Jump to content
The Wifcon Forums and Blogs

Roma

Members
  • Content Count

    7
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

0 Neutral

About Roma

  • Rank
    New

Profile Information

  • Location
    Lakewood, Colorado
  1. The clause 52.222-17 was not specifically added at the order level for the previous orders, nor was it added at the BPA level (3 of the 4 orders were made under a multiple award BPA), however, it WAS included within the GSA Schedule contracts. Thank you for that GAO decision - that is helpful! Yes, the current contracting team believe that parts of the order are subject to SCA and include 52.222-41. Thank you for drawing my attention to (n)! Very helpful! Unfortunately, the previous BPA & orders had not been let with the understanding that SCA applied due to the computer employee exemption; however, our contracting team has since changes hands, going forward, we (the new team) have reevaluated that approach and believe that although many positions within the requirements are exempt under the computer employees rule, not all of them are exempt, so we are being careful to also address SCA going forward. Thank you all for your advice! Greatly appreciate it!
  2. Looking for some advice here... I'm a Contract Specialist with a pending competitive action under GSA FSS IT Schedule 70 for IT services. We have two incumbents in place under four separate orders, and all will expire soon. We are in the process of re-competing a single new order for the continued services. The RFQ has been posted to eBuy as a SB set-aside and we are currently accepting questions. We have also included 52.222-17 non-displacement of qualified workers in the solicitation. Of course, as a result, we are getting a lot of questions asking for details about the incumbent(s) and their previously provided effort, including details about their employees. My question is, where do I draw the line? What is acceptable to share, and what incumbent information should be protected? Both of the incumbents are also eligible to compete for the new order. The particulars that may be important in this scenario is that the new order is more all inclusive of services that had previously been provided under four smaller orders. The previous orders had mostly been issued as Labor Hour contracts (but not all). We have written the new requirements in a performance work statement format as FFP contract type with separately identified tasks. So far, we have released the previous award numbers, incumbent company's names, the period of performance for each order, and the total awarded amount of each order. Within the PWS for the new order we also included historical information such as "historically this task has been performed by 2 contractor FTE", etc. But many of the questions we are getting are asking for far greater detail such as: "Are you satisfied with the incumbent workers (meaning the incumbent contractor's employees)? and if so, can you provide their POC detail and name so we can gain an understanding of what their desired compensation would be? Can you provide detail as to how long they have been supporting in this capacity?" They have also asked for historical level of effort (in hours). I'm trying to determine how much information we need to provide, how much should we provide, and how do we make or keep the playing field fair? What is typical? What is not ok to reveal? We are truly open to all interested parties, whether they be an incumbent or a new vendor, and I want to be sure to maintain the integrity of the competition. What is your advice? Thanks!
  3. I have a procurement that I am working as the Contract Specialist under DOI that is an IAA for services in which the selling agency (another agency within DOI) provided the draft Statement of Work for us to use in preparing the IAA documents. My agency is the requesting agency. In the draft SOW they provided to me they have included a five year period of performance consisting of a base year and four option years, however they have included the following language regarding the pricing: "3. PERIOD OF PERFORMANCE - The overall period of performance is estimated to be five year period of time. This agreement is structured as one base year and four option years requiring mutual and annual agreement of the involved agencies, as well as notification and acceptance of potential price changes. 4. COST The cost for the Base Year... is Firm Fixed Price at $XX,XXX. Option periods will be priced closer to the start of the specified option date. " Since one year money is being used we are only able to fund a single year at a time. It is a firm fixed price contract type for non-severable annual services (they perform surveys for us on an annual basis). My question is: is this 'pricing to be provided later' a legitimate approach? I've been under the impression that in accordance with 17.202(c)(1) &(2) that options should be pre-priced at the time of the initial award. The other agency is claiming that 17.2 is only in reference to Contracts and not IAA's. I am not finding anything (within FAR nor DOI policy) that shows that IAA's would be excluded from this part of the FAR. Am I missing something? Either way we would have to issue either a mod or a new IAA each year, but my concern is more about whether or not we can include non priced options in an IAA.
  4. My apologies, Yes you are correct in what we are buying. Thank you!
  5. Thank you for reposting this... I'm just learning how to use your site. I appreciate the patience!!!
  6. Thank you! So then is the micro purchase threshold for this type of procurement $3,500 instead of the $2500 limit? - This is the crux of what I am trying to get at, and why my research on this even started, because many of these actions fall between $2500 and $3500. I just want to be sure I am doing them properly.
×