j_dude77

I see what you are saying. In this instance it does not apply. The OP stated "Since this has happened, the Government no longer offers any small business set asides on this contracting vehicle. Instead they have chosen to go to another vehicle to compete small business procurements. We, unfortunately, do not have some of these chosen vehicles so we cannot compete for efforts." Again the Government is under no obligation to use their MATOC for a requirement. The contractor is mad because they are using other MATOCs not thiers. If this is the case they are SOL. They cannot compete for a MATOC task order if they are not on that MATOC.

The OP stated "Since this has happened, the Government no longer offers any small business set asides on this contracting vehicle. Instead they have chosen to go to another vehicle to compete small business procurements. We, unfortunately, do not have some of these chosen vehicles so we cannot compete for efforts." My interpretation of the OP's post, is they are pissed because the Government will not issue a set-aside under their MATOC, so now they have to compete with LBs on any orders. The agency is competing the order, just not under the OP's MATOC. There is no violation of fair competition in this case; since they are not allowed to compete on a MATOC task order that is competed under a MATOC they are not part of. Again, the Government is under no obligation to use your specific MATOC to fill a requirement. I do not care about minimum gauratees; as that was not even mentioned in the OP. So using your argument; I have 2 MATOCs A & B. A has a pool of large businesses and one Small Business. B has a pool of all Small Businesses. I have requirement 1, and the decision is made to solicit under MATOC B as a SB set aside. So you are telling me that the MATOC A SB contractor can file a protest due to "requirements to give all contractors awarded multiple award contracts a fair opportunity to be considered for task order awards". I refer back to my original statement: Your options. 1. Suck-it-up and compete with the big boys. 2. Ask the KO to T4C your contract.

No.

I do not think this case has anything to do with this particular stituation. You left out some important info in your quote: "Thus, this Board has CDA jurisdiction to decide the breach of contract claim for failure to comply with the 10 U.S.C. § 2304c( and FAR 16.505((l) requirements to give all contractors awarded multiple award contracts a fair opportunity to be considered for task order awards. Whether those statutory and regulatory requirements apply here pertains to the merits of PAW's claim, which are not before us to decide on the motion to dismiss." All they did was say they have jurisdiction, the Government was arguing that they did not. If I am understanding your question correctly: 1. You were placed in a MATOC pool with both large and small businesses. 2. You are stating that they you the only SB left in the MATOC pool. 3. You are complaining that when a SB requirement becomes available, the Government is using other MATOCs, and not yours, for set-aside orders. The Government is under no obligation to use your specific MATOC to fill a requirement. If the Government issues an order as a set-aside under your MATOC, they are eliminating competion and entering the realm of sole sourcing it to your SB. As a set aside the large businesses cannot compete; which leaves your SB the sole contractor. I can tell you now, this agency's competition advocate should never let something like this happen, when there are other SB MATOCs available. You are SOL. Your options. 1. Suck-it-up and compete with the big boys. 2. Ask the KO to T4C your contract.

Joel, In this case the protester did not challenge the IGE. Their argument was that the price preference not only made their bid lower than the lowest bidder, but also put their bid below the 25% threshold.

If you have security personnel at your location they should be able to tell you this. I have worked where there were written logs of who entered/exited secure spaces (which could have been done electronically).

http://www.wifcon.com/cofc/13-587.pdf I would like to have had a decision on the other issues, but beggars can't be choosers.

This may help. https://www.federalregister.gov/articles/2007/07/03/E7-12888/cost-accounting-standards-board-time-and-material-and-labor-hour-tandmlh-contracts-for-commercial

See FAR 5.202(6) and FAR 5.301( b )(3).

There is no telling. I just remember everyone saying that the EFARS needed to be updated, then one day BAHM!!!! UAI.

Joel, I was hoping you would respond. I work for the Corps and I am fully aware of 33 USC 624. The UAI does reference 33 USC 622 and 624 in regard to civil works. The other reference UAI 36.205-101 is what I was wanting to know. Please quote the rule or source of the statement that "military (MILCON) construction contract cannot be awarded if the price is over 15% of the IGE" It is what you commonly hear people say. I guess they are so used to the civil works restriction, that they assume it is the same as with MILCON.

What if the doctor is employeed by a Federal agency and the grant is awarded to that agency, then what applies? That is determined by agency specific policy. There are only certian agencies that can do this, and only under very specific circumstances. This is found in the Funding Opportunity Annoucement (FOA). As an alternative the Doctor is employeed by a Federal agency but the grant is specifically in the name of the doctor and not the agency? This would be determined by agency specific policy. However, there are significant hurdles to overcome as an individual seeking a research grant from a Federal Agency. Not only are they competing against Non-Profits and Educational institutes, there are also IRS issues that have to be addressed before being able to receive one. That said, I have never seen a grant to an individual. I have seen a PI move from one institute to another and the grants transfer with them; in essence the grants are with individuals. I could go into much more detail, but it would be overkill in a forum.

I am asking this question just for personal knowledge. What is the statute that states a military (MILCON) construction contract cannot be awarded if the price is over 15% of the IGE?

The FAR does not apply to Federal assistance awards. Did anyone there bother to check the OMB Circulars. OMB Circular A-110 states, "This Circular sets forth standards for obtaining consistency and uniformity among Federal agencies in the administration of grants to and agreements with institutions of higher education, hospitals, and other non-profit organizations". Look at OMB Circular A-110. http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/circulars_index-education Depending on who the grant went to ( I assume an educational institute) then OMB Circular A-110 and A-21 would apply. If it is for a State or Local Government, then A-102 applies not A-110. At a previous agency I worked in an office that handled all grants and cooperative agreements for that agency. This is not a problem due to the fact that the FAR does not apply. Research proposals are very detail oriented. They will list subcontractors who will perform specific work under the grant. This is not a problem due to the nature of research projects. In short, I highly recommend that you review OMB Circular A-110. The other thing is go through the proposal budget. Make sure everything is allowable. The people that approve grants generally do not know anything about costs and are only concered about the research itself. If you have any other specific questions, contact me.

I thank everyone for the responses. My question has been answered. All of this is addressed in the J&A. They specifically were looking for language to address how this procurement would eliminate substantial duplicative costs. In the J&A I never made that argument, much less referenced it. This is something that they came up with on their own. I thank everyone for the responses, and I have my answer. As I suspected, this is clearly not a follow-on contract.

Joel, It is a dealer doing the work. The dealer is also factory authorized repair facility. The other issue is that the dealers have area agreements, so no other dealer can come into the area and do work. We contacted other dealers in the country and they kept reffering us back to the local dealer. Our local dealer covers the entire southeast US. Anyway the crane is a pedistal mounted Manitowoc 2250.

This is a complete tear-down and rebuild of the crane. Many new major components are being replaced. We have determined that only the OEM can perform the work because if a non-certified repair facility does the work, the OEM will not recertify the crane. If you have a crane that is not certied, it is useless becuase it would be illegal to operate it. Vern, the way you explain it is they way I interpret in FAR 6.320-1(a)(2)(ii) & (iii). I guess I will have to break it down in simple terms for them. The way I see it; how can you have a follow-on contract for a piece of equipment that is ten years old, and nothing like this has been done to it before.

Can someone tell me where to find a definition of a follow-on contract. I know what they are, but I am dealing with some people that do not. I am preparing a justification using FAR 6.302-1 for the complete remanufacturing of a crane. We have had this piece of euipment for ten years. I have cited 6.302-1(a)(2). The one approving the justification keep telling me that I must explain how the procurement will eliminate substantial duplication of costs or prevent unacceptable delays. I have already told them that the language found in 6.302-1(a)(2)(ii)&(iii) only applies to follow-on contracts; but it does not seem to register with them. I have looked in multiple places and have not been able to locate a definition.

Thanks for the info.

Just out of curiosity, does the Court of Federal Claims take into consideration previous GAO decisions when a protest is presented to it?

A family member owns a third party billing company, which I help out from time to time. There are probaly some that operate on the fee per action plus percentage of net. There are also third party billing companies that charge a percentage of what is billed (value of claim submitted). There are some that charge a percentage of net (what is actually paid). If you look at the rates you usually see the first type charge a lower percentage. This does not mean you are going to receive more money from claims. The second usually charge a higher percentage, but you will usually see larger returns due to recovering as much money from the claim, which makes the company more money. Is the company also going to do collections? That is something else that has to be considered. Many of these companies have agreements with collection agencies, or run their own. Sometimes this is part of the standard fee they charge. If you are interested, this is how the process works. The patient is seen at the facility, the facility forwards the information to the billing company of services rendered (coding). The billing company submits the claim to the clearing-house, and within a few minutes they will know if the claim was rejected or accepted. The claim is accepted and paid to the billing company. The billing company in turn takes their percentage and sends the remaining funds back to the facilty. There are also other things you will have to take into consideration that may have not come into consideration. Some insurance companies may need information on new doctors at a facility, and will not pay a claim until this is received. Billing companies usually do not handle this. There are other scenarios, but that is one common example. Good luck with this one.

So your question is, "I always wonder if I should be stating the Ceiling Price based on the estimated value of the entire contract, inclusive of options."? What you are doing now is not wrong, you are just recalculating the ceiling whenever you exercise an option. Honestly you could do it either way and not be wrong.

What does "small business threshold" mean and how much is it? The small business threshold you may be refering to is probably FAR 19.203(. It is currently $150,000.00 Later in this reg, at 22 CFR 226.44(e)(2), in another context, USAID refers to "the small business threshold fixed at 41 USC 403(11). 22 CFR 226.44(e)(2) states "The procurement is expected to exceed the small purchase threshold fixed at 41 U.S.C. 403(11) and is to be awarded without competition or only one bid or offer is received in response to a solicitation." I do not see small business threshold anywhere. That would be the SAT, correct, "small business threshold" in 41 USC 403(11) was changed to "simplified acquisition threshold"? First that reference to 41 USC 403(11) does not exist anymore. The link it takes you to is a volume of the USC printied in 1994. The new reference would be 41 USC 134. It still states that the simplified acquisition threshold is $100,000.00. The FAR council changed the SAT to $150,000.00. Unless USAID changes their regulations or Congress changes the law, you are stuck with $100,000.00. So the threshold is $100,000, until USAID changes to $150,000 in this reg? Until USAID changes the regulation, it appears you are stuck at $100,000.00. Or is it $100,000? See above. Why do many people think it is $25,000? My only answer for this one is they are probably ignorant. Nowhere in either of the references does it state $25,000.00. This is the threshold for synopsizing [FAR 5.101(a)].

Vern I appreciate the quick response. The person that told us this did not agree with the SBA decision. We did just receive a clarification on the matter. The question about task orders awards was put forward, but the response recieved was about new contract awards. It seems that the information was given to us in error from a helpdesk.

The situation is this. A multiple award IDIQ was awarded as a HUBZone set-aside. There was a pool of nine contractors on this IDIQ. We compete the orders among the awardees. We have been told that since some of the contractors are no longer HUBZone certified and therefore they can no longer be awarded a task order under this IDIQ. This has eliminated all but one of the awardees. It was my understanding that the size status only mattered when the initial award was made. My question is there a regulation or ruling that prohibits us from awarding a task order to a business whose status has changed, or is it a matter of not receiving credit toward awarding to a HUBZone?