Jump to content
The Wifcon Forums and Blogs


  • Posts

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Recent Profile Visitors

440 profile views
  1. Good day, Scenario: You have identified a company that is needed to perform important services and are the only ones capable, of providing there services. You utilize FAR Subpart 16.5 procedures to issue a task order under a major IDIQ and prepare justification for award. In the course of business you find out the vendor is also an 8(a), are you eligible to take credit for the 8(a) action without having done a separate offer-acceptance with SBA?
  2. Thank you kindly for the reference material. Can you tell me what exchanges would be appropriate in a FAR Subpart 8.4 procurement when there are competitive quote for a service procurement where a tradeoff is being conducted and significant weaknesses or deficiencies are identified with one or more quoters?
  3. Good day, Purpose: I am soliciting feedback on the following scenario for the purpose of understanding better how discussions held in a FAR Part 8 setting work and if the below scenario passes your sniff test as experienced 1102's. Scenario: a significant weakness or deficiency is identified in a quoter's submission in an FSS order (FAR 8.4). Past Performance was not an evaluation factor in the RFQ. To address this issue the Contracting Officer decides to enter discussions to allow the vendor opportunity to be eligible for award. Contracting Officer looks to the procedures laid out in FAR 15.306(d) for guidance on how to fairly conduct the discussions as FAR 8 is silent on the matter. The Contracting Officer understands FAR 8.404(a)'s principle regarding FAR 15 but in light of the need for discussions decides to use it for guidance. Contracting Officer reads the following in FAR 15.306(d): The Contracting Officer sends out discussion letters addressing only the required elements (deficiencies and significant weaknesses) without addressing regular weaknesses. Question: Does the Contracting Officer's act of not addressing weaknesses with any quoter constitute a problem/issue?
  4. RE: Dominicke Ybarra Great insight, thank you for sharing this. What about clearance processing times for the new contractor employees? Does your agency have a clearance requirement for new contractor employees? It takes us upwards of 60-90 days during good times to clear personnel in which case the "Bridge" contract would almost expire. What do you think? How have you overcome this in the past?
  5. Good afternoon, I'm curious to know if anyone on the forum has any further insight on this Washington Post article from 1984 about "excess profit" on a Firm-Fixed Price contract between the U.S. Air Force and Lockheed Martin Corporation? Specifically, what was the outcome? I have heard the outcome was that LMC had to negotiate a lower profit margin or something to that effect, and the it may have ended up at the CoFC, but have not found anything to support that claim. Also for reference it appears this contract (or contracts) was pre-FAR, as FAR was effective April 1, 1984. Thank you.
  6. Narrative: Have you noticed that on larger contracts there appears to be strong profit incentive for an incumbent to protest? For example: the profit made during a 100-day stay of performance with GAO far outweighs the cost filing and preparing a protest. Light research suggests the average cost to protest utilizing outside counsel is between $15K – $70K, depending on the complexity of the acquisition, and if there is prolonged back-and-forth. The profit generated during a 100-day stay of performance on a larger contract would be many times more than the litigation/legal fees. Even if the protesting incumbent loses their case, they may still receive tremendous benefit from the stay of performance. Assuming that many corporate decision-makers have come to the same conclusion, and they do not have a strong ethical objection to doing so, there appears to be a substantial profit incentive to protest. While no quantitative analysis of ratios has been performed, from personal observation it is almost a guarantee that the incumbent will protest on a contract recompete if they are not the awardee when over $100M TCV. Hypothesis: If the automatic profit incentive to protest for an incumbent is removed, incumbent protest rates will decrease, as frivolous questionable arguments will not be brought forth as often. Proposed solution: Create a clause that effectively changes the contract type when the incumbent protests to something akin to a cost-type contract (understanding that this occurs in commercial contracts as well), with fee known and controlled. The incumbent does not receive payment of fee until after the protest is resolved. 1. If the protest is upheld, or the agency takes corrective action, the protesting incumbent receives the fee + cost was reimbursed throughout performance. OR 2. If the protest is denied, the protesting incumbent receives no fee. Only cost will be reimbursed (throughout performance). What do you think? Way off?
  7. Do you read FAR 8.004 -- "When satisfying requirements from non-mandatory sources, see 7.105(b) and part 19 regarding consideration of small business, veteran-owned small business, service-disabled veteran-owned small business, HUBZone small business, small disadvantaged business (including 8(a) participants), and women-owned small business concerns." -- to say that EDWOSB could be considered a source, just not a mandatory source?
  • Create New...