jsprandel

I know that the abstract should show the amount bid - would I have to include the price-related factor (cost of transportation) on the abstract - or is there any document that I should be issuing to the public that shows the evaluated price (bid price plus cost to the Government to transport the item). My main fear is that, if I only show the bid price, I might get a lot of questions from bidders asking why the lowest-priced bid didn't get the award.

I am working on a sealed bid where the Government is getting origin pricing and arranging the transportation. The bids are going to be evaluated by adding the cost of the transportation to the Government as a price-related factor and awarding to the lowest price based on the combination of these. In this situation, do I have to publicize just the amount bid or the evaluated price (amount bid + cost to government = evaluated price).

I have read the discussions on this site concerning using contractors to evaluate proposals - both as voting members and advisory members. However, I was wondering if I can use State Government employees on an evaluation panel? The reason I would want State Government Personnel involved is because the contract is for the benefit of a State Government and they have knowledge specific to the subject matter. FAR 7.302(a)(1) does say that inherently governmental functions should be performed by Government personnel and I would assume that "Government Personal" means Federal Government Personnel. However, FAR 7.3 is applicable to Contractor versus Government performance and, while State Government personnel might not be "Government Personnel", they are not Contractors either. Likewise, FAR 7.5 Inherently Governmental Functions discusses the use of contractors, so it doesn't quite seem to apply. FAR 37.203 is for advisory and assistance contracts and 37.204 only addresses using other Federal Agencies. Maybe the answer is that I can use State Government employees as advisors only and not as evaluators? Maybe the evaluation could be conducted by the CO with several advisors or the CO, one or two other Federal employees, and several advisors? I would like to allow the State Government as much input as possible since the contract is to their benefit. Maybe I've already answered my question in this paragraph, but I would be interested in reading the input of other Contracting Professionals on this subject.

Thanks for the response. I agree with the issues you have identified, but you know how it is when upper management comes to your with an "out of the box" idea. I'll have to thoroughly investigate the feasibility of using FSS and report back the specific obstacles. I still have to call GSA and discuss the matter with them - I can use the address Khunron referenced above. To answer some of the questions presented here: I realize an FSS is an IDIQ contract and that's probably what I'll have to put in place if we go forward - I hadn't thought about it before, but it's possible my upper management thinks that once an FSS is in place, there's no further work and they don't realize the manpower drain potential here. I figure the contracts could be in excess of 50M per year. My agency does not have FSS authority, but they've been able to get other issues legislated that surprised me - so my response to them will have to assume they can do that. There are no current FSS, GWACS, etc in place that we can order from. I agree with Apsofacto above, that it might not be worth pursuing a FSS considering there might be other options out there. At this point I'm just gathering pros and cons to support a recommendation and making sure my recommendation is fully thought out. Thanks for the assistance.

My agency uses special funds to provide supplies to various U.S. States. I've been tasked with investigating the possibility of pursuing an approach similar to the MAS/FSS contracts against which various State agencies could order product. My first thought was to just ask GSA if they could set up some new schedules, but my agency (just like any other agency) doesn't want to give up control. I believe that when GSA sets up a schedule, they invite contractors to propose products and prices and GSA puts those on the schedule, and then when agencies order from the schedules, they do a limited competition and ask for discounts from the schedule prices. This is a different process than the IDIQ contracts I usually award. I am just starting to research this issue and I'm trying to identify some of the important issues that my agency would have to address. I'm reviewing FAR Parts 8.4 and 38 and will probably call GSA to get more detailed information. I would appreciate any insight or recommendation concerning issues I might have to consider. So far, I'm reviewing the following issues, but I'm sure there are a lot I haven't thought of: 1) My agency believes that, if there are any barriers to setting up these types of contracts, they will pursue an exception to the FAR or other regulations - can anyone think of any regulatory hurdles that might have to be overcome (for example, I don't know if GSA and the VA are the only agencies allowed to award FSS type contracts)? 2) I've see that the GSA FSS site mentions that these type of contracts can be used by State and Local Governments for ordering purposes - is there a FAR reference that specifically allows this? 3) Would this type of contract require an interagency agreement between the State and Federal Governments? Is the Economy Act a consideration? 4) I'd appreciate the identification/discussion of these or any additional issues I should consider. I need to advise my management of the feasibility of pursuing this method of contracting.

It was posted on a civilian website called wetip.com and a report was generated by that website that indicates local law enforcement was notified. The issue went through several hands before I was cc'd on it. Although the issue has come to my attention, it's not something that I can investigate. However, I'm not sure if I should ignore an anonymous tip.

Someone sent an anonymous tip into a tip-line about the actions of a contractor under one of my contracts. It seems the contractor is being accused of changing the production dates listed on some of the products produced at their plant. The production date for these products is time-sensitive. The products are similar to the ones under my contract, but I don't know if the products with [the alleged] false production dates were produced for my contract. I believe the issue was reported to local police (through the tip-line) and my agency has a safety inspection section that will probably investigate the issue also. I believe I should forward this issue to the IG for their consideration (since it involves fraud), but some of my co-workers believe that I should wait to see the results of any investigations the local law-enforcement or my agency's safety inspection section turns up. I would appreciate hearing any thoughts other contracting officers have concerning this issue. Specifically, what actions are required of COs when they suspect irregularities such as this and is there a reference that discusses the responsibilities of COs regarding this issue. In the contracting classes I've attended, they indicated we should report the issue to the IG and let them conduct the investigation. --------------------------- Square brackets and italics added by Wifcon.com

I guess that's a matter of interpretation. The recipient initially scheduled all the orders to come in during the beginning of the period of performance with the intention of scheduling them for more realistic dates prior to award. They forgot to do that and when the first delivery dates were at hand, they were scrambling to schedule deliveries in the time they had available (we order in truckload quantities and most docks can only handle a certain number of trucks a day). There were too many deliveries to schedule them all during this fiscal year, so they want to schedule some of them during next fiscal year.

I have a situation where a program office ordered a lot of material to be delivered within a narrow time-frame and realized after award, that they didn't have the capacity to accept it all during that timeframe. They want to modify the contracts to extend the delivery into the future when they can accept the product. They want some of the stuff to be delivered after Oct 1, during the next fiscal year. My question is, if they accidentally ordered more than they could process for delivery, can we extend the delivery into the next fiscal year or do we have an anti-deficiency problem?

Do you mean we should ask them to submit an invoice for the G. Min? We are trying to close-out this old contract and, while I'd be happy not to pay them the G. Min, the way the FAR is written, it looks like we have no choice.

I have a contract that expired three months ago and the Guaranteed Minimum wasn't ordered under it. Does anybody have an idea what I should do? Do I just pay the contractor the guaranteed minimum? Should I cut a P.O. for some of the product to meet the Guaranteed Minimum so the Government at least gets something for the money?

Yes, I did review 42.12, but it did not provide specific guidance concerning block 17a of the SF1449. I believe TAP is correct in his response. However, I thought there might be some suggested format for block 17a, something like "Company A, Transferree for Company B, Transferror"..... If not, I guess I should just attach the properly executed novation agreement and put the transferee's name in block 17a. If the transferee fails to perform under the contract, then I'd just refer to the novation agreement to apply remedies to the Transferor since they are still ultimately responsible for the performance of the contract.

I know that when you do a novation agreement, the transferor remains responsible for the performance of the transferee under the contract, but I was wondering what happens to the name of the contractor (as listed in the contract under block 17a of the SF1449). Should the contract continue to be identified in block 17a as the transferor contractor or changed to the tranferee contractors name? Maybe there's a specific format to be used somewhat like "Company A DBA Company B"? If the name of the transferor continues to be used, would the electronic payment information remain that of the transferor or changed to the transferee?

My agency buys large volumes of commodities and during the Government shutdown we are anticipating deliveries that have already been funded with the previous years funds. In many cases, we have to pay contractors in 7 days instead of the normal 30 days required by the Prompt Pay Act. Unfortunately, due to the shutdown, the organization that issues the checks after we process the invoices is on furlough (we have the money, but we can't access it). Many of our contractors, including small businesses, are claiming they can't produce any more product until we start issuing the checks again. I don't think we have very many options since the problem is that all payments will be delayed until a continuing resolution is passed. I know we have several options, including termination and repurchase, extending delivery dates, canceling orders, etc. I was wondering if anyone else has a similar problem and how they are handling it.

I am considering soliciting an IDIQ contract using sealed bid procedures. I haven't found anything in the FAR that says I can't do this, but I have found a contract-type matix chart from one source that says I can't use the sealed bid method for an indefinite delivery contract and a chart from another source that says I can use IFB or Negotiated Methods for an indefinite delivery contract. Can anybody tell me the correct answer and explain why I can or can't use a particular method?