wifcon1

Navy_Contracting_4, FAR 25 gives a higher preference to doemstic small vs. non-domestic than it does to domestic large vs. non-domestic (increasing the non-domestic price by 12% vs. 6%). It does not establish a 6% preference between domestic small and domestic large businesses. gmdubya, If you intend to award using the LPTA method, you have concluded that best value is expected to result from selection of the technically acceptable proposal with the lowest evaluated price--how would a higher priced small business then become the best value? If you intend to award using the trade-off method, the perceived benefits of the higher priced proposal have to merit the additional cost. As has been stated numerous times before, you have no basis for determining that your 6% premium is warranted (or that an award to a small business would result in greater tax revenue in an amount greater than that premium than would an award to a large business ).

"if the contractor doesn't want to take out the recycle bins, all it has to do is inform the contracting officer that is has been given a task that it feels is outside the scope of the contract and ask the contracting officer to validate it as a change order." Not to gang-up, but I don't believe that is right. Work outside of the scope cannot be added via a change order. This contract is for "Financial Management Services." The contractor doesn't want to take out the recycle bins, whether or not the government agrees to pay them a fair and reasonable price. The government client needs to come up with a better plan. I'd expect the government employees to take exception to this new duty, too. I've seen where employees of the comapnies that do the shredding collect the bins for shredding and return them when they have been emptied--maybe that's a fix for the client. bigred, as others have advised, I recommend that you explain to the KO that the client is assigning tasks that are not in your contract/order. I suggest you let the KO handle it. There will be the risk that the client feels that you are not a team player.

The purpose is to promote competition. (The requirement is under 215.371-2 Promote competition.) FAR 5.203© begins, "Except for the acquisition of commercial items..." Despite its exceptions, the resolicitation requirement is certainly applicable to many solicitations and, presumably, targets those where a problem was perceived. There are two issues it seems to target (in the acquisitions to which it applies): (1) Contracting officers not complying with 5.203( B ), i.e. not establishing a solicitation response time that will afford potential offerors a reasonable opportunity to respond to each contract action for the acquisition of commercial items in an amount estimated to be greater than $25,000, and (2) requirements documents (intentionally or unintentionally) being written in a manner that does not promote competition .

If ABC wants to have all their sales to the government go through a single reseller (or if they choose to sell directly to the government and not through resellers), that doesn't mean they have a monopoly. Just because ABC makes the only software that meets your customer's requirement, that doesn't mean ABC has a monopoly. Unless there's more to this, I don't see the anti-trust issue. While the situation where other resellers have to go through XYZ to get quotes does seem a bit odd (you wonder why they would even bother quoting if XYZ always underbids them), I'm not really sure why that aspect of the situation has you so concerned. The requirement is brand name only. Competition amongst resellers is not competition. Also, though not to this degree, many resellers hold competitive advantages over other resellers based on their agreements with the OEM. If you take XYZ and the other resellers out of the equation, your situation isn't much different. Say ABC sold directly to you and they added the "mark-up" w/o reason but still came in below commercial market pricing. Are your concerns here any different than any other sole source requirement? At least in this case GSA has apparently established fair and reasonable pricing.