Desparado

Pebbles, I would fall into that catagory that would not want to be an APC for anything. To me, not only could it be repetitive which would bore me, but I have seen people get pigeon-holed in GPC and never able to get a position back in "real" contracting. It's a specialty. Now if you're close to retirement, this may be the perfect job. The last APC I knew loved her job and stayed in it for the last 6 years of her worklife... then she retired happily. She would always tell me that no matter how many trainings were provided, people continued to misue the card either because they hit a "grey area" or just had to "get the job done" and deal with the reprocussions later. Not uncommon in DoD. If you are with DoD, be sure to learn/know the additional regulations that DoD and the Branch puts on their cardholders. Knowledge is key...

I want to thank everyone for the discussion. Lots of good reading here. I appreciate it!

Can you award a contract for a Base Item (x) and with Options to purchase other items (y and z)? For example, you wish to purchase 30 of x and to have options to purchase 15 of y and 13 of z within the next 8 months. x, y, and z are different items (but within the same industry and NAICS code). If you can do this, what FAR Options Clause would you include? The concept behind this was to purchase what you need and can pay for now, with the option to purchase the other items later without having to go out and do the competition later. Theoretically, the items have already been competed with the original solicitation and we could just exercise the options as the need and funds become available. Thoughts? Thank you, in advance.

I was always under the impression that the Award Date is the date that the Contracting Officer signs the document, and the effective date is the date that the contract goes into effect. For example, you could sign an award in November for a contract that begins on January 1.

Everyone - thank you for your responses. They have been helpful. Carl - the link was especially helpful.. thank you!

Formerfed. I tried to find that amendment to 13 CFR but was unsuccessful. Do you have a link to it by chance? Thank you!

Well, wouldn't that defeat one of the purposes of setting things aside? To help the small business grow. If this is the case, a small business could never receive an award for a contract that would put them out of the small category... Don't most small businesses wish to make more money? Just thinking out loud. I tried to do some searching through decisions, but can't find anything that references this specifically.

Situation (with fictional dollar amounts) An award is to be made to a company that is currently a Small Business ($5M in gross sales) when compared to the standard ($7M in gross sales). The solicitation was released as a Small Business Set-Aside. The contract is a Requirements-type contract that, if all options are exercised, will cause the gross sales amount to be $8.5M per year (base+4). Before someone asks why it was set-aside when the annual amount will be $8.5M, the IGE was way off (big surprise) and it was thought that the amount would only be $6M. Question: When it comes time to exercise the Options, is the Contracting Officer required to annually verify that the business still qualifies as a Small Business before it can pick up an Option? Or is the verification only at time of award of the base contract? Can this contract be awarded knowing that the amount is likely to exceed the size standard? Thank you.

Everywhere... sorry to sound so ambiguous, but I see the terms used interchangeably in SOWs, PWSs, RFQs, RFPs... everywhere.. Are they interchangeable? I was originally taught (probably wrongly) that a "vendor" was like the soda machine company or a hot-dog vendor, where they are allowed to sell on government land but must pay a percentage (or fixed fee) to do so... and that a "contractor" was a company that via contract provided a product, service, or construction to the Government for a price. Now as I'm getting a little older doing this stuff, I'd like to be sure of some of the terminology before I get too much farther... I looked in Part 2 of the FAR, but didn't see either defined. Then I did a FAR Search on one of the FAR websites and both terms are used frequently. Any clarification is appreciated.

Is there a difference in the definition of a "Contractor" versus a "Vendor"? Thank you.

1 - What BAA clause(s) were in the solicitation? To me, the BAA is one of the most confusing pieces of legislation dealing with acquisition. What dollar threshold was the acquisition? 2 - FAR 15.506(d) covers what, at a minimum, the debriefing information shall include, and none of the items mentioned in Question Two are contained in that section.

Or 8(a) sole-source contracts either. I do not see that it has to be "full and open", so things could be set-aside for competetive procurements using Small Business, HUBZone, etc.. At least that's how I see it... What will be interesting is that once this is passed, how long will it take the different agencies to read it, interpret it, and issue their guidance. Out here in the field, I won't know if this was Stimulus Money or normal annual appropriations... so I could inadvertantly violate the law. Woo-hoo!!

I was always taught (right or wrong) that with a Requirements-type contract you have to purchase the items from the awarded Contractor. This would not work with a multiple award, in which case you would probably use an IDIQ type of contract(s). In the Requirements Clause 52.216-21 it states: ( 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. Now paragraphs d and e give an "out" for particular situations, but otherwise the Requirements-type contract should not be multiple award (or at least so says my old contract attorney).

With the stimulus package coming, and no additional workforce to work it, it's scary. The concept of throwing money at the problem can be debated all you want, but unless there is staffing in place to work the contracting actions associated with it, the recovery (if any) is going to be severely delayed.

Don, so do you agree with the previous posts that for a Commercial Acquisition, the completion of ORCA is voluntary per 52.212-3? I can't see how we can "require" them to do it if the provision states that they can fill out the paperwork instead. Thank you everyone for your input.

I believe that will depend on the contract. As the COTR, you should have a copy of the contract and if so you should be able to discern from the PWS the type of work the Contractor is to provide. If the courses are listed by course number/title, you may have been told correctly. For example, if the contract contains something like this: CON100 - Contractor shall provide one (1) week of instruction IAW DAU standards and criteria... (this paragraph would be long). Then all you should have to do on your Task Order is to state that the Contractor is to provide CON100 instruction in accordance with the PWS and the dates of the instruction. If the contract is not that detailed, then you would need to detail the instruction to be provided in your task order. How else can you hold the Contractor to what they are supposed to provide? Hope this helps.

FAR 4.1201(a) states the following: (a) Prospective contractors shall complete electronic annual representations and certifications at http://orca.bpn.gov in conjunction with required registration in the Central Contractor Registration (CCR) database (see FAR 4.1102). ( b ) (1) Prospective contractors shall update the representations and certifications submitted to ORCA as necessary, but at least annually, to ensure they are kept current, accurate, and complete. The representations and certifications are effective until one year from date of submission or update to ORCA. (2) When the conditions in paragraph ( b ) of the clause at 52.219-28, Post-Award Small Business Program Rerepresentation, apply, contractors that represented they were small businesses prior to award of a contract must update the representations and certifications in ORCA as directed by the clause. Contractors that represented they were other than small businesses prior to award of a contract may update the representations and certifications in ORCA as directed by the clause, if their size status has changed since contract award. ( c ) Data in ORCA is archived and is electronically retrievable. Therefore, when a prospective contractor has completed representations and certifications electronically via ORCA, the contracting officer must reference the date of ORCA verification in the contract file, or include a paper copy of the electronically-submitted representations and certifications in the file. Either of these actions satisfies contract file documentation requirements of 4.803(a)(11). However, if an offeror identifies changes to ORCA data pursuant to the FAR provisions at 52.204-8( c ) or 52.212-3( b ), the contracting officer must include a copy of the changes in the contract file. BUT... the beginning of Provision 52.212-3 states: An offeror shall complete only paragraphs ( b ) of this provision if the offeror has completed the annual representations and certificates electronically at http://orca.bpn.gov . If an offeror has not completed the annual representations and certifications electronically at the ORCA website, the offeror shall complete only paragraphs © through (m) of this provision. If I am soliciting for a commercial item and include 52.212-3, are the prospective contractors required to complete ORCA or can they simply complete paragraphs ( c ) through (m) of the provision? Seems contradictory to me. Thank you for any insight you can provide.

The Government is willing to pay 5% more to award to a business with a socio-economic category than it is a large business. Anything greater than 5% is not considered "fair and reasonable".