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

856 profile views
  1. Thanks for the response. Yes the objective is exactly how you explained, we MUST get competition on the TO level. The only way to establish that is to have two IDIQ contracts. My fear was FAR 19.502-2 " The contracting officer should make award" if it was a Total Small business Set-Aside. It does not say shall so even if the offeror is responsible, I dont HAVE/(Shall) to make an award to that firm. Thanks for all the input.
  2. Ji20874 - CLARIFICATION: This is a total small business set-aside. Intent to award a MATOC to at least 2 offerors. I have read the cases you provided and others. They all have rationale to canx. In my scenario, we want to simply canx if we do not receive more than one proposal. This is not an issue with evaluations, the requirement or scope etc. Under FAR 19 (Small Business) it says something to the fact that if one proposal is received we should make award to that firm. Is my interpretation of the FAR wrong?
  3. So while that is a great response and rational, is there any case law to support that answer or regulation. Im looking for such guidance for a civilian agency similar to that of the DFARS?
  4. SCENARIO: The subject requirement has been solicited in the past on MATOC basis and only one vendor bid and received the award. In an effort to increase competition for the new requirement, extensive market research and industry days have been held. The goal is to have more than one vendor to promote competitive pricing on the T.O level. QUESTION: Can an agency (Other than DOD) use language in the solicitation to reserve the right not to award to less than two offerors. Essentially, saying if only one bid comes in we will not move forward with the award. DOD has additional guid
  5. Retreadfed - What other barriers would be realistic and also could you cite the GAO reference supporting you earlier claim? Thanks....
  6. 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.
  7. 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 s
  8. 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.
  9. 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 th
  10. 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
  11. 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.
  12. 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.
  13. 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 so
  14. Vern: Thanks for the quick reply. I will review the FAR sections you have quoted and reply. Thanks
  • Create New...