Mayonayze

yes, that our subs no longer fall under the $ threshold for the applicable NAICS code is the issue. But your final sentence seems to indicate we should be fine. I looked through the CFR section you referenced, but i didnt find anything that discreetly informs your conclusion. but i'm dumb and probably just missed it.

We are the prime submission on a proposal for a 5 year IDIQ. We have a number of small business 8a subcontrators as required by the solicitaiton SBA goals. We submitted the initial proposal several months ago. Several of the firms have graduated from 8a since submission and i have no idea what our obligation is to disclose thier new status, if any. the graduations were based on organic growth vice acquisition or merger. let me know if you need more!

that was helpful. the only question remaining is when re-representation needs to occur. that portion of the FAR was not entirely clear about that when a proposal is in evaluation status. my gut says that we ought to resubmit our section K and any pricing changes driven from swapping out graduated small business, but i still would like to see something in the regulation that discreetly requires it. anyone?

If a small business graduates after initial proposal submission, at what point prior to award or after award does the prime no longer get credit for that small business against thier small business requirements? There is a BAFO coming, would the prime be required to swap that former small business out at that time, or do the reps and certs carry forward into award and then the prime would have to swap that former small business out at option renewal? Is it defective pricing to continue slotting LOE against the former small business during the BAFO knowing that they no longer qualify under the NAICS code that the reps & certs tied them to during the initial submission? Please cite any specific FAR references that informs this situation. TIA!

It is T&M. Essentially, the contracts team will not let the company bid the target rate because the pricing data does not support the lower rate. so they want to submit the higher rate and then let the prime BAFO them down and then they'll come down to the lower target rate. If this strategy does not offend the letter of the law, then the law would appear to me to be as useless as t's on a bull. The price information does not support the lower rate at an initial lower submission, and so it wouldn't support it at the BAFO submission either. So why the kabuki dance? Why not just submit the lower rate from the get-go if that's what the sub wants to do? EDIT: too early, forgot the contract type, updated.

Thanks Navy! Can you point me to the specific clauses or language that I can use to support your second point?

so "we are able to quote whatever price we want as long as we certify that we are willing to disclose any of the data/information that prudent buyers/sellers would reasonably expect to significantly impact final price negotiations. If the prime finds that the price we submitted varies from the data that supports our cost, then they have the right to negotiate us toward a price they think is reasonable based on our certified cost data, or they can elect to not award anything to us." and this doesnt offend the requirement for certified cost and pricing data? The argument being that if our comp system points to a $50 an hour rate but we are bidding $40 per hour, then we are providing defective pricing.

A prime has requested rates from a subcontractor. The prime sent a set of target rates as a guideline. The subk knows from its internal comp system and surveys that it can't get low enough to meet the target in one category. The subk also knows that they are not at all likely to try to fill any of those positions so the proposal team queues up two options: reply with a rate quote at the target or no-bid that position. The subk contracts team blocked the first option citing that a TINA violation because internal data did not support the ability to meet and fill at the target rate. The contracts team recommended bidding the position at rates above target in order to line up with compensation data and if the prime came back and negotiated the rates down, then that would be the appropriate way to get to a final BAFO position at the target rates. Huh? What's wrong here?

Fixed

They have several FAR clauses incorporated into our contract so i assume they are subject to the FAR. Though, i am not informed enough to know whether or not citation of FAR clauses necessarily means that this agency is subject to FAR.

yep. they continue to extend the base period in order to burn all of thier funding. this is one of those three letter customers that seems to be able to do a lot of extraordinary things with respect to contracting.

Thanks for the help!!!