Jump to content
The Wifcon Forums and Blogs


  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

0 Neutral

About Mr_Batesville

  • Rank

Profile Information

  • Gender
  • Location

Recent Profile Visitors

463 profile views
  1. Mr_Batesville

    Exclusion of Joint Ventures

    Retreadfed - What other barriers would be realistic and also could you cite the GAO reference supporting you earlier claim? Thanks....
  2. Mr_Batesville

    Exclusion of Joint Ventures

    Neil - Yes I do understand that they can do that, my question is more of can the Government or what measures can the Government put in place to avoid getting JV's submissions.
  3. Greetings Contracting World, What a pleasure to glean once again from this consortium of knowledge. Background: Joint Ventures present problems that some agencies are not willing to risk on highly sensitive requirements. Some of those issues include but are not limited to; Governance and operation issues, financial issues i.e invoicing etc. Although, there are rules in place for the CO's to monitor the aforementioned sometimes it just does not work and the customer suffers in the end with requirements being held up and the snowball affect. Question: JV's are not considered a small business concern such as women owened, Vet Owned, HuZone, HBCU etc. Does the Government legally reserve or should I say can the Government Reserve the right to preclude JV's from proposing on a full and open requirement? If so, does this eliminate Mentor Protege' JV's from submitting as well? Any guidance would be appreciated. The recent changes to the Mentor Protege and Large + Small = Small has sparked such conversation in my office. Thanks Again!
  4. Everyone, thank you for your responses. I was able to get approval for three. I totally understand and see your point Vern on the statement above. As you know, in certain venues we work with the same contractor base. The main reason of my support of 3 was to avoid bias on the TEP. Also, when you are dealing with almost 40 proposal submissions, I believe three persons brought the appropriate contracting/technical and other expertise needed to the table and will result in a comprehensive evaluation. Thanks again for all the input. Greatly appreciated.
  5. Hello Contracting World, Background: Agency is recommending using only two persons for a Technical Evaluation Panel(TEP). That would consist of a Chair as an evaluator and an additional evaluator. I see this as a problem and limiting a fair outcome. I believe the rule is to always use an odd number no more than 5 persons. I have traditionally used/recommended 3 as a contracting officer. In addition, I may have had other non-voting persons on the panel as well. I am fully aware that all agencies have their own preference as to how they comprise there boards and how rigid or loose their guidance is on the composition. Question: Does anyone have any FAR specific/DOD/USACE or other guidance on the specific number of person that should be used. Also, general support information to back my determination would be helpful as well. Thanks :)
  6. UPDATE: In regards to the overhead, after numerous exchanges with the contractor and their accountant providing multiple FY's of information on allowable cost and revenues, I simply just negotiated. 14.95 down to 12 percent. In regards to profit, I used a "Structured Approach" from USACE ( They have a great template for construction and a-e profit analysis btw) to determine profit because our agency does not provide such approach. Negotiated from the "Historical Automatic Application" of 10% to 6%. All in all, we negotiated close to $1million in savings. Saying Thanks to all who provided help and guidance. Much appreciated.
  7. BTW.....I'm with USDA. Our AGAR is pretty light when it comes to further guidance such as structured methods. There is not one for determining profit..................I will respond back once i go through all the comments.
  8. Hello All, Thanks for all the detail provided. I am going to hash through it all and get back with an update on my understanding and how things go. Thanks again for the help.
  9. Hello all, Senario: The requirement is an 8(a) sole source for construction and a FFP type contract is contemplated. the estimated value is 3-5million. The ktr has an OH rate of 14.95%. We normally see overhead in the range of 6-10%. The ktr has a 10% fee on top of all the subcontractor's markup. All of the proposal backup for subcontracted work only has the lump some numbers on the quotes provided. Question: 1. Is the 14.95% allowable can this be negotiated? 2. Can a prime (8(a)) get profit on profit? Im looking for a dumb down answer on this one. I have seen that some say this is allowable however I need a FAR reference to validate. I have seen some post on this topic but none are plainly clear or easily spelled out with a clear yes/no and have a direct reference provided. Also, I have seen some site the excessive pass-through clause, this only applies to cost reimbursement type contracts for civilian agencies. 3. Can the Excessive pass-though rationale be used for an FFP construction contract in a civilian agency? Would this be a deviation since far only says it can be used for cost reimbursement?
  10. Mr_Batesville

    Best Value Source Selection - Scoring Price

    Vern: Thanks for the quick reply. I will review the FAR sections you have quoted and reply. Thanks
  11. Hello, I am currently contemplating an award using the Best Value Approach. Im getting confused on scoring price. I know that price needs to be evaluated and possible ranked. However, im unsure of how to score price when price is = to technical and come up with proper scoring. Score separately? Score combined. Below is some language that hypothetically I think would work . I would like to glean any insight on how I can approach best value when the basis of award is made contingent upon no-price factors = Price Factor? The proposed price, inclusive of all bid Options, will be evaluated but not scored. The evaluation will determine whether the proposed price is realistic, complete, and reasonable in relation to the Solicitation requirements. The proposed price must be entirely compatible with the Offeror’s technical proposal and in a format compliant with the Solicitation. technical/price tradeoff process will be used for this source selection. Award will be made to the responsible Offeror whose offer conforms to the Solicitation requirements and provides the best value , non-price factors and price considered. FACTOR 5 – Technical Solution is more important than FACTOR 6-Oral Presentation, and FACTOR 7 - Project Team; FACTOR 6 – Oral Presentation and FACTOR 7 –Project Team are equal to each other and are more important than FACTOR 2 – Project Management, FACTOR 3 – Special Experience & Technical Competency, and FACTOR 4 – Past Performance; FACTOR 2 – Project Management, FACTOR 3 – Special Experience & Technical Competency, and FACTOR 4 – Past Performance are equal to each other and are more important than FACTOR 8 - Small Business Utilization Plan; FACTOR 9 – Price, is approximately equal to Factors 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, and 8 combined. To achieve a Best value, the Technical and Price will be combined into an overall ranking of all offers in Phase 2 as described below. For this project, Technical and Price are approximately equal so the maximum possible points for Technical is equal to the maximum possible points for Price. The highest ranked Technical and the lowest reasonable Price will each receive the maximum possible points. TECHNICAL: The Combined score for Technical for each Offeror in Phase 2 will be ranked from highest to lowest. The scores will then be rescaled so that the highest score receives the maximum points allowed and the other scores will be appropriately rescaled to reflect a point value on the new scale that is equal to their Technical score. PRICE: Each Offeror’s price is rescaled to match the Technical scale. The lowest ranked reasonable price received by an Offeror in Phase 2 will receive the maximum points allowed and the other Offerors prices will be appropriately rescaled to reflect a point value on the new scale that is equal to their Price. The points from Technical and Price for each Offeror will be added together to provide an overall score for each Offeror in Phase 2. The scores will then be ranked from highest to lowest. The Government plans to award the contract to the highest ranked Offeror of the combined Technical and Price scores. If for some reason the award cannot be made, the next highest ranking will be selected. Example of hypothetical situational scoring: Tech=50 Price=50 Total:100 Firm A : Tech-90 Rescaled=50 Price:130k Rescaled:50 Firm B: Tech-85 Rescaled=47 Price:135K Rescaled:48.1 Firm C: Tech-80 Rescaled=44 Price:140k Rescaled:41.2 With this method Firm A gets a perfect score. Not sure this would stand up against possible protest.