LadyS_CO

Jacques - Correct, I work with DOD which requires me to make a separate price reasonableness determination. I agree with you that requesting subcontractor information is gathering other than cost or pricing data and putting on the road to a cost analysis, where only a simple price analysis is required. The other Contracting Officer is very wrapped up in ensuring that the Prime vendors are not including an unreasonable amount of profit on the subcontractor rates. I'm not very concerned by this, since I'm competing a small business set aside and have received multiple quotes and feel confident in making a reasonableness determination using the price analysis techniques in FAR 15.404-1(b ) (2). As Vern stated, I haven't found anything within the MAS handbook, FAR, or DFARS that would require me to dig any deeper into the rates. Most of my Acquisitions have been much larger ($500 Million +) and under FAR Part 15, so I wanted to stop by here for a sanity check, since I don't use the FSS very often. Thanks everyone!

I am competing a requirement amongst GSA IT Schedul 70 contract holders. The requirement is combination of Firm Fixed Price and Labor Hour. In discussions with one of the other Contracting Officers here, he mentioned to me that I would be required to get subcontractor proposals in order to determine the reasonableness of the Prime Vendor's rates (i.e. determining the prime's profit, etc.). This is not something that I have done before, nor in my time working in private industry have I submitted subcontractor proposals with my GSA quote. I would consider doing this if it were a sole source award, but with competition I dont think I need to do this. Especially, if we are not evaluating the labor categories against actual individuals. Am I wrong here?

Interesting. I've never used PD2, but hear it's pretty good. My agency currently uses PRISM.

Thank you both for your feedback. FAR 12.203 states (as Vern has pointed out above) that COs shall use procedures in Parts 13, 14, or 15 in conjunction with Part 12. Then it states that the CO may use the streamlined procedures in FAR 12.603. Does the above still hold true if the streamlined procedures under FAR Subpart 12.6 are being followed?

FAR Part 12 is silent with regards to notification to unsuccessful offerors. However, under FAR Part 15 acquisitions, not only is the CO required to notify unsuccessful offerors (15.503), but are also required to specifically notify unsuccessful offerors for small business set-asides. Under FAR 15.503(a)(2) the CO must disclose the apparently successful offeror and provide an opportunity to all offerors to protest the size status of the business in accordance with FAR 19.302. In reading FAR 19.302, it specifically calls out FAR Parts 14 and 15 regarding the protest period, but does not speak to FAR Part 12 at all. Based on reading the regulation, it does not appear that awards made under FAR Part 12 require a pre-award notification to unsuccessful offerors (small business or otherwise). Let me point out that the acquisition I'm referencing is a large (>$50M ID/IQ) LPTA award for commercial "widgets". Thoughts?