August

Is 52.219-6 Notice of Total Small Business Set-Aside in your solicitation?

See © (1):

Offers are solicited only from small business concerns. Offers received from concerns that are not small business concerns shall be considered nonresponsive and will be rejected.

"I don't see much difference between turning off the lights and taking out the recycle bin" - Really??? Come on.

ji20874 - I think you may be tired, and it would be best if you reconsidered your position in the morning.

You were the one who prefaced what the contractor could do with "If the contractor doesn't want to be a team player..."

Don't pretend you didn't start the dispute.

I agree with ji20874's conclusion - contact the CO and let them know you've been asked to do work outside of the scope of work and inquire if the CO is planning a modification to the contract.

But ji20874's commentary on office space, and birthday parties seems off base.

First, it is not always true that everybody knows everybody's business when it comes to government contracting. It depends on the arena you are working in. I've worked many procurements where contractors did not know who their competition was. So, I agree with ji20874 on that point.

Second, if the rules for a timely protest on OCI were changed, and contractors were required to notify the CO when they thought there might be a competitor who might have an OCI with a particular procurement or else they couldn't protest an award about an OCI, it is easy for me to imagine how contractors could manipulate the situation and spin our COs wheels on fruitless speculative (or downright false) accusations.

I like the rules the way they are.

Yes, but what is "normally"?

Sometimes that kind of overzealous behavior is seen in those who have something to hide themselves. It makes me wonder about that agent, and that IG office.

A 1982 GAO report indicates that agencies not applying the SCA to BPA orders under $2,500 have misinterpreted the SCA threshold requirement.

http://www.gao.gov/assets/140/138376.pdf

Thanks for all your feedback.

deleted post

I am looking for confirmation of, or arguments against the following position:

The Service Contract Act does not apply to orders against Part 13 BPAs for services that are under $2,500, regardless of how many dollars are placed in orders against the BPA.

A BPA is not a contract - the orders are the contracts, therefore 22.1007 applies only to the order.

Thanks for your review.

There is a GAO decision that supports Vern's recommendation to instruct the offerors on how to treat SCA wages for future years in their proposal. http://www.gao.gov/assets/380/373495.pdf

In the digest the decision says:

Ok, I follow you Vern. Thanks.

I hate to show my ignorance - but I didn't know the government could walk away from a contract because it didn't fund it properly.

What would have told me that?

The bona fide needs determination is the responsibility of the contracting agency, not the contractor.

As you've suggested, if it is not a contract requirement, a breakout of the costs that comprise the FFP cannot be required.

41.102((3) indicates Part 41 does not apply to telecommunication services or cable TV.

I was of the same understanding as jlbca.

You could announce an action was set aside, but you couldn't deny a vendor an RFQ, and you were required to evaluate all quotes, even if the vendor fell outside of the "set-aside". So, what's was the point of announcing a set-aside?

C Culham- were you disputing jlbca's postion? If so, I wasn't following it.

I admit I am showing my government bureaucrat side in wanting to use a SF. I just like the familiarity of them.

The benefit I see of a combined synopsis/solicitation is in not having to follow the time requirements for synopsizing and soliciting seperately.

Thanks for your response.

Can we use a standard form when issuing a combined synopsis/solicitation? 12.603( says not to use a SF 1449. I don't understand the prohibition. Can we us an SF 33?

I'd like to attach the SF to the FBO announcement.

I have not seen or heard those terms used in the government.

I think it's a clarification, but I'd pose the questions as: By the proposal submitted, what percentage of the work would Company Y provide? If they responded with a number under 50%, I'd ask for a breakdown of work between them and Company Y - still as a clarification.

I believe 5.203? applies to non-commercial sole source procurements, and always allow the contractor 30-days to respond to our request for proposal. But I often get the proposal in less time than 30 days, and I proceed with negotiations and award as soon as I receive the proposal.

VeryGreen -

I agree with Boof that it's important to feel invested in the mission of the agency you work for.

For the work environment and quality of staff, I know of no other source than word of mouth.

When ever I go to a training class, I pay attention to what agencies and offices my class mates are from, and I ask them about their work place.

Through classes, and through co-workers who have moved on to other agencies, I try to maintain a network that I can tap whenever I want to know about an agency or an office.

I'm mainy interested on hearing back from people who are contracting paperlessly. What do you think of it? Are there any major drawbacks that I'm missing?

My agency uses PRISM, and only maintains electronic files. It's ok.

Downside is that contractor's hard copy documents must be scanned and added to the file, and sometimes that's a big job. We try to collect all documents electronically, but not all contractors seem able to do that.

On the plus side anyone in our agency with CO authority can look at anyone elses files. It helps when searching for examples of earlier efforts. It also eliminates the cost and space of file cabinets, and of course saves trees. It also helps when a CO is out of the office, and we need to delve into someone elses files. It's all at our fingertips.

If the item is going to be used, rather than just tested, I worry that if the Government accepts it at no cost there could at least be a perception of the government accepting inappropriate supplemental funding unless there is a procurement process and the consideration provided to the contractor's benefit is defined.

I would be inclined to run it as an RFP, and state in the solicitation that the only consideration to the contractor will be the benefit they will receive from having their product tested and evaluated by the government for the government's future research needs.

The research might benefit if there could be testing of more than one product - and not have this initial procurement specd to a particular products salient characteristics, but more to what they want to accomplish in their research.