Whynot

Doesn't FAR 13.501 bring in FAR Part 6? At any rate, this section clearly states that brand name acquisitions are sole source acquisitions. I do not know how you reconcile sole source and competition.

However, FAR 6.302-1(c) clearly states that brand name acquisitions are not full and open competition regardless of the number of sources solicited. As such, I do not think it appropriate to make a price reasonableness statement in the file that says prices were determined reasonable based on competition.

Didn't the justification include a determination that fair and reasonable prices could be determined? Whatever method went into that justification should be followed afterwards. I think you need more than competing distributers (no value add) - perhaps a comparison to prior sales (perhaps prior sales that were made competitively.

Correct URL https://72a.gsa.gov/ifffaq.cfm

This problem is usually avoided by the CTA BPA team not making a task order proposal for a particular effort to the customer that combines multiple holder labor categories. And if there is the need for multiple holder labor categories, have the customer split the order so that individual schedule holders can perform and report their individual efforts. I would not recommend that one holder use another’s labor category as their own. Look to the IFF instructions for clarification. See question 22 on the GSA site. https://www.google.com/ One holder can indeed subcontract to another holder, but then the prime holder reports the entire effort as their own. Sometimes in the CTA agreement between holders (which frequently has to be provided to the GSA) there are terms to handle these situation

I also think that the use of operational funds versus capital funds is important - with services being more aligned with operational funds. From industry, revenue recognition is important, anything that creates a future obligation may encumber the entire recognition of the revenue of the effort until the final obligation is performed. I am speaking of revenue not cash. Therefore, services need to be carefully crafted. I would also like to know how DFARS 227 supports cloud software/computing as a service.

I think the NAICS designation is important - if it is a supply the non-manufacture rule may apply and if it is a service the limitation of subcontracting rule may apply.

A dealer or re-seller (indirect sales) is a separate class of customer on the CSP. Customer does not refer to the enduser.

The Contractor shall not consume alcohol, gamble, or fraternize at the Agency.

Here is the transcript. http://www.supremecourt.gov/oral_arguments/argument_transcripts/14-916_c18e.pdf

February 11, 2016--A networking problem is preventing all non-DoD computers from accessing the ASBCA's website. No estimate from the ASBCA as to when the problem will be corrected.

Ok, but I need help. Where can I find the rules that control the implementation of revised standards to existing clauses as enacted by law for use in new procurements after the law is enacted? I am not challenging the implementation of new standards to clauses already in use under an existing contract, but revised standards to existing clauses be used in new procurements after the law is enacted. Help me find those rules.

I am not sure that the change in the statute(s) for the limitation of subcontracting is so dramatic that it doesn’t fall within the scope of the current regulations. Maybe the statute changes do not impose significantly new contractual standards on offerors or contractors that are at such variance with existing regulation to cause a need for a deviation to impose. There may be room for interpretation, unless, the test is absolute (any variance) rather than (minor variation).

I thought that "statute trumps regulations" http://www.wifcon.com/discussion/index.php?/topic/3036-far-135-test-program-for-certain-commercial-items/ see post 2

I believe that this is a FFP offer and all labor/product has to be on GSA Schedule(s). If the prime does not use a Contractor Team Arrangement then any provided non GSA schedule labor has to be run thru the prime GSA labor rates as a subcontractor (this maintains the labor as being on the GSA schedule). If the prime wants to classify the subcontractor labor as ODCs then this labor is not on a schedule and would be subject to the open market limit restrictions of the GSA Schedule. The GSA Schedule prime contractor can account (ODC burden as opposed to direct labor burden) for this subcontractor any way they want.

Maybe the pacific-rim countries that are part of the new Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) will eventually all become designated countries under the TAA.

I agree for commercial T&M offers. I also agree that the potential benefit that a CO may gain from having this information is minimal and outweighed by the potential risk of misunderstanding and misusing it. I wonder if putting in “NSP – Not Separately Priced” for each of the cost and profit elements of the form would be responsive.

I think if the T&M labor categories have named people assigned to them in the offer, such as with key personnel, it is reasonable for the customer to understand the salary of that person as well as the indirect costs and profit associated with that category. The bidder may well have taken some adjustment to the direct salary cost, for example to adjust for labor utilization, UCOT. Or maybe, a project management office or other direct cost is allocated into the direct cost before OH and G&A. If the T&M labor category is for an unidentified yet to be hired future labor resource, the bidder’s estimating system may have flexibility with regards to adjustment in potential salaries based upon certain qualifications, such as education, experience, geography, certifications, clearances, etc.

I like the market adjustment too. It is not specific on whether it is a cost adjustment or a price adjustment. Presumably a higher labor salary cost means you are sourcing more valuable labor resources and lower price means you are more competitive. The market adjustment preserves these presumptions.

Not moot - game on. Dec 23 2015 SET FOR ARGUMENT ON Monday, February 22, 2016

Let’s create two groups: Similarly Situated and Not Similarly Situated For the Similarly Situated Group All Offerors must be treated fairly and impartially All offerors must be treated the same (not identically) All offerors must be treated equally (not identically) For the Not Similarly Situated Group All Offerors must be treated fairly and impartially All offerors need not be treated the same ? All offerors need not be treated equally ?

I agree. However, I am not so much concerned on what constitutes equal treatment, which is the crux of the case, but identifying those situations that do not require equal treatment. Not just the degree of sameness or being identical. The GAO statement seemed to me to state that equal treatment is required at all times.

Yes. Thank you. I appreciate your patience, and I know you paraphrased and generalized, and I am not trying to be deliberately stupid. As I understand it, you can not simply substitute the word "equally" for the word "same" in the statement at 1.102(c )(3). Equal Treatment starts and ends with only those offerors that are similarly situated .It is not appropriate to infer that offerors that are not similarly situated do not have to be treated equally. Only that offerors that are not similarly situated do not have be treated the same. This is not the same as saying that offerors that are not similarly situated do not have be treated equally. Because the concept of equality and inequality does not extend to offerors that are not similarly situated.

What is a good definition of equal or equally? We know it does not mean identical or identically. Does it mean fair and fairly?

The statement says more than that and very clearly: “offerors must be treated equally” It is hard to reconcile. If the GAO left out those words I think the resultant statement would agree strongly with your analysis. Prior to seeing this statement, I was of the mind that sometimes fairness requires equality and sometimes it doesn’t. Not so sure now.