Jump to content

jsimancas

Members
  • Posts

    12
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Posts posted by jsimancas

  1. Thanks ji20874!

    Sounds like it might be up to SBA - Looking at the Eligibility based on Section 8(a) Program criteria it states,

    "Once approved, SBA continuously monitors the firm to ensure that the firm is still small in its primary industry."

    If our primary industry is 541990 - we are still small business and in the 8(a) program. With that logic we could receive an 8(a) contract with a NAICS code of 561110.

    ​Open to other interpretations....

  2. I have a question regarding a set aside RFP that is 8(a) but the NAICS code is 561110 (sm size standard 7.5mil)


    Our company is an 8(a) usually operating in the 54 NAICS series (sm size standard 15mil).


    It looks like with our 2014 revenues, our 3 year average will exceed the 7.5 mil.


    However, the solicitation is marked set aside for 8(a) not small business, even though the NAICS code is 561110.


    Can anyone advise if we can pursue this solicitation?



  3. Has anyone had any experience with ceiling indirect rates being increased in a CPFF. Does anyone know of a legal argument? We had our ceilings rates set on a CPFF contract at time when we were very young, very small and had never had an audit. Now that we understand how ceilings work, we have realized we have lost hundreds of thousands in actual costs. Does anyone anything we can do? The CO wants to work with us but needs legal arguments as to why he should increase the ceiling indirect rates.

  4. Has anyone had success in requesting to increase ceilings of indirect rates on a CPFF contract? We are a small business that entered into a CPFF with ceiling indirect rates 4 years ago. Our actual ceiling rates are now significantly higher. We have approached our Contracting Officer who asked that we develop sound arguments they could use in a determination and finding memo.

    Any help, guidance or reference to successful case law would be great.

  5. Since the 'team' we are proposing would be a CTA relationship versus a Prime/Subcontractor Relationship I agree that all would need to hold the appropriate schedule and be small if the requirement falls under FAR 19.501 - “set-aside for small business is the reserving of an acquisition exclusively for participation by small business concerns."

    This brings up another issue we have been debating.

    Are you required to enter into a CTA if your partner holds the appropriate schedule? Can you simply forgo the CTA and enter into a Prime/Subcontract Relationship?

×
×
  • Create New...