Jump to content
The Wifcon Forums and Blogs


  • Content count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

0 Neutral

About ji20874

  • Rank
    Platinum Member

Contact Methods

  • Website URL

Profile Information

  • Gender
  • Location

Recent Profile Visitors

22,924 profile views
  1. el conejo, You don't need a citation. The protester didn't give you a citation. There is no basis for the protester's argument, so the protest can be denied because the protester failed to establish the basis of the protest.
  2. Dear Sir (or Ma'am), i am in receipt of your protest to the agency of our award of a task (or delivery) order to _____ for __________. The basis for your protest is that we relied on your quotation of 8/18/2017 in evaluation and award process, rather than your quotation of 6/29/2017. Your quotation of 6/29/2017 was sought for market research purposes, and was used for market research purposes. Your quotation of 8/18/2017 was sought for a purchase, and was used for that purpose. Your later quotation (of 8/18/2017) was materially different from your earlier quotation (of 6/29/2017). One supposes you could have extended your earlier quotation if you wanted us to use it for our purchase, but you did not. Instead, you provided a new quotation. We reasonably used your new quotation for our evaluation and award process. There is no basis for your argument that we should have used your earlier quotation instead of your later quotation for our evaluation and award process. Your protest is denied. i appreciate your interest in Government procurement. /s/ Contracting Officer
  3. When the question is the authority that someone relied on for a specific action taken by that person, the very best answer is to ask that person. Asking the contracting officer directly is very good advice -- sometimes it's the best advice.
  4. Please ask the person who sent the e-mail.
  5. No. That is not a partial set-aside. Rather, that is reserving some awards for small businesses. See FAR 19.502-4, where reserves are covered by para. (a) and set-asides are covered by para. (b). I am supposing that Alliant WAS NOT a partial set--aside.
  6. J&A Requirement

    FAR 6.302-1(c) refers only to products, not services. The original poster seems to be talking about services. Therefore, I don't think FAR 6.302-1 applies in this scenario where a small percentage of the contract is for work on items which must be performed by the item OEMs. The solution may be as simple as a statement of work blurb saying that the needed services must be performed by the OEM or one of its licensees or dealers. This may be true because of product warranty or similar considerations. I'm thinking that a J&A is not needed.
  7. napolik, Maybe the Alliant contracting officer didn't have a reasonable expectation that small businesses could fulfill the entire requirement. I'm supposing, but that would be a valid reason.
  8. page limitations on proposals

    As long as the Government is expected to read and understand every word in a technical proposal, and unsuccessful offerors will try to re-do the technical evaluation in a protest, then page limits make sense.
  9. page limitations on proposals

    I think there is some merit to 1, 3, and 5. And in the current environment, tight page limits generally make sense.
  10. Your CEO can condition the discount on a minimum -- such as $100 each for units 1-500 and a 10% discount for quantities over that. You need to treat this as a business proposition and play ball, or walk away for other opportunities. Or, pose the question directly to the agency.
  11. Does para. (c)(4) of the clause at FAR 52.215-1 (or other similar provision in your solicitation) help you?
  12. Joel, I didn't say anything about the way we've always done it. Perhaps your comment to me was mis-addressed?
  13. Waiver of Amounts Due the Government

    Maybe there is another way to look at it, in order to make it okay? At least it is mutual and works both ways. I suppose both parties could agree, for administrative efficiency and to avoid nickels and dimes, that any amounts due by or to either party will be rounded downward to the nearest $500 increment -- so $415 gets rounded down to zero and $1,215,412 gets rounded down to $1,215,000. If so, then they could agree to limit the effect to closeout. Since the clause has been in effect for 22 years, and since there was probably a legally sufficient determination at the first, and since it has stood the test of time, I'm willing to leave it alone. I say this as a contracting practicioner, not as an attorney and not as a party that would be aggrieved. I suppose anyone wanting to object to the clause should do so before proposals are submitted, rather than after contract formation.
  14. Joel, You may err in your conclusion -- this is not a design-build discussion; rather, this is a FPI discussion focusing on whether the target and ceiling prices may be different.