Jump to content
The Wifcon Forums and Blogs

jayandstacey

Members
  • Content count

    26
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

0 Neutral

About jayandstacey

  • Rank
    New

Recent Profile Visitors

1,846 profile views
  1. Is this solicitation for commercial items? If so, under the right conditions, a SB subcontracting plan can be company-wide and not specific to the solicitation. The plan can also be expressed in terms of the percentage of dollars subcontracted vs. some other standard (like the contract value.) So, when using a company plan, a prime might pull in a $billion annually, subcontract only $200 annually, and have $100 of that $200 go to a small business. And that small business might mow the lawn one time at their HQ. In that case, the Company SB Commercial SubK Plan would show 50% attainment...and would be applied to multiple contracts throughout the year. If so, the salient points of the new technical requirement is that the dollars be tied to those companies performing on the contract, and that the percentage attainments are tied to the total contract value, not just the value that the prime decides to subcontract. It seems like a way of beefing up the commercial SB plan requirements by creating a new, higher bar; one that can be evaluated and preference given to a bidder willing to actually involve small subcontractors in the effort, vs. a Company SB Commercial SubK Plan which can only really be a "yes/no" evaluation. Does this fit the situation?
  2. jayandstacey

    NASA SEWP and BPAs

    Hmmm...I don't recall. It was about 15 years ago. I hear ya. Whenever I hear someone say "BPA" i have to stop and ask: Do you mean ANY agreement to to do blanket buys? Or a kind of subset to an IDIQ? Or a BPA as an FSS construct? I've heard it used as a synonym to "contract". I'm just an entity on an internet forum with no authority at all It is simply an adjustment I'd make to the rules, if I were able to adjust the rules.
  3. jayandstacey

    NASA SEWP and BPAs

    Well, it can't be as broad in scope as a BPA could be. It needs defined requirements, such as an agency's Approved Products List. It also must be bid; it can't just be negotiated. Years ago I set up a BPA for "2% off all GSA orders" against a particular GSA Schedule, as negotiated (not competitively awarded). That's not possible with an Agency Catalog. Additionally, FSS contracts (and thus BPAs) can be teamed between contractors, and can be utilized by state & local governments. While these benefits aren't specific to BPAs, they do make a BPA a very different tool from an Agency Catalog. To what end? Have you reached out to NASA? It's an Agency Catalog, not a /BPA. Going back to the earlier question - No one is awarding a BPA against a non-FSS IDIQ. However, I do believe there are times where doing so makes good sense. The IDIQs in this space are generally large (many awardees) and sliced one particular way; usually, by small business status, like with SEWP, but sometimes by technology scope. However, these slices don't always meet Government needs. If a buyer has particular, justified, cross-cutting needs (for instance, for vendors with a 24/7 help desk, or for vendors that are certified a certain way, or even just to get lower prices with some companies with some relevant past performance) - wouldn't it make sense to allow the Government to narrow the IDIQ field one time and use that for future fair opportunities and purchases? Not forever, and not for everything...but to a limited scope. My opinion is that certain types of IDIQs should have the same BPA capabilities (and restrictions) as FSS contracts. Or something very close. Or that BPAs should be reigned in a little bit. You're making accusations of confusion and lack of process - yet seeking to understand SEWP's Agency Catalog. You may be right...I don't have the Plan you reference. The claim just seems premature. Basically. But the process and options have changed and the slides are a year old. You'll want to work with NASA.
  4. jayandstacey

    NASA SEWP and BPAs

    I've not seen a one-contractor option for this, at least not recently, maybe because of the Motorola decision. It is not a BPA and doesn't have all the features of a BPA. It does temporarily create a smaller subset of qualified SEWP vendors for a defined and limited batch of in-scope products/services and to that end can help streamline procurements while driving to lower baseline prices.
  5. jayandstacey

    SDVOSB resellers and work percentage

    That is if an online subscription from a publisher, as resold, counts as a service. Maybe it does. The FAR is a bit weak on making the distinction. Edit - is it a FAR part 37 Acquisition?
  6. jayandstacey

    SDVOSB resellers and work percentage

    And following from this (as referenced in FAR 52.219-27(f)), FAR 19.102 (f) (4) and (5) address the particular situation at hand. Also, LearningCurve, doesn't the Kingdomware decision require the VA solicit from SDVOSBs? It isn't necessarily the "big publisher" trying to "force" anything or gain preference. It's how it has to be done. And the non-manufacturer rule applies.
  7. Does it even need to be human-based? This seems like an ideal task for the AI procurement bots.
  8. Call the new paradigm the "NEAR" - New Excellence in Acquisition Regulations Because, you know, its the opposite of the FAR.
  9. jayandstacey

    Evaluation Factors

    <sigh> This is sad to read. It's the stuff of $600 hammers.
  10. jayandstacey

    Evaluation Factors

    We're trained to be flashy. And non-binding.
  11. jayandstacey

    Evaluation Factors

    Is it? They could be equivalent, in the sense that the second company just didn't give as many details. But they MIGHT be doing the same thing, the descriptions aren't contradictory. One certainly provides more confidence; I get that. From the government's perspective, they ARE ultimately the same, in that neither provides a guarantee. Now, if the first one promised they WILL fill the position within 15 days, and that becomes a part of the contract...that's a different offer. Right? Don't get me wrong, I'm all for consideration of the company as a hedge against risk. I'm just cautioning that even a pig can be described with flowery, detailed language that instills confidence.
  12. jayandstacey

    Evaluation criteria very vague

    Agreed. The vagueness is a function of the fact that the government is not always an expert at these things/services....which partly explains why they are reaching outside the government to procure them. The vagueness is also a strength; it allows the government to maximize competition, stay current and to change gears when they want or need. Is the incumbent favored sometimes? Sure. But if that were ALWAYS true, there'd be no competition at all.
  13. jayandstacey

    Evaluation criteria very vague

    Hi Vern: Information Technology products and services. In my particular example; the product was an enterprise software agreement. Our proposal matched the Government's payment structure to when/if they had the budget, which allowed us to win. The Government was precise in the definition of the software, what was left for the contractors to solve was HOW to deliver the licenses so the Government could be successful. We solved it with a financed structure. The item was simple; the structure was a bit complex but necessary. More broadly (not to Vern per se): While a "better mousetrap" isn't always in play; I'd say it often is, even if not asked for. These can be small (like showing how commercial past performance might be more relevant) to large (proposing a much more efficient backhoe when the Government envisioned a team of laborers with shovels). Most every company Ive ever known was formed with some unique value proposition in mind, and RFPs are sometimes a battle of who's value proposition is either listed as more important in the RFP, or not listed but evaluated from the proposals. That's the rub for lotus - don't show up late to the party, then try to protest into the win. That's just not a sustainable business practice. Convince buyers ahead of time of the value prop your company brings, and be the thing they're looking for. My old company had a general policy that we wouldn't bother to bid on RFPs that were "news" to us upon their release. Because it meant we'd already probably lost that battle and our resources were better spent somewhere else.
  14. jayandstacey

    Evaluation criteria very vague

    I'm on the contracting side and I see benefits to there being some wiggle room in evaluation criteria. It invites a better mousetrap. An Agency may know exactly what it wants when it procures pencils, as that's a 100+ year old technology. Such an acquisition lends itself to an LPTA approach, or a tightly defined points scheme. However, beyond basic commodities, the risk in evaluating ONLY particular specs or skills is that "better" specs or skills cannot be evaluated. So what's "better"? - well, a contractor proposes what THEY think is better, and sees if the Agency agrees. My former company won a contract one time with a price that was about 20% higher than our next closest competitor. The Agency knew what they wanted, but didn't know how to get it. We proposed a way to deliver that matched their needs and won. Everyone was bidding the same underlying THING, but we solved their problem in a way that overrode other considerations like price. Now, a losing contractor might say "Hey - but now that the Agency knows HOW they can get that thing, they should re-solicit and ask everyone to bid using that same approach" to which I say...no. Our price was higher because the approach added some cost. The extra cost would have been roughly true for all bidders, so the Government wouldn't have saved much in round 2, yet would spend a bunch of money and time trying to make it a level playing field. With the first solicitation, someone (my company, in this case) cracked the code and an award was made. The answer, for Lotus, is to ask for debriefs and learn, learn, learn... Go into a debrief with questions the Agency can answer, that help you learn why you didn't finish first. Learn about what the other contractors are doing. Don't focus on deals where someone beat you by five cents on the same exact thing, rather, focus on deals that you thought you should win, but that some 'better mousetrap' won. Maybe Lotus is in a commodities business and leads with lowest price only? I don't know. I'd suggest that every successful contractor I know wins by offering better mousetraps, not by hoping the solicitation matches their exact mousetrap for which they have the lowest price. The better mousetraps generally win - and that's a good thing.
  15. jayandstacey

    Commerciality Request

    Consider offering an annual statement asserting that ALL of your offers that may be purchased over the year qualify as commercial items under the FAR. (if that's the case...) This has two effects: 1. It helps minimize the repetitive requests (and gives you a handy, signed document to produce when they do pop up) 2. It helps the customer (the prime) paper their contract file in a way that is almost over-compensating, making them happy (to Vern's point).
×