Jump to content
The Wifcon Forums and Blogs

cs123

Members
  • Content Count

    26
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by cs123

  1. No, our organization does not have an electronic system or tool that feeds to the GPE so I take it your opinion is that we cannot claim the synopsis exception? Still would be nice for someone to shed light from the drafters' perspective because the FAR language isn't clear or even needed considering the resultant synopsis would be posted to FBO regardless. The one advantage is that if you use a "system" to post your proposed contract action with a feed to FBO, then technically, per the FAR verbiage, you do NOT have to post an award synopsis in the "system" or FBO (not sure if the FAR
  2. For the orange text, as shown below, the debate surrounds trying to understand the meaning of this orange colored text. The text speaks to an exception but the second half of the sentence seems to speak to still having to post a link of some sort on FBO to access your proposed contact action that must still exist on another platform (e.g., FedBid, Agency website, etc.). Thoughts? My interpretation of this orange text is as follows: One condition for the subject exception is that your "proposed contract action" must be posted on another platform; however, the chosen platform must interface a
  3. Question 1) For a 100k SAP procurement, is a synopsis of proposed contract required? There is an exception in the FAR for the requird notice, but there has been debate regarding the meaning of the below orange text. FAR 5.202 Exception - (a) (13) The proposed contract action-- (i) Is for an amount not expected to exceed the simplified acquisition threshold; (ii) Will be made through a means that provides access to the notice of proposed contract action through the GPE; and (iii) Permits the public to respond to the solicitation electronically; Que
  4. Hello, I was curious if someone here wouldn't mind providing some feedback on my resume. If so, please PM me. Thank you in advance.
  5. I'd say yes, they are considered small. The Government buys things from "dealers" or "authorized re-sellers" all the time and the transaction is considered awarded to a small business as long as they are considered a small business.
  6. After Googling oversight controls for T&M contracts, I see proper oversight can include monthly meetings, travel approval procedures, deliverable review procedures, process to travel and inspect when minimum standards aren't met, etc. I guess it can be as simple as that. If anyone has anything to add, especially if they have really good procedures that worked well for them or that were innovative, feel free to respond.
  7. Thanks Vern. So, to revise my question, what are some good oversight measures that Program Managers can implement to ensure adequate oversight on complex T&M efforts? Where should these measures be described in a contract file? Should oversight measures be described in a solicitation?
  8. I recently perused the U.S. Commerce OIG report entitled "The Department’s Awarding and Administering of Time-and Materials and Labor-Hours Contracts Needs Improvement". See link below, if interested. One of the findings was that the Program Office failed to provide proper oversight of work completed under T&M tasks. Are there any sample QASPs out there for T&M work that anyone here would recommend? http://www.oig.doc.gov/OIGPublications/OIG-14-001-A.pdf Thank you in advance!
  9. Thanks Vern. I read the prescription of the clause and it says to insert the clause "in solicitations and contracts, other than those for services", so that it why I was thinking it could not be used for services.
  10. I work for a civilian agency too and actually had to go over worksheets every quarter (four times per year) with my supervisors for three years that were similar to the referenced tool. It ended up largely being a check-the box activity, and, I think, the agency's method of showing on paper that we (the entry-level workforce) "developed".
  11. What are everyone's thoughts on the below hypothetical scenario. I have a real life scenario that would benefit from the answering of the below questions. I ask these questions because I am perplexed because I think the FAR does not really address the below situation/scenario. HYPOTHETICAL SCENARIO: I have a contract set up as follows: (1) CLIN 00001 - Base Year (12 months) - Janitorial Services (2) CLIN 00002 - Optional Vacuuming Task (task can be ordered at any time during the first four months of the Base Year Period of Performance) (3) CLIN 00003 - Optional Cleaning Task (Wash and Rin
  12. Thanks, I actually have that edition. Was able to get it for less than $20 used recently. I'll peruse the referenced section a little bit closer in the coming days. I agree, the book is very useful. Thanks for the information.
  13. Joel, do you know of any training materials, FAR references, court decisions, etc., that support that we don't need to do tradeoffs give the scenario provided, including information provided in your last posts? I would have trouble proving my point without such references.
  14. My Formation of Government Contracts book, 3rd edition (outdated, I know), page 932, basically states that the overall tradeoff of the merits/dismerits of proposals trumps the stated relative of importance. I tried to trace back the court decisions that were referenced but could only find one online....
  15. Thanks for the information. Here are the answers to your questions. 1) What are you "trading off" and what type of awards are you making? Answer: Various technical factors/subfactors and price 2) Are you buying something from one of the firms in the initial competition? Or is the competition only for inclusion in the pool of three contractors to compete for subsequent task or delivery orders? Answer: There is a minimum that will be fulfilled for all awardees as required for IDIQ awards, but for the purposes of my question its $100.00; therefore, 99.9% of the subsequent requirements will be
  16. Quick Question: If you are competing a large IDIQ requirement and you stated that you intend to award to three Offerors using the tradeoff process and then only three Offerors each submit a single offer that is determined to meet the requirements (so you have three viable offers), does a Contracting Officer need to conduct a tradeoff analysis or can the CO proceed and award to all three, especially considering the minimum guaranteed amount is $100.00?
  17. Thanks Vern for the quick response. In my Government experience, across 3 agencies, I've never seen or used numerical weights and everything is adjectivial. The scoring approach makes sense if a factor is said to be more or less important than other factors.
  18. Good thread to read. My gripe with the order of importance is related to the fact that when Technical Factors A, B, and C have differing "importance" then how does that impact all aspects of the resultant tradeoff analysis? During the tradeoff analysis/decision, you are generally selecting the awardee(s) based on trading off (1) the perceived benefits stemming from assessed strengths, (2) the perceived disadvantages stemming from assessed weaknesses/deficiencies, and (3) the risks assessed by risks. Of course the Source Selection Official reviews strengths/weaknesses, etc., for validity, etc
  19. Vern: To answer your question, no. I thoroughly understand fundamental IDIQ rules, I just think that the GSA Schedules could be made more flexible for the Government’s benefit (a change applicable only to GSA Schedule ordering). jonmjohnson: Thanks for the RFQ language. The FAR or GSA’s guidance doesn’t discuss the strengths and weaknesses, but in some situations it could be beneficial to give this to vendors for their own benefit (especially small businesses), especially if provided beyond the protest window. I think 8.402(f) has been discussed in other forum threads.
  20. FAR 8.4 is overall streamlined in my opinion. However, there are some things that could be improved: (1) Brief explanations should be defined. As a result, DHS does not recommend that strengths and weaknesses are provided to unsuccessful Quoters/Offerors, among other things. (2) Advice provided on GSA Interact and on GSA’s website seemingly prohibits “discussions”. FAR 8.4 is silent on the issue. However, a good amount of complex FAR 8.4 procurements will likely require discussions, which puts COs in a position to make GSA procurements appear more like FAR 15 procurements. (3) FAR 8.402
  21. Maybe you could consider setting the requirement aside for Small Business (SB), which eliminates TAA applicability per the FAR (FAR 25.401 (a)(1)). This does bring a potential issue of dealing with Non-Manufacturer Waivers for items that domestic SBs can't make in the U.S., but I presume you will be able to use some of the SBA's Class Waivers for your procurement (and request individual waivers, as applicable). Regardless, this would be an easier process that looking into TAA waivers. A set aside may be okay since there may be an adequete amount of U.S. SB dealers that can meet your requiremen
×
×
  • Create New...