ipod24

Brian, Subject to your "fluffy" words. Are you stating that (1) a requirement can be AWARDED to a contractor that does not have the appropriate NAICS code - again AWARDED to a contractor? (2) That the size standard is immaterial to the overall acquisition requirement as it is stated in a solicitation? Please address!

Greetings, My question is in regards to IGE/IGCE: I am currently working on an IGCE for Custodial service and would like to find out if there are any sources out there (Government prefered) that will proivde me with a means to calculate/measure productivity - I would like to use the square footage I have as a basis for finding this solution. I am aware that measuring productivity isn't the ONLY factor, when finding an IGCE - I just want to know this variable for now. Can anyone please provide me guidance?

Here are some links to issues relating to NAICS code: http://www.gao.gov/decisions/bidpro/298730.pdf http://www.gao.gov/new.items/d03704t.pdf http://www.gao.gov/decisions/bidpro/402387.htm http://www.sba.gov/aboutsba/sbaprograms/oh...es/SIZ-5131.pdf

Please see FAR 4.1202 as it talks about Reps and Certs. Also, you may want to read up on the recent memorandum that came out regarding - Correctly Identifying Size Status of Contractors, July 21, 2010. ORCA is the official authoritative source for the vendor's certifications regarding size at contract award. The issue of awarding a contract to a contractor who does not have the propper NAICS code assigned is a very sensitive subject amongst contractors - which leads to a substantiated protest from agencies/ other contractors. Go through the GAO ruling regarding proper identification of business size standards upon contract award -- you will see a lot of protest that were sustained due to discrediting this pertinent information. Remember: the purpose of the NAICS code is to identify businesses whether they are small or large, among other factors, and the FAR states that "Reps and Certs MUST be completed before award of contract" - KEY WORDS BEFORE AWARD OF CONTACT. So even though the contractor has submitted their proposal, there is still time for them to make due and ensure they have the proper size representations before the award.

Vern, in regards to opening proposals before the solicitation closes, I know the FAR does not necessarily state explicit verbiage on this (this may only apply to FAR 14, IFB as stated under 14.401). However, proposal may contain proprietary information, which as we all know sometimes contractors do provide even though we, the Government, may not ask for. If lets say we did open a proposal before closing. What reason(s) do we provide to a contractor if he/she decides to recall their proposal back (and they have the right to) after we had opened their proposal before closings? How then can we justify that we did not jeopardize their proposal? Another scenario... If two contractors - contractor A submits their proposal early and contractor B procrastinated to the last minute. We evaluated both proposals and deemed that contractor A was the most qualified (assuming both contractors were almost equally qualified). Who?s to say that contractor B would protest for reasons that you gave more time to evaluate contractor A's proposal, which may have been a subjective decision? Please address. Respectfully, John

First of I want to thank you all for providing such informative responses. Don, thank you for the FAR clarity. Though, hypothetically based on my situation, if I did set-aside my requirement HUBZone the likelihood that the incumbent contractor will protest is most probable (he has expressed this). The incumbent, as stated in my first post, is only a small business. Any contractor can protest, however, in his situation... what grounds does he have to protest, aside from being bitter and spiteful?

Greetings, I wanted to get your opinion regarding my concern on a contract requirement that I will be putting out (RFP); however, the decision that my KO made on how to go about soliciting this requirement has led me to question their decision. I am an intern and have been in contracting for less than a year; hence my knowledge in contracting has yet to expand. A short summary about my requirement: (1) It will be set-aside 100% small business, (2) The requirement is over $100K, but below $5.5M, (3) Service type (firm-fixed-price requirements contract) ? Courier service to be exact, (4) It is a competitive acquisition, and (5) the incumbent contractor is a small business w/out any other consideration. Now the predicament I am in is that during my Market Research I found at least two HUBZone business that met my customer?s requirement, and they assured the government that they were going to put in a proposal. In addressing my market research findings to my KO, I had suggested we set-aside the new requirement for HUBZone. Now, I am aware of the HUBZone instruction in the FAR, title 15 USC, and other; and the GAO protest (MSC vs US), OMB?s and DOJ?s decision/debates -- knowing that at the moment no definitive decision on the set-aside priority under Executive Branch agencies has been made, along with the FAR verbiage (i.e. ?shall? vs. ?may?). I?ve arduously debated this with my KO. Ultimately, the decision was to set it aside for just small business ONLY w/out other consideration. I asked why, and the answer I got was? (1) ?we have to consider the incumbent?s interest in also putting forth a proposal, setting it aside just small business gives them this opportunity?; (2) reference to the OMB & DOJs memo instruction on set-aside priority to HUBZone ? ultimately the KO?s decision; (3) If we set-aside just HUBZone, chances are the incumbent will protest, and if we did small business I risk having a protest by the HUBZone Co.; and (4) Other. Now I already know the answer to most of this?. However, the ones I am pondering on are: the decision of just setting my RFP to small businesses without considering other socioeconomic program (i.e. HUBZone in this case). What are your thoughts on this? Can we get away with just setting the requirement to small business without acknowledging other potential set-aside factors, which could possibly meet my customer?s requirement? What rights does the incumbent have on protesting the new requirement which now restricts them from participating? I feel this is a catch-22 situation?