Jump to content
The Wifcon Forums and Blogs

ji20874

Members
  • Content Count

    1,566
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Posts posted by ji20874


  1. On 10/18/2018 at 10:06 AM, joel hoffman said:

    “(4) Unless otherwise specified in the solicitation, the offeror may propose to provide any item or combination of items.”

       *   *   *

    I brought up the possibility of offering price for a combination of items. So far nobody in this thread seems to know what that means or what paragraph (c)(4) means. 

    It seems easy to me.  One possible reading:  if the solicitation asks for CLIN 001, 002, and 003, an offeror could propose to provide any of the following—

    - CLIN 001

    - CLIN 002

    - CLIN 003

    - CLIN 001 and 002

    - CLIN 001 and 003

    - CLIN 002 and 003

    Another possible reading:  if a solicitation asks for ten tractor-trailer sets in a single CLIN, an offeror could propose to provide only trailers.

    None of the above is an alternate proposal.


  2. How about a two-step process?  STEP 1 tear-down and quote, STEP 2 repair.  You send an item to the vendor for STEP 1 at a firm-fixed-price.  The vendor does a tear-down and replies back to you with a FFP quote for the repair.  You negotiate the repair price and authorize the vendor to go into STEP 2 at a firm-fixed-price.

    In the commercial sector, there might be a pre-existing pricelist for every replacement part and procedure -- every item on the list is FFP. 

     

     


  3. elsmiles,

    Are you a Government contracting officer?  Government program manager?

    Why do you want to commit the rest of the federal Government to give money to your contract faster than the standard clauses allow?  Has the contractor made a promise of significant consideration for the proposed change?

    I recommend you leave well enough alone.  You already agreed to weekly invoices.


  4. If your proposed contract action is expected to be $25,000 exactly, then synopsis is not required.  See FAR 5.101(a)(1), where synopsis is required for actions expect to exceed $25,000.

    If synopsis is required (for example, if the proposed contract action is expected to be $25,000.01 or more), then FAR 5.207(c)(15) asks you to identify the intended source for a noncompetitive (sole-source) action.  FAR 13.106-1(b)(3) sends you to 5.102(a)(6), which requires the solicitation posting to include the documentation for the brand-name item, if the reason for the sole source is brand-name -- if the reason for the sole-source is not brand-name, then you do not have to include the documentation.

     

     

     

     

     


  5. FAR 13.106-1(b) describes the documentation requirements for a sole-source acquisition when using simplified acquisition procedures up to the simplified acquisition threshold.  Follow these procedures when doing a sole-source acquisition when using simplified acquisition procedures up to the simplified acquisition threshold.

    FAR 13.501(a) describes the documentation requirements for a sole-source acquisition when using simplified acquisition procedures for commercial items greater than the SAT and up to $7 Million (or $13 Million for acquisitions described in 13.500(c)).  Follow these procedures when doing a sole-source acquisition when using simplified acquisition procedures for commercial items greater than the SAT and up to $7 Million (or $13 Million for acquisitions described in 13.500(c)).  See also FAR 13.106-1(b)(2).


  6. Retreadfed,

    • So, would you advise a small business offeror client, in its offer in response to a set-aside solicitation, to object to the standard FAR set-aside clauses and to condition its offer on the Government's acceptance of substitute set-aside clauses faithfully implementing the 13 CFR and NDAA texts?
    • And, would you advise a small business offeror client to file a protest of the terms of a set-aside solicitation before the date for submission of offers?

    Personally, I don't think the GAO would rule in the protestor's favor -- I'm not so sure about COFC.


  7. 1 hour ago, Retreadfed said:

    I presume you are speaking from the government's perspective.  

    Certainly, and appropriately.  Contracting officers prepare solicitations, not prospective offerors.  Contracting officers follow the FAR.

    Here is a serious question:  Would you advise a small business offeror client, in its offer in response to a set-aside solicitation, to object to the standard FAR set-aside clauses and to condition its offer on the Government's acceptance of substitute set-aside clauses faithfully implementing the 13 CFR and NDAA texts?

    7 minutes ago, jwomack said:

    That's what class deviations are for.

    Class deviations are a matter for agencies and agency heads -- individual contracting officers need not be involved.  If the FAR Councils wanted agencies to issue class deviations on this matter, they could easily instruct agencies to do so (such as was done for all the class deviations being done in civilian agencies on the raising of the micro-purchase and simplified acquisition thresholds).  They haven't.

    Really, this is a political matter and it will be handled, or not, in political ways.  Anyone upset by the matter and wanting to speed resolution should contact the FAR councils and/or his or her Representative or Senators.  It is unfair and unreasonable to expect individual contracting officers to solve this problem.


  8. 2 hours ago, joel hoffman said:

    you still need to identify your priorities, needs and constraints so that industry can meet your needs

    How about, "I recommend as a best practice that you still need to identify your priorities, needs, and constraints so that industry can best meet your needs"?  FAR 16.505 doesn't require a contracting officer to list priorities, needs, and constraints in the announcement/solicitation when ordering under multiple-award IDIQ contracts, so to say that a contracting officer needs to include this information really isn't accurate.  

    Between the SAT and $5.5 Million, contracting officers need provide only  "a clear description of the supplies to be delivered or the services to he performed and the basis upon which the selection will be made."  Over $5.5 Million, contracting officers must go a little further, providing "a clear statement of the agency's requirements" and "[d]isclosure of the significant factors and subfactors . . . that the agency expects to consider in evaluating proposals, and their relative importance."  So clearly, the contracting officer has a lower burden for orders up to $5.5 Million and a greater burden for orders over $5.5 Million.

    A "clear statement of the agency's requirements" could encompass information such as "priorities, needs, and constraints," but a clear statement of the agency's requirements is required only for orders exceeding $5.5 Million.  A wise contracting officer will provide as much information as is practicable, considering all the circumstances, so that he or she can get the best offers appropriate to the circumstances.


  9. 12 hours ago, joel hoffman said:

    Over-simplifying it simply to make the KO’s or specialists job easier may not make good business sense. 

    I wholly agree with this statement as a general proposition.  I also aver that over-complicating it may not make good business sense.  

    In federal agency procurements, I tend to see more over-complications than over-simplifications.  If someone (like REA’n Maker) feels a need to simplify our processes, and an occasional over-simplification results, I’m okay with that.  In any particular procurement, any prospective offeror is free to ask a clarifying question.  

    I think REA’n Maker is okay.


  10. Talk of deviations for this matter is wholly impractical — even absurd.  The onus should not and cannot be on individual contracting officers.  We need reason, not pettifoggery.

    This is a matter solely for the FAR councils.  

    The GAO and the Congress are already aware of the apparent differences between 48 CFR and 13 CFR.  Every single member of the FAR councils is aware.  Most agency SADBUs are aware, and I have heard none of them call for deviations.  It is foolishness to hope for GAO to sustain a bid protest by recommending that an agency deviate from the FAR.  If the SBA wants resolution, it can use the already-established OMB process for resolving differences among executive branch agencies.

    This is a political matter and it will be handled, or not, in political ways.  Anyone upset by the matter and wanting to speed resolution should contact the FAR councils and/or his or her Representative or Senators.  

    Until then, contracting officers have to use the clause texts mandated by the FAR.  That’s a reasonable approach.


  11. Joel,

    If a solicitation cites delivery time and price as the basis for selecting the awardee, the offeror can package its offer anyway it wants to -- for example, it can quote $45 ea for three-day delivery, $40/ a for ten-day delivery, and $25 ea for thirty-day delivery.  Another offeror might submit $44 ea for five-day delivery and $22 ea for forty-day delivery.  From the five options, the contracting officer can select the best value.


  12. Contracting officers have to use the clauses prescribed in the FAR -- they cannot decide to omit or change contract clauses mandated by 48 CFR simply because it seems to them that 13 CFR differs.

    Once the FAR Councils and the SBA come to agreement, all will be well.  In the meantime, contracting officers have to follow the FAR, right?  

    48 CFR = the FAR; 13 CFR = SBA Regulations.


  13. The Army could buy the drawings from the inventor -- that's a simple sole-source procurement -- depending on the dollar amount, just find somebody to sign the J&A.  

    The inventor holds the patent, but might not have the production facility to produce the product in quantity.  The inventor might be non-responsible for a production contract.

    The Army could do a competitive procurement to produce the product in quantity.  A decision has to be made on who pays the royalties to the inventor:  (A) the Government, under the contract clause at FAR 52.227-1 Authorization and Consent, or (B) the contractor, under the contract clause at FAR 52.227-3 Patent Indemnity (or para. (h) of the clause at FAR 52.212-4)?  For the M-16, the Army chose an approach along the lines of (A) in a 1968 20-year contract with Colt for the Vietnam era.

    There are other ways. A sole source contract to the inventor is the only way.


  14. Maybe the other offerors are under-priced?  Or have some competitive advantage?

    If you want, you can monitor the contract awards in FPDS-NG and see if there are later modifications.  You can ask for copies of the awarded contracts and modifications under FOIA.  You can also ask for copies of the price reasonableness evaluation documentation (if any exists) and the selection decision documentation.  All of these might be redacted during the FOIA process, but you still might be able to learn something.


  15. Delayn,

    Which clause in your contract provides for the adjustment sought by the contractor for the Government delay?  

    Was there really a Government delay of 6 months?  Or has the contractor not yet spent all the money (incurred cost is still below estimated cost), so you want the contractor to continue to perform and burn the money?

×