Jump to content
The Wifcon Forums and Blogs

Freyr

Members
  • Content Count

    12
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

0 Neutral

About Freyr

  • Rank
    New
  1. Mostly it's the use of non-commercial/cost reimbursable line items that led us this direction.
  2. The term "on-ramp" is an interesting one to me. Clearly it's been around for a while but it doesn't seem to be a concrete/defined term. 13 CFR 125.2(e)(2)(iii) even uses quotes when talking about it. In the approach I offered it would have been a single solicitation with multiple phases of awards based on multiple submission time frames, but I don't necessarily think it needs to be a single solicitation that provides for all submission time frames. If the situation changes there may be a need for increased vendors down the road that was unforeseen at the current time (almost like an IDIQ for getting more vendors!). This would need a separate "on-ramp" after the initial solicitation. So how would you define on-ramp? Is it a new solicitation, an amendment to a solicitation that already had awards issued, or something else entirely? How beholden to the original solicitation would you be under an on-ramping approach?
  3. I think this is the same case. https://www.justice.gov/archive/usao/ma/news/2010/October/ThrowerAllenSentencingPR.html Excerpt: "Thrower was found guilty by a jury after a seven day trial in July, 2010. The evidence at trial showed that Thrower, who had responsibility for preparing purchase requests and sole source justifications for the services of commercial contractors at Fort Benning, used his official position as Chief of Quality Support Division in the Human Resources Directorate to arrange for and influence the awarding of both sole source and competitive contracts to Military Service Support, LLC (MSS) for personnel-related services. Marie Cimino, Thrower’s sister, was President and Chief Executive Officer of MSS, a company formed in 2004 and located at Cimino’s single family residence in Groveland, Mass. Thrower and Cimino concealed their familial relationship from U.S. Army contracting officials and from MSS employees in Georgia." Edit: the original link posted should be https://www.justice.gov/archive/usao/ma/news/2010/July/THROWERverdictPR.html
  4. Our agency is contemplating a strategy for a new multiple award contract that needs contractors now but a greater amount of contractors down the road, what would be the risks in doing a FIFO (First In First Out) method? As in we make awards to the top 5 contractors who submit their proposals within 40 days, then we make award to the next top 5 who submit within 80 days, then the next top 5 who submit within 120 days. Is there any reason why we wouldn't be able to have multiple proposal submission time-frames? I haven't seen any solicitations like this but also haven't seen anything that would explicitly say no (let's call it innovation). This would allow us to fill our need for right now, then slowly build up to a total amount required. Trying to do the best alternative to the "everyone who meets our criteria gets an award" strategy.
  5. With absolutely no way to differentiate? Can always draw straws....
  6. Completely agree that it makes no sense . As I read it the Prime (whether that be a single entity or a JV) may submit projects from subcontractors without submitting any itself due to "shall consider the capabilities and past performance of each first tier subcontractor that is part of the team as the capabilities and past performance of the small business prime contractor." So what's the point of a multiple award contract if you can be awarded a contract with zero experience? Aside from letting companies make money on selling their past performance to other contractors.
  7. Shika, 1. Yes, the JV itself can be a Prime contractor as it's a legal entity itself. If I understand the link provided it says that JVs should be treated as such. 2. If the JV submits by itself only (C) would apply to it. If the JV submits as part of a team with subcontractors then both B and C would apply simultaneously. Including the underlined would change it substantially to say that you must look to the Prime first before looking at subcontractors. 3. No, it reads to me that when looking at subcontractor capabilities and past performance you shall consider it as if it were the Prime's. Though I think I recall seeing some past GAO cases where an agency required experience from the prime itself due to the nature of the requirement. I think this is what I was talking about-- https://www.gao.gov/decisions/bidpro/405365.htm From before the update Retreadfed mentioned though.
  8. So doing a little scenario here...Solicitation gets protested with a company saying "you need to evaluate my sub performance as mine per this USC!" GAO likely goes to the SBA to get their opinion on it. My bet is SBA says that sub past performance needs to be evaluated as the USC applies to that procurement. Has there been any instances where the SBA says "don't worry about it, no regulations about that law have been made"?
  9. Thanks Retreadfed, I guess that brings me to the question of FAR 1.602-1 where contracting officers must ensure "that all requirements of law, executive orders, regulations, and all other applicable procedures, including clearances and approvals, have been met." In the absence of a regulations, how would a contracting officer deal with a law that appears to apply to their procurement? I'm not sure I feel that a lack of regulation is a proper excuse to not ensure that a contract is awarded with all requirements of the law, EO, etc are met, unless there's evidence to the contrary that I don't have. I guess my other question is whether or not 644(q) applies to ALL multiple award contracts above an agency's substantial bundling threshold or if it only applies to bundled requirements above that threshold?
  10. Reading through the Small Business Act I came across the following language on page 233. (q) REPORTS RELATED TO PROCUREMENT CENTER REPRESENTATIVES.— (1) TEAMING AND JOINT VENTURE REQUIREMENTS.— (A) IN GENERAL.—Each Federal agency shall include in each solicitation for any multiple award contract above the substantial bundling threshold of the Federal agency a provision soliciting bids from any responsible source, including responsible small business concerns and teams or joint ventures of small business concerns. (B) TEAMS.—When evaluating an offer of a small business prime contractor that includes a proposed team of small business subcontractors for any multiple award contract above the substantial bundling threshold of the Federal agency, the head of the agency shall consider the capabilities and past performance of each first tier subcontractor that is part of the team as the capabilities and past performance of the small business prime contractor. It looks like this would have wide implications for all Multiple Award Contracts/Schedules as the above language applies to solicitations for multiple award contracts above the "substantial bundling threshold" rather than simply to bundled or consolidated requirements. The FAR itself (15.305(a)(2)(iii)) only says that evaluations should take into account subs that perform major or critical parts of the requirement. For a lot of multiple award contracts/IDIQs/schedules specific requirements and therefore what subs would best perform those requirements are unknown. If it's required to take the past performance of a sub "the past performance of the small business prime contractor" wouldn't that enable otherwise unqualified contractors to win awards based on subcontractor experience (who they may not necessarily use in performance of task orders)?
  11. Good morning and happy holidays WIFCON! I’ve been reading these forums/blogs since I started in Federal contracting as a Copper Cap (just over two years now) and have gained a ton of valuable knowledge and viewpoints, this really is an amazing resource for contracting knowledge. Over the past year I’ve started working large dollar service contracts and have found myself in a position where I’ve had to develop IDIQ pricing tables for RFPs twice now. I’ve gone through the CPRG and found it useful but not in the way I’m looking for, it's more what to do what the numbers once you have them than what to do before you get them. I very much enjoy this type of work and it seems like there’s a lack of know-how around me in this area. I’d like to think I’m pretty good with excel, I can use tables/pivot tables/named ranges/advanced formulas and code in VBA to an extent. It was simple when all I had to do was make a spreadsheet for supplies, but with all the variables from services and IDIQ type contracts it’s getting more challenging (and fun). Bottom line: I’d like to know what techniques/courses/resources/templates/books etc anyone would recommend for learning more about things such as developing pricing tables and proposal modeling. I'd also like to know what your opinion is on using MS Access for this type of work. Thank you all for your contributions to this site and all the knowledge you’ve already passed on to me!
×
×
  • Create New...