sdvr

Hi All, During a recent audit GSA has recently pointed us the following statement on their FAQ page- In a Contractor Team Arrangement (CTA) do all members of the team have to contribute some items of value from their GSA Schedule to the solution? Yes, all members of a CTA must contribute items of value from their GSA Schedule contract to the customer agency's solution. Two questions came up- Is there some regulatory (FAR etc...) that backs this? I cant find anything in the schedule or the MAS desk reference that backs this. What defines "items of value" ? More than one item? A certain $ threshold? Social economic status? I am curious if anyone else has seen this come up...

From the contractor side--- NITAAC is typically easier to work with, GSA can be difficult. Pricing should be similar, and the fee from NITAAC is less. Cant speak to the customer side.

I am going to propose using the nations landfills and sewage to build a 30 foot high wall of $h!t. With no EPA, we can knock out a few problems at once...

Also a vendor can add the NAICS on the fly, there is no approval process.

Is TAA required? If so your chromebook is out... Do you require US based support? Do you have energystar or EPEAT requirements? Does your agency have an approved products list? Are Operating Systems other than Microsoft approved for use ? This isnt easy in the commercial area either, but the questions are more defined and the chain of command is smaller.

From the contractor side, we have done it once. It was mainly a worthwhile process. The ombudsman backed the original decision. When it got to GAO the government elected to do a corrective action. The only reason we went this route was an attempt to avoid a public protest. I also think there is general belief that the ombudsman process cuts into the GAO timeline. Its not correct, but that view make some see the ombudsman process as a risk.

Software as Service can be done in a few different ways... Imagine a per user per month scenario, where charges are based by actual users per month. Still FFP, but billed at the actual usage. Would still have a POP. Also many software companies have converted "subscription licenses" to SaaS. They own the IP and the actual software, and charge for access for the most recent version. I look at SaaS as more of a payment option. Doesn't change the product, or how its being delivered, just how its being billed. Now I have no clue on the PSC question.

From the contractor side, 60 days isn't always enough. I never understood why there is an assumption that a RFP that took 18 months to develop only needs 30 days to respond. Not to mention late extensions or Q/A that change our response parameters. But in the end, a wise proposal writer once said " You never finish a proposal, you just run out of time".

I would remind you that price is not always the most important factor. Requiring the use of another MA IDIQ can lower the risk to the government by ensuring supply chain, quality, etc. Not to mention if that MA IDIQ is run out of the same office, the government gets an extra layer of visibility and control.

We have shipped parts etc. using an APO, but I would not recommend it. The delivery time frame is slower, and there is no trace-ability should something get lost.

SEWP's stance is here - https://support.sewp.nasa.gov/link/portal/15028/15032/Article/43/Can-I-pay-for-maintenance-up-front . The general answer is yes, you can require payment in arrears, but the contractor is going to make you pay for it. If the contractor has to pre-pay, that cost is going to be extended to the customer in someway. Or, most likely no one will quote it.

Yes this would be vendor specific term (outside of SEWP's control) , and software is a different animal. Still the same discussion though, its a warranty, not maintenance. And the vendor (HP or whomever) will be able to dictate this, as there wont be a 3rd party option.

So this is two questions-- Can the government pay for 3 years of warranty upfront - Answer is yes, as its a warranty, not maintenance. You are not buying a service, you are buying a COTS warranty. Maintenance and warranty are not the same, but the two terms get interchanged often. Does HP offer a one year warranty- Depends on the product line, but you always have the option of a 3rd party warranty...

Sorry - a little late here but - Shouldn't the contract have the re-seller's cage code and GSA contract? And then reference the CTA and the other GSA schedule at the line item level? Unless its an agent program, then the payment should go to GSA contract holder that has it on its schedule, right?

The company in question had a "virtual office" as their primary Hubzone address. This was pointed out to the SBA (not by us) and the SBA has pulled the certification (it no longer shows in the SBA dynamic search). I say as best as we can tell as we don't know what actions the SBA will or has taken. There is more to this story, but I am only talking about the facts, no guesses here.

From what we can tell yes, but nothing public has been announced. They falsified their Hubzone application.

Ji- Sorry if I came across as threatening, not my intent. Just trying to understand the process and the options in front of us. Retreadfed - Great point. The government did nothing wrong in this scenario. False claims would probably be the only viable option, and that is whole other can of worms. It looks like my real question was what is the government required to do, and the answer is nothing. No tasks have been completed so we will hope they cancel and at the very least re-compete. Thanks again to all for your answers.

Ji and BZ - Thanks for the answers... Yes we are interested party, we were # 2. A protest wasn't filed originally because no one was aware the social economic status wasn't legitimate. The SBA just pulled the certification this week. My thought was the government should cancel the contract, but you confirmed my fear, they are under no obligation to. I guess the last question would be if a protest could be called timely, since the information was just discovered..

A question for you all... A contractor is awarded a FFP best value contract where the most important evaluation factor is social-economic status. Then well outside the protest period (6 months later) it is determined the contractor made false representations to gain the social-economic status. What are the possible actions? Should the government take action? Should the SBA? Should a false claims act be filed? Would a GAO protest now be timely, as the information was only recently discovered? Thanks for your input!

I ask this question often in my world, as we supply Commercial of the shelf IT equipment. If a small business is supplying a Dell computer, how can they possible do 50% of the work? Dell makes it, ships it and warranties it, what exaclty does the small buisness do and what percentage is that given?

Hello, We are a IT reseller of COTS products (Dell HP Cisco etc.) We do not manufacturer anything. We were informed by a customer that they could no longer do a small buisness set-aside on a BPA we are one of 6 holders on because you can't do a set-aside a GSA based contract. This doesnt really make sense as why would any reseller have a GSA contract? How would a small buisness ever win a "full and open" competition? Am I missing something ?