Mike_wolff

But what about using the 7 Steps to Performance Based Acquisition??? That was a joke. This thread is an example, in my opinion, of the overemphasis on PBA where COs try to apply it even where it appears truly good measures are impossible or impractical to implement. Mike

Your post essentially asked two questions 1) can construction be done as a commercial item and 2) what happened to the comp demo program 1) OMB OFPP memo dated July 3, 2002, while cautioning about the use of Part 12 in some cases, explicitly allows the use of Part 12 for construction, especially for non-complex construction. 2) The comp demo program exists, but FAR 19.1007b1 states that "agencies may reinstate the use of small business setasides as necessary to meet their assigned goals, but only within organizational units that failed to meet the small business participation goal." That may be the case for the unit that posted that solicitation. Mike

I don't see any reason you'd have to evaluate the technical acceptability of other offerors either - but LindaK does bring up a good example of where doing so may be valuable. I think that the possibility of such an event occurring has to be weighed against the efficiencies gained by not evaluating the remaining proposals. That could be determined on a case by case basis. I do like the idea of saying you'll do this in the solicitation, because even though you may not have to do so, it is one less area that an unsuccessful offeror could protest. I could anticipate if you don't say it, and in a debriefing an offeror asks if his technical proposal was acceptable or not, when you told him you didn't evaluate it some would go through the roof and protest right away. They'd almost certainly lose if it's solely on those grounds, but you'd still have a protest to deal with nonetheless.

Thanks for correcting that Vern. Any word when it will be coming out?

Vern's post below includes the info I was referring to below, however, fyi, this discussion is also inlcuded in N&C's Formation of Government Contracts, 3rd Edition, Ch. 8 Types of Contracts, VI. Variable Quantity Contracts, A. Requirements Contracts, 2. Use of Requirements Contracts (pages 1190-1191 - I know there is a 4th Edition, but I believe the pages for this reference are the same in that edition).

Look at your agency FOIA regs - sometimes FOIA searches/responses must be paid for, other times they must be done for free.

I don't have access to it at this time, but your exact question is addressed in Nash & Cibinic's Formation of Government Contracts. If I recall correctly, it states that theoretically you can have a multiple award requirements contract, as it is not explicitly prohibited. They discuss the background about the FAR re-write discussion on this issue, and (again, if I recall correctly) the re-write team felt that requirements contract should NOT be multiple award. When I get back to the office next week I'll try to post more specific info if I can - but if you have a copy of that text check that, and if you don't I highly recommend that you obtain a copy. (And get a copy of N&C's Administration of Government Contracts while you're at it - you won't be disappointed.)

According to the FAQs on the CCR website: SIC Codes Standard Industrial Classification Code Codes that classify the type of business an organization offers. Used for an EPA certification. Occupational Safety & Health Administration(OSHA) According to the NAICS website (http://www.census.gov/eos/www/naics/faqs/faqs.html#q8): 8. What is the Standard Industrial Classification (SIC) system? Is it still being used? NAICS replaced the SIC in 1997. Now the Federal statistical agencies use NAICS for the collection, tabulation, presentation, and analysis of economic statistics. There will be no further revisions of the SIC, which was last updated in 1987. It is possible that other organizations and state and local agencies are continuing to use the SIC for their own purposes, but these non-statistical uses are outside the scope of the Federal economic statistical programs. To find the SIC codes and their descriptions, visit the Occupational Safety & Health Administration (OSHA) website, which maintains a SIC Manual. To learn more about the differences between the original 1997 NAICS and the SIC, visit the "History" link on this website. A detailed conversion (concordance) between the SIC and 2002 NAICS is available in Excel format for download at the "Concordances" link on this website. There are no plans to develop a concordance between the SIC and 2007 NAICS. I know the above still doesn't exactly answer your question. You may want to contact the CCR customer service at: CCR Assistance Center 888-227-2423 269-961-5757 DSN: 661-5757 or complete the customer service contact form here: http://www.ccr.gov/contactccr.aspx Mike

Joel, Thank you VERY much for taking the time to write such a detailed and educational post. It is much appreciated. Mike

Carl - interesting question re: non-competitive design-build. Generally I'd say no, because 36.301( states that the CO must determine whether D-B is appropriate based on various factors, including whether 3 or more offer are anticipated. It doesn't explicitly state that if you don't expect 3 D-B is prohibited, but is it still appropriate for a sole-source? I'm not sure to be honest. I actually asked this same question in a meeting yesterday, and I'm in the process of researching it.

I love my job. Over the last several years I see an increased recognition of the importance of contracting in the acquisiiton process, and that makes it easier to attract, and especially retain, our good 1102s. I don't know if that holds true Government-wide, but it's definitely the case in my organization.

One of my colleagues says that there is such as thing as "single-phase design-build" or "one-step design-build" procedures. I've searched and can find no reference to such procedures. However, I can find no reference to any such method in the FAR, and have only found one FedBizOpps posting for such a method (https://www.fbo.gov/index?s=opportunity&mode=form&tab=core&id=db8d33802c5af642bf9609236997d516&_cview=1&cck=1&au=&ck=) 41 USC 253m "design-build selection procedures," states that: Unless the traditional acquisition approach of design-bid-build established under sections 1101 to 1104 of title 40 is used or another acquisition procedure authorized by law is used, the head of an executive agency shall use the two-phase selection procedures authorized in this section for entering into a contract for the design and construction of a public building, facility, or work when a determination is made under subsection B of this section that the procedures are appropriate for use. For design-build projects that would require a "substantial" amount of construction, I think that, in accordance with FAR 36.601-3 (see below for reference), subpart 36.6 must be followed, unless the two-phase design build process at 36.3 is followed (actually, I believe that 36.601-3 should include a reference to the allowability of procuring A/E services under 36.3). 36.601-3 states the following: ? When the contract statement of work includes both architect-engineer services and other services, the contracting officer shall follow the procedures in this subpart if the statement of work, substantially or to a dominant extent, specifies performance or approval by a registered or licensed architect or engineer. If the statement of work does not specify such performance or approval, the contracting officer shall follow the procedures in Parts 13, 14, or 15. My colleagues position is that a single-phase D-B would be allowable under FAR Part 15, but I disagree due to 36.601-3's requirement to follow 36.6 if a "substantial" amount of A/E work is required. Does anyone have any thoughts about this, and/or experience with a single-phase/one-step D-B process? Thanks in advance for your comments! Mike

Kodiak - maybe I'm reading your post too literally, but in your p.s. your comment to have the CO make the decision but the COR "relay it" seems to be the very definition of "he said/she said," but you say doing so keeps that from happening. If there is some issue that requires the CO to make a decision, in my opinion they should be the one to communicate that decision to both the COR and the contractor. That is the way to ensure both the COR and contractor are getting the exact same information.

Some wiggle room appears to be provided for situations such as what you describe above, in that the EO states the contractor and subs: ... are not required to offer a right of first refusal to any employee(s) of the predecessor contractor whom the contractor or any of its subcontractors reasonably believes, based on the particular employee's past performance, has failed to perform suitably on the job.

Although the EO says that it is "effective immediately" it also states that: The Federal Acquisition Regulatory Council shall issue, within 180 days of the date of this order, to the extent permitted by law, regulations in the Federal Acquisition Regulation to provide for inclusion of the contract clause in Federal solicitations and contracts subject to this order. I wonder if the standard Federal Register notice including public comment period will be followed, although one wonders what the FAR Council would be able to do with the public comments since the decision has seemingly been made.

Well, if you don't care about ever getting promoted again, do you consider not getting promoted a "career implication?" Regardless though, I've never heard of it being up to the 1102 - whether or not one is warranted is generally up to the supervisor. So, if your supervisor requires that you be warranted, you really don't have a choice (assuming that is supported by your PD, etc.). If such a question exists your "incentive" is your paycheck and your job. Based on your comments it sounds like you may be better suited to be a Procurement Analyst rather than a Contract Specialist. You say you've been a Contract Specialist for 5-6 years (or read literally, it appears you posing the question as a hypothetical), so you should be able to answer that question better than anyone - since only you know how that would go over in the office you worked in. I know I would be less then thrilled if I as a supervisor had a GS-11 CS that I respected ask me your question, especially because good 1102s are short supply. I'm surprised that your journey-level 1102 job is a GS-11. I haven't seen any GS-11 journey level 1102 positions for years.

I assume you are asking about a cost-type contract, is that correct?

Thanks Don. Yes - that makes perfect sense now that I've reacquainted myself with FAR 15.403-1©(1)(iii). Thanks again!!!

Don, Would you please explain how you can have "adequate price competition" when you don't have competition in the first place? I understand how you can have a fair and reasonable price without competition, but I don't see at all how you have adequate price competition in, to use your example, a sole source acquisition. Thanks, Mike