Jump to content
The Wifcon Forums and Blogs


  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

0 Neutral

About gmdubya

  • Rank
  • Birthday 11/14/1971

Profile Information

  • Gender
  • Location
    Hampton, Virginia
  • Interests
    Motorcycle, Volleyball, Softball, Golf and Skiing.
  1. Yes! Remember, it's UP TO 6%. It won't necessarily be the full 6%. I can sleep at night allowing for this percentage. My issue still remains if it's formally frowned upon.
  2. Good morning, Yesterday, i spoke at length with my contact at GSA. I wanted to get their take on a price preference. Ultimately he said, GSA had nothing supporting or discouraging what I was thinking. Because of the conversation I relaized GSA might not be a viable option. If I'm procuring on GSA chances are I'm going to be able to set-aside, 80% of the contractors on GSA are Small. On a set-aside, a Price Preference isn't going to be needed. So now i'm back to an Unrestricted solicitation in the Open Market. Also because of the call, Initially I thought this would only benefit on an LPTA evaluation; a Trade Off also seems plausible. As everyone knows, within a TO you list various factors that are more important than price. What happens if I simply include Socio status as more important than price?? Within reason. The reason I am belaboring this so much is that Small Businesses are a powerful tool to our economy. Collective SB's employ more people than collectivel LB's. The more SB's we have, the more people are employed, the more tax revenue into theTreasury! At that, I'll be the first to admit this sounds great on paper, but I haven't seen a silver bullet saying Yes or No to the Price Preference I'm thinking of.
  3. To Joel, Yes, I guess that's what I'm looking to do. Also, as far as precedance, FAR Part 25.105 b (1&2) speaks to how Small and Large Domestic firms are compared to a Foreign firm in a foreign acquisition. I'm simply looking to take that same 6% difference applied in FAR 25 and using it in a domestic, unrestricted competition. I understand FAR 25 is for Foreign Acquisitions, I DO. I'm simply taking the relationship (between small & large) Congress has allowed for in foreign buys and applying it to domestic buys. I spoke to a person at the FAR Counsel as to how they came up with the 6% difference, the response I got was 'that is what congress deemed necessary for Small Businesses based on historical data. So, that 6% I first mentioned in this first post is actually FAR Based. Does anyone see any issues with what I'm thinking of trying?
  4. No FAR Part cites that we can do it. At the same time, I have not been able to find a FAR Part that says we can't. As far as paying premiums, we are subject to paying premiums whenever we do set-asides. Historically, small businesses charge more for the same widget that we can get from a large business. It's simple economy of scales. Small Businesses are the jugernaut of our economy; hence the push to set requirements aside. I'm simply looking for a way to level the playing field between a Small and a Large Business in an Unrestricted Competition.
  5. Right, if through Market Research I find 2+ Small Businesses I will do a set-aside. I'm looking at situations that haven't uncovered any (maybe one is out there, but wasn't found) or only 1 Small Business. Unrestricted competitions. I wouldn't consider this evaluation on a Trade Off; it wouldn't be effective. I believe I can do it using FSS (8.4) and certainly OM (13 OR 15). I also wouldn't look to do it when competing IDIQ's like you mention. Right now I'm trying to get the foundation in place before looking at other areas. Thoughts?
  6. I'm looking for some insight on whether there are restrictions to using Price Preferences as an evaluation criteria on an Unrestricted Solicitation? What I'm looking at is declaring a 6% price benefit to a Small Business offer. In other words, the leading Large Business offer MUST exceed the leading Small Business by 6%. Are there any restricitons to this price evaluation? I understand there is more to it than just declaring the preference. I would need to draft bullet proof language to show how it will be evaluated. Applicability - I'm leaning towards LPTA, FSS and OM, Unrestricted Competition. Whether through Ebuy or Fedbizzopps and within the solicitation I would draw attention to how the price will be evaluated. For this to benefit the Socioeconomic Program they need to be fully aware of it's existance. Can this be done?
  7. I'm looking for direction on the rationale for some numbers given in FAR 25. FAR 25 states that when a Foreign Concern (FC) submits an offer there are certain requirements for evaluating their price when compared to domestic firms. The Buy American Act gives benefits to domestic concerns when competing against an FC. If the leading domestic concern is a Large Business (LB) they are given a 6% advantage. If the leading domestic firm is a Small Business (SB) they are given a 12% advantage over the FC. In other words an FC must be 6% or 12% cheaper depending on the clasification of the domestic firm. My question is, where did they come up with the 6% difference between a SB and a LB? I'm no longer looking at comparing them to an FC, but how they relate to each other. Was a study done that showed LB's are generally 6% cheaper than a SB? I mean why 6%? Why not 4 or 5% OR 7or 8%? Can you direct me to some sort of documentation that explains this? Thank you Gregg
  8. Ok. I've heard everything you've said. In my debate I was dancing all around what we've said here. One last question. Is there a benefit to using 12 with 8 for routine GSA/FSS orders?
  9. Actually they want to include the 52,212-1-5 on GSA orders. I argue they are alreay included in the master contract, but the response I get is "How do you know". Is there anything in the FAR that says 8 stands alone?
  10. Good morning, I am having a debate with a colleague regarding 12 vs. 8. In making a GSA purchase is there authorization we must use FAR Part 12 along with FAR Part 8 for a GSA purchase? FAR 12.102 (B ) states 12 is used in conjunction with 13, 14, 15. It does not mention 8. Within FAR 8 it mentions not using 8 in conjunction with 13, 14, 15 & 19, but does not say 12. FAR Part 12 is for Acquisition of Commercial Items. I get that I am buying commerical items, but 12 also includes commercial item clauses for open market purchases which GSA is not. Along with bulk buying, It is also my understanding that part of the reasons we get aggressive rates from GSA is that ordering procedures are simple and should not cause vendors undo work to place an order. Using 12 with 8 seems to make the ordering process a little more involved. I feel using 12 with 8, at the least, is inappropriate is there a silver bullet that tells us 8 stands alone for GSA/FSS purchases? Thanks
  • Create New...