Jump to content
The Wifcon Forums and Blogs

anonco

Members
  • Content count

    23
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by anonco

  1. My agency does not issue Government Bills of Lading. I am establishing a competitive, single FSS BPA for supplies. The FSS terms for delivery are FOB-Origin for both CONUS and OCONUS. The total amount for shipping that was quoted for the base and all option periods exceeds $25K. I realize that FAR 13 applies to open market items acquired under FSS orders. I also know that I am required to determine the price to be fair and reasonable and insert appropriate open market clauses for those items (as well mark them as such in accordance with FAR 8.402(f)). My question is, am I supposed to synopsize the open market portion since it's estimated to exceed $25K? There are no synopsis exceptions in the FAR that apply. That said, it's pointless to synopsize the OPEN MARKET shipping when it is inextricably linked to the purchase of the FFS supply items. Thoughts?
  2. They can't quote above their GSA schedule pricing, and since they're quoting their exact schedule price, there's no flexibility to include shipping in with the price of the unit and call it FOB Destination.
  3. I'm looking through course material from Source Selection taught by Management Concepts and they have the following definitions for "Marginal" and "Unacceptable." Marginal - Fails to meet minimum evaluation standards; low probability of satisfying the requirement; has significant deficiencies, but they are correctable. Unacceptable - Fails to meet a minimum requirement; deficiency requires a major revision to the proposal to make it correct. This goes against everything I thought I knew. Has anyone ever rated a proposal that had "significant deficiencies" anything other than unacceptable?
  4. Adjectival Ratings

    Acceptable - Meets evaluation standards; has good probability of satisfying the requirmeent; any weaknesses can be readily corrected.
  5. Let's say a contractor proposed a rate of $55/hr for the base and option years 1-3, but on year five (option period 4) they quoted $35/hr. The total amount of the proposal was calculated with the last option year pricing of $35/hr. It is assumed that the contractor meant to propose $55/hr for the last option period. The evaluated amount of the proposal (assuming the $55/hr across the board) is $20K higher than the proposed amount. Could it be considered a clarification to assume that they meant $55/hr across the board even if this meant that their proposal would increase (which is what I am reading above)? Would that not constitute a proposal revision and require this to be discussions instead of clarifications? If this could be a clarification, can you really just document the clarification...that it should have been $55/hr and the re-calculated price and just award on initial proposals?
  6. I need a sanity check. My management wants me to award a delivery order with FY14 funds for supply items that will go from date of award through March, 2015. We have an immediate need for *some* of the items, but some aren't required until FY15. For those items that are not required until FY15, we cannot tell the contractor the exact quantities or delivery addresses. The quantities on the order will be based on projected estimates based on historical figures. In accordance with the GAO Principles of Federal Appropriations Law (Redbook) (Chapter 5.B.4), which discusses taking receipt of deliverables after the end of the FY, the exceptions appear to be if there is a stock program or if there is a production lead time. We do not meet either of those exceptions. Legal's response: "The bona fide need rule is satisfied because the agency had a blanket and continuing need to provide these items when the IDIQ contract was executed in FY14, and that need crosses into FY15." My immediate supervisor claims that we are okay because we have an immediate need for SOME of the items this FY, so it's fine that we can't tell the KTR exaclty what we need by 9/30/14 (and wait to tell them well into FY15, as the needs arise) because "it's still within a one year period." Keep in mind, this is for supplies, not services. I believe that the delivery order should only be placed for items that we have a bonafide need for this FY. Thoughts?
  7. Fiscal Law, Bonafide Need

    Ahhhh <embarrassed face> Thanks!
  8. Fiscal Law, Bonafide Need

    Does anyone know why the "Delivery of Materials Beyond the Fiscal Year," Chapter 5, B.4 of the GAO Redbook has been removed? I cannot locate it in the 2013 update/version.
  9. Fiscal Law, Bonafide Need

    wvanpup - There is not a lengthy production lead time. We also do not stock pile.
  10. I am in the process of drafting a solicitation for services, and I intend to solicit under FAR 8.4. The estimated value is $8 million over 5 years. My agency handbook requires the use of "strengths, weaknesses, significant weaknesses, and deficiencies" in the evaluation plan. I have always been taught that if it looks and smells like FAR 15, you will be held to FAR 15 standards, so I am hesitant to follow the handbook. It also states that the KO must make a statement regarding the relative importance of price to non-price factors (again, a requirement of FAR 15). Lastly, it states that the KO must state the relative importance of the evaluation factors. I realize that this is an $8 million requirement, and I do intent to award best value through trade offs. Am I wrong in my belief that acquisitions under FAR 8.4 are not supposed to require formal source selection? Am I trying to over simplify the process?
  11. My agency has a requirement solely for the demolition of existing structures, with no post-demolition construction. Pursuant to FAR 37.301, this will be a service contract versus a construction contract. As such, is there a potential ADA violation if the contract is funded with MILCON funds? The demolition is included on a DD Form 1391; however, the demolition work has since been segregated from the “true” construction work. We will now be issuing two contracts, one for the demolition and one for everything else that is on the DD Form 1391. The structures to be demolished and the land it occupies have never had a relationship to the other work on the DD Form 1391 other than the fact that they both ended up on the same DD Form 1391. There is no proposed immediate or future construction on the demo site in the base’s master plan. The program office, budget office, and counsel contend that MILCON funds are authorized/appropriate solely because the demolition is listed on a DD Form 1391. I am leery about using MILCON funds on a service contract, but seem to be the only one here that has reservations. Is the mere fact that something is listed on a DD Form 1391 all the logic/evidence needed to ascertain that MILCON funding is the proper funding source and would not violate fiscal law?
  12. Fiscal Law - "Purpose" question

    Dug into this more. The requirement is at a Joint Base where the Army is the lead agency. The Army has a regulation (AR 420-1) that states any new construction must be offset by demolition of existing stuctures of an equal or greater square footage. Generally, the Army is required to demolish buildings with the same mission. However, the regulation describes specifically the supporting analysis and rationale that must accompany the 1391 if non-related structures are to be demolished and MILCON funding is being utilized. So it appears the simple answer for the Army is that if it is on a 1391, it is because demolition has to occur for new construction*. The link between the new and old facilities does not have to be direct and, notwithstanding FAR definitions ultimately classifying demoltion being a service or construction, may be appropriately funded using MILCON funds. Thanks for all the previous replies. * There is an exception--the Army can "bank" previous demolition. If that bank has square footage greater than or equal to new construction, no demolition has to occur for the new requirement.
  13. Fiscal Law, Bonafide Need

    Thank you! ...and you all agree that since we *know* we will need the supplies in FY15, it still does not constitute a bona fide need in FY14? Does the arguement make any sense that if a portion of the requirement is fulfilled in FY14, then it's okay to have it go through FY15...for supplies?
  14. Evaluations under FAR 8.4

    Vern: "Technical acceptability could be based on meeting key personnel requirements for the contract manager and on company experience and past performance." Does this mean that the contractor simply needs to propose a contract manager, but we will not actually evaluate their skills, ability, resume? If we do a subjective evaluation, doesn't that more closely resemble trade offs? Am I too black and white in my view of LPTA? I have always viewed LPTA to be synonamous with pass/fail, and I didn't know to evaluate this on a pass/fail basis. I should have prefaced this thred with the fact that I don't deal with services, except on rare occasions. "Why not specify the content and mix?" The SOW outlines the approximate volume of mail and calls and also tells them what hours we need the coverage. I initially thought we should not give them the "mix" because having them propose the labor disclipine and number of hours would show that they understand the requirement. If we give them the "mix" (I assume you mean labor disclipine and number of hours by task), I suppose there is less of a need to ensure they have an understanding of the requirement. since we are spelling it out for them. Is it even possible to evaluate PP and experience when evaluating LPTA? Should it even be necessary when the contractor will have been vetted through the MAS award process and the services are so basic?
  15. Evaluations under FAR 8.4

    Vern - Yes. We are looking for a contractor to answer phones, handle mail, etc. We will evaluate past performance and experience. The COR wants to look at Key Personnel (program manager), but the COR doesn't know what to request from the contractor in order to evaluate quotes for technical acceptability. Other than evaluating the labor mix, I am also at a loss. Seriously. Do I really want them to explain to us HOW they plan to answer the phone and HOW they plan to handle the mail? What discriminating factors do I really have to work with?
  16. Evaluations under FAR 8.4

    DingoesAteMyBaby - I tried to think of any way possible to evaluate on an LPTA, but I couldn't think of a way to evaluate services on a "technically acceptable" basis. Typically, when I evaluate on LPTA basis, my criteria are pass/fail and apply moreso to commodities. With services, I have to evaluate the labor mix. This effort is for management support services, so for the technical evaluation, I'm not even sure what I want them to submit. I know I need to look at the labor mix to ensure an understanding of the requirement, but I don't know what other discriminating factor I would look at. Is it possible to evaluate LPTA when you're subjectively evaluating the labor mix, which is required by FAR 8.4? C Culham - This evaluation plan is in Part 8 of our handbook, meaning that my agency drafted this plan specifically for the use of FAR 8 acquisitions.
  17. I am in the process of drafting a solicitation for services, and I intend to solicit under FAR 8.4. The estimated value is $8 million over 5 years. My agency handbook requires the use of "strengths, weaknesses, significant weaknesses, and deficiencies" in the evaluation plan. I have always been taught that if it looks and smells like FAR 15, you will be held to FAR 15 standards, so I am hesitant to follow the handbook. It also states that the KO must make a statement regarding the relative importance of price to non-price factors (again, a requirement of FAR 15). Lastly, it states that the KO must state the relative importance of the evaluation factors. I realize that this is an $8 million requirement, and I do intent to award best value through trade offs. Am I wrong in my belief that acquisitions under FAR 8.4 are not supposed to require formal source selection? Am I trying to over simplify the process?
  18. Fiscal Law - "Purpose" question

    Joel--that is correct. These are completely different sites (a few miles apart from one another). TAP--I looked at the Fiscal Law Deskbook previously, but not sure it clarifies the situation. That definition of demo as a repair comes from a Navy regulation and I am not Navy. GoGoldPA--I agreee. I am in the process of trying to find the legislation so I can see exactly what it says for myself.
  19. This is a basic question, but stay with me. For the past ten years and 5 agencies, I have inserted the provision FAR 52.212-1 into all solicitations for commercial items, including solicitations using FAR Part 12 in conjunction with FAR Part 13. The prescription states, "This provision provides a single, streamlined set of instructions to be used when soliciting offers for commercial items and is incorporated in the solicitation by reference." It does not make a distinction between using FAR Part 12 in conjunction with FAR Part 13 vs FAR Part 14 or 15. So, the title of the provision is "Instructions to Offerors-Commercial Items. The Definition of Offer in FAR 2.101 states, "...a response to a solicitation that, if accepted, would bind the offeror to perform the resultant contract. Responses to invitations for bids (sealed bidding) are offers called "bids" or "sealed bids"; responses to requests for proposals (negotiation) are offers called "proposals"; however, responses to requests for quotations (simplified acquisition) are "quotations", not offers. Offeror means offeror or bidder. In addition, every lettered item in 52.212-1 is specific to offerors. (b ) submission of offers; (c ) Period for acceptance of offers; (e) Multiple offers; (f) Late submissions, modifications, reviions, and withdrawals of offers... I ask this question because I have always inserted it for ALL commercial acquisitions, but then I turn around and accept "late" quotes under FAR 13. It doesn't seem that this provision really belongs in RFQs. It seems basic enough, but no one seems willing (including legal) to say it doesn't belong, becuase, well, "it has always gone in." Thoughts? ...and if I put it in, am I then held to the more strict rules that would apply under FAR 14 and 15?
  20. JJ20874 - All of our solicitations are required to be approved by a level above the CO. Depending upon the nature of the acquisition, sometimes solicitations are reviewed by legal. In all instances, I am told it is "missing and required." It's not simply a matter of me leaving it out. I wouldn't have reached out to see what others do if I could have just omitted it and moved forward.
  21. Yes. I'm aware that it can be tailored, but it seems that the entire clause, from the title to almost every lettered item, is applicable to offerors/offers. So, I would basically be tailoring all of those by addendum to say that they don't apply.
  22. My agency has determined that it's necessary to synopsize and compete BPAs established under FAR Part 13. Nowhere in FAR 13.303-2 does it state that you're required to synopsize, and--even though FAR 13.303-3 allows for the establishment of one BPA--FAR 13.303-5© states that the existence of a single BPA does not justify purchasing from one source (and where only one BPA exists, you must seek competition outside of the BPAs or establish new BPAs). I was brought up in contracting with the understanding that BPAs are just that--agreements. They are not contracts, and they are not binding. The way I understood BPAs under FAR 13 is that you can award them, non-competitively, to any contractor. The purpose it to set up "charge accounts," which include agency-specific clauses, invoice instructions, etc., but the competition is to be done at the order level. If you have a sufficient number of BPAs, you can compete among them. If you do not, you can solicit from the BPA holders as well as additional open market sources. So, my question is this: If an agency synopsizes for the establishment of a multiple award BPA, do I have to synopsize orders that exceed $25k? Does the fact that the requirement was synopsized at the BPA level negate the need for synopsis at the order level? ...and where did the idea of "rotating" sources come from??? My agency also states that there's no need for competition among BPA holders; instead, they contend that only rotating sources is necessary, and they are not limiting the rotation to orders under the micro purchase threshold.
  23. Competitive FAR Part 13 BPA

    I work for a HQ agency. I have tried to discuss these issues, and I have argued my point to every level of management that will listen. I also do not like BPAs, and because we have a current requirement (that is not nominal), I pushed for an IDIQ. My immediate boss will not even engage in a conversation with me, as he beleives he is always right. I do appreciate the responses. Your feedback is very helpful.
×