Jump to content


  • Posts

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by TyroneSlothrop

  1. If a contractor is not violation of the Immigration and Naturalization Act (INA), is there anything in the FAR/CFR that might bar it from using a foreign national to produce contract work products and deliverables outside of the US under an unclassified contract, if such individuals do not have access to any USG computer systems? There are no deviations or FAR Supplements (not DoD or DHS), and the PWS does not address where the work must be done, or by whom, nor does the contract involve access to any CUI or sensitive information. The PWS is for work done in the US for an agency (not public), but does not specify who may produce work-products or deliverables, nor where they might be produced, prior to submission. The PWS does require that all contract staff sign an NDA which is very generic and doesn't specify who can and can't sign it. A quick review of the contract clauses and provisions don't reveal anything that seems to bear on this, so I'm reaching out for any other theories or rules I may have overlooked. Thoughts or ideas?
  2. If the provision at FAR 52.212-1 is included in a FAR 13 Simplified Acquisition, what is the order of precedence? That is, does the text of this provision have precedence over FAR 13 rules, where there are conflicts? Or vice versa? (As an example of such, 52.212-1 specifies content of debriefing.)
  3. Companies must report their annual revenue in SAM.gov so that a three year average may be computed. But is that only on completion of a company's fiscal year end? What about companies with fiscal year ends that do not coincide with December 31st? Are such companies also required to report their estimated receipts on January 1st to be compliant, or can they just report in SAM.gov at the end their latest/current fiscal year? Lastly, do $ size standards apply until a company's fiscal year end, or are they redetermined on calendar year start regardless of the company's fiscal year? Thank you!
  4. A single-award FSS BPA solicitation asks for both labor categories at the BPA level, discounted from offeror’s GSA FSS, and pricing for certain initial and sample BPA orders based on further discounts from the BPA level labor category rates. There are both fixed price and labor hour BPA orders. While some labor categories for the BPA level are suggested, offerors are free to add their own labor categories at the BPA level for their offers. So different offerors may have different BPA labor categories. The evaluation critera and award basis states that source selection will be conducted using best value trade-off of both price and non-price factors, and that price is less important than all technical factors combined excluding past performance. The methodology for price evaluation states that there will be an evaluation of the offeror’s ability to meet the requirements at a fair and reasonable price, and that as part of this evaluation the “overall BPA pricing” will be evaluated, including the initial and sample BPA orders. Further, the overall evaluated price of the BPA includes the combined total of the total evaluated price for each of the initial and sample BPA orders. Nothing else is explicitly stated regarding the price evaluation. If, as above, it is not explicitly stated in such a FSS BPA solicitation, can cost realism analysis still be performed as a form of cost analysis to eliminate risky offers? One can imagine a hypothetical offeror that prices BPA labor categories with a high price and provides very steep discounts for the initial and sample BPA orders in the solicitation. Then after the BPA contract is awarded to them, the contractor could offer lesser discounts for future BPA orders, making future BPA orders expensive. The fact that, as stated, overall BPA pricing will be evaluated, should discourage this. However, from a practical source selection perspective, it is unclear how this can be done. If, as above, the evaluation methodology only specifically calls out the construction of an “overall evaluated price” made up of the total evaluated prices of all the initial and sample BPA orders, then this does not address evaluation of BPA labor category pricing in a way that would single out the high BPA labor category pricing in such a particular hypothetical offer. Since offerors can add their own labor categories at the BPA level, a sum of all labor category rates wouldn't be comparable. Perhaps an average labor category rate at the BPA level could be comparable, but even that would not be useful as such a hypothetical offeror could add many of their own labor categories and many of these could be low, which would result in a low average rate, even though the most important and useful labor categories would have a high price. And this is perhaps irrelevant anyways since the evaluation methodology doesn’t discuss adding rates or averaging them at the BPA level, or how an evaluation of the "overall BPA pricing" would be weighed in consideration relative to the "overall evaluated price" that is composed of the BPA orders. In the case above, what other ways might there be to evaluate the “overall BPA pricing” and how could that be fit in to the overall price evaluation which includes the evaluation of an "overall evaluated price"?
  5. Does FAR 19.1307 (HUBZone price evaluation preference) apply to task orders / delivery orders competed under a GSA Federal Supply Schedule? It appears not, since the list of contract clauses for an FSS contract omit FAR clause 52.219-4. So if this is the case, my follow-on question is that while it is clear why the price preference doesn't apply to the award of the FSS contract itself, what is the reason that FSSes are exempt from having to apply 19.1307 for task/delivery order competed under them?
  6. For a multiple-award ID/IQ acquisition where a portion of the awards will be set aside for SBs under different socioeconomic categories, but where the awards to offerors that are other than small businesses is strictly numerically limited, must the HUBZone price preference apply, and is it necessary to include FAR 52.219-4 in the solicitation? The competition is already structured so that a certain number of awards will be made to HUBZone or WOSB offerors. All offers will be made against a single solicitation, but after a certain number of awards are made without consideration of socioeconomic status, a number of additional awards may be made in different socioeconomic categories to ensure that small businesses of different socioeconomic categories are well represented in the final pool of awardees. Under these conditions, does the FAR require that the HUBZone price preference still apply to the HUBZone offerors when they are being evaluated against large businesses in the overall acquisition?
  7. Thanks for the replies. Yes, lowest offers. I did find GAO addressed my second question a few times already, and so I should have checked first before asking. Here is one of them: http://www.gao.gov/products/A82202#mt=e-report Even mandatory clauses which were not included in a solicitation are not included by force of law if omitted from the solicitation.
  8. I know that the HUBZone price evaluation preference does not apply to cases where all fair and reasonable offers are accepted. However, would it apply to the case of a multi-award full-and-open contract where the evaluation is by LPTA, but where the solicitation sets in advance the number of awards? Also, does the full force of FAR 19.1307 still apply in cases where clause 52.218-4 was not included in the solicitation?
  9. Hi all, I've followed discussions of WIFCON for the past year but have never posted anything until now. I have a question concerning price evaluations on a Part 15 solicitation. The solicitation includes an IDIQ (labor rate schedule) and a first task order, both of which require pricing. The evaluation criteria sets out that the government will "evaluate the price through an evaluation of the proposed labor rate schedules, a price analysis and realism analysis of the first task order and a determination on cost reasonableness". So let me pose a "for instance". Let's say two offerors end up in source selection with essentially similar technical evaluations and similar IDIQ price schedules when all option years are considered. But one has a higher task order price then the other, although the task order price for each of these offers are determined to be both reasonable and realistic. In the absence of any further discussion of price evaluation in the solicitation than the above line, could 15.404-1( b ) price analysis of the first task order be used to give greater preference to the bid with the lower task order price? Thanks in advance!
  • Create New...