to use the UCF. SPS just throws everything after the SF1449 and eCMS created their own "Sections" to put things into. Seems like there is no specific structure required.

The only clause I can think of that limits you to one Contractor is the Requirements Clause (52.216-21). ( c ) Except as this contract otherwise provides, the Government shall order from the Contractor all the supplies or services specified in the Schedule that are required to be purchased by the Government activity or activities specified in the Schedule. However, even this clause has 2 "outs". The first is the statement "Except as this contractor otherwise provides", and the second is paragraph (e) (e) If the Government urgently requires delivery of any quantity of an item before the earliest date that delivery may be specified under this contract, and if the Contractor will not accept an order providing for the accelerated delivery, the Government may acquire the urgently required goods or services from another source. Is this an IDIQ or Requirements contract?

This (to me) brings FAR 22.18 into question. I have heard that President Obama has delayed implementation of e-verify again, but it has been added to the FAR. If that is in effect, would that address your question?

Well, AbilityOne (formally JWOD) does have special rules in FAR 8.7, especially 8.705-1 where it states that offices "shall" obtain supplies and services on the Procurement List... Any complaints against AbilityOne are supposed to be handled IAW 8.711 Are you having problems with an AbilityOne supplier/contractor?

Question: Why would a CO issue two mods at the same time that conflict?

I see on the WIFCON site this morning that GAO is standing firm on its original position. I guess everyone hates to admit when they've made a mistake.

Have you been to the DOL Wage Determination website? http://www.wdol.gov/

When I was with DoD, we had many of those situations. What we would do is issue a modification within the prescribed timeframe to exercise the option stating it was contigent upon the availability of funds, and then on October 1st issue a second modification to assign the funding. Our contract attorney said we "had" to do it this way because if we attempted to exercise an option on October 1st, we couldn't do so unilaterally because the contract expired on September 30th. To me, it seemed like alot of extra work (2 mods times the number of contracts that you have that fall into this situation), but it has become the way that we did things in that office.