Jump to content

Whynot

Members
  • Posts

    380
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by Whynot

  1. Is there any restriction on the timing of making a competitive range determination? Can it occur at anytime, say before or after discussions
  2. Thanks. Under COFC protests, there are no specific timelines to protest either pre or post award. In my scenario, if the eliminated bidder did protest (pre-award), and if they prevail, then they get put back into the competitive range and will either win or lose the award. If they then lose the award then they could do post award protest. If they lose pre-award, they lose and are not eligible for a post award protest. Is there anything wrong with having a final competitive range of only a single bidder?
  3. I really do not have any information on this situation. At first glance, I thought it a clever way for an agency to avoid protest by making award after the time has expired for any other bidder to protest – shifting protest from post-award to pre-award
  4. COFC I imagine. In order to get an injunction.
  5. Is the only recourse for the bidders that are eliminated from the competitive range to seek a protective order in the courts to prevent the acquisition from going forward to award?
  6. I came across a scenario where prior to making award, the government gradually eliminated each bidder from the acquisition save one, by designating and notifying each of them sequentially one by one over time as being outside of the competitive range. Left with one acceptable bidder they then made award to the bidder after all pre-award protests time has elapsed. For the bidders that were outside of the competitive range, are they precluded from protesting the eventual award but can only protest their elimination from the competitive range within 10 days of being notified of their elimination?
  7. As I see it, the G&A expense pool dollars remained unchanged even though the G&A base dollars grew with the addition of the new work. So for the original bid, let’s assume for illustration purposes only, that the base was $1,000 and the G&A expense was $100 for a total cost of $1,100 (a G&A rate of 10% 100/1000). The new work added another $1,000 to the base but added $0 to G&A expense (for an overall G&A rate of 5% 100/2000). Does the contractor say the new work should be valued at $1,000 plus $50 G$A (5%) for an added new work total of $1,050 and the original work value should stay the same $1,100 (10% G&A)? Or should the original work be revised down to $1,050 (5% G&A)? Or should the original work stay the same $1,100 (10% G&A) and the new work be added at $1000 (0% incremental G&A)? Scenario 1: $1,100 + $1,050 = $2,150 Scenario 2: $1,050 + $1,050 = $2,100 Scenario 3: $1,100 + $1,000 = $2,100
  8. I don't think the cost analyst has enough information to make that assertion. So my answer is no, the cost analyst is not correct. I believe the contractor needs to provide the cost detail that they used in their original proposal so the analyst can compare it to the change order cost proposal and see exactly what changed and why and then decide if the changes are acceptable.
  9. Interesting, it would have to be on the government’s side. Maybe a few steps removed from the actual individual. Say a government manager orders the service from the prime contract for the entire department knowing that the employees will get this additional discount. And also assume, the manager may not have ordered the service if this extra off contract benefit wasn’t there.
  10. I just heard something that sounded a bit strange. I don’t have any more information. This is what I think I heard: Because their agency has a contract with the prime contractor, the prime contractor is separately offering to the individuals of that agency that are using their service, a special discount of the contractor’s other personal consumer services for the individual’s private personal commercial use. Is there a conflict of interest? I think it is OK so long as information is not being used inappropriately by the prime contractor to target these individuals. This also reminds me a little about individuals being able to keep their frequent flyer miles when they travel for the agency.
  11. Another case setting minimum standards for "promoting competition to the maximum extent practicable": leaving only two sources that could, does not meet the guideline of soliciting “at least three sources to promote competition to the maximum extent practicable.” FAR § 13.104; cf. Latvian Connection Gen. Trading & Constr., LLC, B‑409442, Apr. 25, 2014, 2014 CPD ¶ 135 at 2 (stating that soliciting three sources meets the requirements for conducting a simplified acquisition) http://www.wifcon.com/cgen/413533.pdf
  12. The NMR does not apply to contracts that are not small business set asides. So you are correct, it is does not apply to subcontracts for those other contracts.Take a look at FAR Part 19.
  13. Nonmanufacture Rule applies to small business set asides. A large prime cannot bid as prime on a small business set aside - so the nmr does not apply.
  14. Besides, GSA Schedule 70 items should automatically qualify for the BAA Commercial IT exemption, as it is an IT schedule limited to commercial items, kinda fits.
  15. It looks like 13.106-1(b) also requires a justification. From the new case posted: Accordingly, we find that the agency has failed to reasonably justify its determination to limit the competition to brand name items. See FAR § 13.106-1(b)(1). While there may be justifiable reasons for restricting this procurement to brand name only herbicides, the agency has not provided that justification here. (Phoenix Environmental Design, Inc. B-413373: Oct 14, 2016)
  16. The "Made in America" under TAA is not the same as under BAA. GSA is TAA. As such any such statement under a TAA contract cannot be relied upon that it meets the BAA test. I don't think the Balance of Payment clauses invoke both TAA and BAA clauses for a single item. These clauses identify items that are either TAA or BAA not both TAA and BAA. You can't have a single item be subject to both TAA and BAA. Under the GSA, for applicable DoD orders, the CO needs to apply the BAA price evaluation factor to determine price reasonableness. You don't need a BAA clause to do this but only have to follow the procedures.
  17. Thanks. Great answer. However, as written DFARS 208.404(a)(iii) seems to only require DoD COs to "apply the procedures" and the like without actually including the actual provisions and clauses. I don't think that you can have both TAA and BAA clauses being operational at the same time.
  18. Also, the reference to United States in the MAS Ordering Guide statement does not invoke the BAA clause and the dollar value BAA test but keeps the TAA clause and the TAA test that relies on substantial transformation not dollars.
  19. I don’t get it. How can BAA clauses ever apply to a GSA purchase, which by definition is subject to TAA clauses? You can’t have both. How can a GSA Schedule contractor (small or large) that has a GSA Schedule contract that can only include TAA compliant products then on a GSA set aside order under that GSA Schedule seek exception to TAA under 25.401(a)(1)? From the MAS Ordering Guide: The Trade Agreements Act (TAA) applies to all GSA Schedule orders, regardless of dollar amount. GSA applies the TAA at the Schedule contract level, and, as a result, it applies to all Schedule orders, regardless of the dollar value. This means that all Schedule products and services must come from the United States or a designated country.
  20. Never was my intention to do so. Not sure where such nefarious would be actions came from. Thanks for all of the responses though.
  21. Payments under a cost reimbursable grant. I want to start before I get the actual award.
  22. Thanks. If there is not additonal context besides the statement: pre-award costs incurred prior to the period of performance are unallowable , can work begin prior to award and its cost be allowable so long as its cost is not incurred prior to award?
  23. With SAP buys not requiring competition only that the buyer be able to determine price reasonableness, why is there a need for the buyer to ever follow sole source SAP procedures when non competitive SAP buys are otherwise permissible? What is the difference between a non competitive SAP buy and a sole source SAP buy? Where is the SAP sole source requirement coming from? The forum has made it clear that it (as well as any FAR Part 13) is not coming from FAR Parts 6 or 15
  24. I have an effort whereby pre-award costs incurred prior to the period of performance are unallowable. What exactly does “incurred” mean. My accounting system incurs costs when I receive an invoice from a supplier, not when the actual work is performed by the supplier. Likewise, for employees, at the end of a two week pay period not every day of work. Does “incurred” in the cost accounting world mean “performed”?
  25. I am not saying that competition is the only way to determine price reasonableness. What I am saying is that you should not make a price reasonableness statement in the file that price reasonableness was determined for this brand name (sole source) simplified acquisition through a competition of the two distributer quotes. We may not know what actually constitutes adequate price competition, but we know what it isn’t – and that is prices obtained through a sole source acquisition
×
×
  • Create New...