Jump to content
The Wifcon Forums and Blogs

bkl14

Members
  • Content Count

    12
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

0 Neutral

About bkl14

  • Rank
    New

Recent Profile Visitors

943 profile views
  1. The CO found them responsible because they signed the contract, indicating that their organizational conflict of interest had been mitigated. The conflict does not pertain to what we are requiring the contractor to do, it is an organizational conflict that is internal, not related to the work, but only an issue because the contractor wants to represent an Agency to which its clients are in litigation against or have been in litigation against, hence the term adverse.
  2. Sorry for the delay. I tried to be vague with the details so I did not lead anyone back to the procurement itself. Hopefully, I can clarify the confusion below without being too detailed. The procurement is for legal advisory services. The offeror represents clients that are adverse to the Agency to which I work for, which they refer to as "the Authority." The contractor didn't say they weren't going to fulfill the Government's obligation, they can't. As I stated in the original post, the contractor signed the contract without obtaining waivers from all of their clients. The cont
  3. I have a situation with a recently awarded multiple award contract. This award was made on the basis of lowest price, technically acceptable and there were a few technically acceptable offerors that did not receive the award due to price. Three days after the awards were fully executed, one of the awardees stated that they could not do business with our agency because a few of their clients who were adverse to agency would not sign a waiver for them to work with the Agency. In the solicitation, there are disclosure requirements for the offerors regarding organizational conflict
  4. Thank you everyone for your responses. FAR 15.206 clearly states, " 15.206 -- Amending the Solicitation. (a) When, either before or after receipt of proposals, the Government changes its requirements or terms and conditions, the contracting officer shall amend the solicitation. (b) Amendments issued before the established time and date for receipt of proposals shall be issued to all parties receiving the solicitation. (c) Amendments issued after the established time and date for receipt of proposals shall be issued to all offerors that have not been eliminated from the
  5. Thank you. If you don't mind me asking, how do you interpret the statement, "that have not been eliminated from competition."
  6. Thank you. I have a feeling that my question(s) are not clear. I was not originally asking if it was ok to amend a solicitation. My question is basically asking if it is ok to award (without discussions/sol amendment) to six technically acceptable offerors when it clearly it states in the solicitation that we intended to award up to five. My initial thought is no, but I thought I had read a GAO decision where an Agency awarded to more than anticipated awardees under a Multiple Award vehicle and one of the awardees felt it would limit their opportunity to win task orders since the pool in
  7. Maybe I'm not interpreting FAR 15.206 (c) incorrectly, but I was under the impression for amendments issued after the established time and date for receipt of proposals shall be issued to all offerors that have not been eliminated from competition. The solicitation closed and we are in the process of evaluating the proposals. When I read, "to all offerors that have not been eliminated from competition," I read that a competitive range should be determined to establish which offerors are not eliminated from competition. Am I wrong?
  8. Since this would be an amendment after the established time and date for receipt of proposals, I would have to determine the competitive range and open discussions. Which is fine, if necessary. I feel like I read a GAO case that was denied where a contractor protested an Agency adding another awardee even after stating they would award up to a certain amount. I think I'm dreaming it. Thanks everyone for your help!
  9. Good Morning, I am in the process of evaluating offerors for an IDIQ contract. The solicitation stated that we would make up to 5 awards for this solicitation. I was curious to see if we could award to more than state in the solicitation? I have looked on WIFCON to see if this topic has come up and could not find anything. Any guidance would be helpful. Thanks!
  10. Don: Thank you for your response. Vern: Thank you for your response.
  11. Thank you everyone for your responses. JJ: I'm not sure what your are asking, but we have 2yr money, so in order to use the money obligated at contract award, it would need to be done in the FY 15/16. Don: Yes, we obligated 15/16 funds that will expire 9/30/16 and have ordered work for only two of the three contractors. The practice in our agency is when the first task order is awarded, we allocate from from the obligated amount at the contract level to the task order. This satisfies the minimum However, the forecast is grim and I'm concerned the minimum will not be satisfied for the third c
  12. I awarded a ID/IQ contract to three contractors in February '15. We have awarded task orders to two of the three contractors to satisfy the minimum, however, based on the forecast, it is possible that the third contractor might not have the minimum satisfied in the current fiscal year (15/16). To determine our next steps, there have been multiple discussions between contracting officers, legal and branch chiefs. I am a new contracting officer and this is the first task order contract I have administered. I suggested using the fair opportunity exception at FAR 16.505 (b ) (2)(i)(D) to sole s
×
×
  • Create New...