ContractSpecialistTJohn

The agency does not dictate the approach that is to be used, there is room for innovation for our procurements to utilize streamlined strategies.

Hello All! I am wondering if anybody has experience implementing the PIL (procurement innovation lab) streamlined procedures for technical evaluations. I am interested in your best practices lessons learned for implementing confidence ratings for technical factor, where technical is significantly more important than price. What was your approach for documenting the consensus report and confidence levels. With regard to evaluation under the mission suitability and technical/management factors, the solicitation stated that the agency “will consider the Offeror’s approach and the risks associated with the approaches proposed,” and make “confidence assessments” regarding the offeror’s understanding of the requirements and the likelihood of successful contract performance, assigning ratings under each factor of: high confidence, some confidence, or low confidence.

I understand that 15.204 discusses the required contents of the contract award for the UCF format. Would anybody know if there is a similar FAR reference for solicitations that are not in the UCF format? Thank You

I came across some agency guidance and it identified a clause in an IDIQ that did not "flow down" to the order level. So @Vern Edwards you are probably right. Will need to read through everything just to verify some things on this.

Would anybody happen to recall or know, how to determine which clauses in a MAS contract flow down to the order level? Thank You!

Good Day All: I am doing some information gathering. I am interested to know what the contracting officers/specialists here use to determine whether a vendor has adequate financial resources to perform a contract. I know some CO/CS will look at things like current ratio, etc. Thank you in advance

Good day All: I am writing this question which some may think is basic. So here it goes. Lets say you are researching whether to purchase a widget on the Multiple Award Schedule. You find that this widget has only two vendors who provide it. Could you solicit non-Multiple Award Schedule vendors if you include MAS vendors? What are your thoughts on this? What are the implications of going beyond the MAS to obtain better pricing? My thoughts are that the MAS vendors should be solicited and then based on the results, then open market vendors should be solicited. My thought is that it violates the FAR Part 8 priorities.

thanks, but I think the question that I asked was past more on past performance evaluation and not responsibility. I'll take another look. Thanks for taking the time to answer.

If I am doing an LPTA procurement under FAR 13 or 8.4 FAR 15.101-2 states that a COC is required for small business. If we are doing a FAR 8.4 procurement or FAR PART `13 procurement, is a COC required since FAR Part 15 does not apply for 8.404 and is not mandatory13.106-2(b)(1) ?

Good Day, Referring to the requirement in FAR 9.104 regarding a responsibility determination.

Good Day All: For procurements performed under FAR Part 8 and FAR PART 13, is there a requirement to have past performance as an evaluation factor? FAR Part 15.3 states the conditions under which is a requirement to have past performance as an evaluation factor. However, FAR Part 13 and 8 do not require compliance with FAR part 15. Can someone provide an explanation of how they handle these procurements? I would not require past performance as an evaluation factor, however past performance is supposed to be evaluated in every procurement?

A multiple award schedule Blanket Purchase Agreement that has a Four one year options on the contract. The contract has expired and the option was not exercised. Would a termination for convenience letter need to be created? My thoughts are that the option is not an obligation and no termination for convenience is required. What procedures do you use to close out a MAS BPA where the options were not exercised.

Does sending an email to three vendors satisy the FAR posting requirements for a Task order that is between $15,000 and $25,000? The FAR Part states the following, " (2) For proposed contract actions expected to exceed $15,000, but not expected to exceed $25,000, by displaying in a public place, or by any appropriate electronic means, an unclassified notice of the solicitation or a copy of the solicitation satisfying the requirements of 5.207(c). " The FAR does not define "appropriate electronic means" in this Subpart nor does it define electronic means in FAR 2.1. Would email constitute as an "appropriate electronic means"? I looked up this term in a dictionary and the best definition I could find for electronic means is "computer". Thank You.

Thank you. Does anybody know what authority a CO would use to incorporate a mandatory clause in a contract?