IAMBATMAN

@joel the technical evaluation team will evaluate and rate the proposals and provide a technical report to the KO

@Don Yes.

I know at the end of the day its the KO's decision, however you do have those customers that want FAR references for everything, so I would like to provide them with something other than because the KO said so.

The below hypothetical is an example for context:

One RFQ for lawn care services 

Two Tasks outlined in the RFQ, Task 1 grass cutting, Task 2 sprinkler services 

Quoters are allowed to bid on Task 1, Task 2 or both

The government reserves the right to award one contract to a single vendor if highly rated on both tasks, or award two contracts to two different vendors 

best value selection procedures will be used 

The question: The CO wants two separate Technical Evaluations Teams (TEPs), with separate members to prevent the perception of an unbiased evaluation( for example the customer picking one vendor to reduce their administrative burden), what gives the CO this authority? any FAR reference or agency supplemental guidance references? 

1 hour ago, ji20874 said:

48 CFR 3004.804-570 does not require obtaining a release of claims for every closeout action.  Read what it actually says:  "When applicable and prior to contract closure, the contracting officer shall obtain the listed DHS and Department of Defense (DOD) forms from the contractor for closeout."  The key words are "When applicable."  

A release of claims is required only for a few contracts, including cost-reimbursement contracts, T&M contracts, and fixed-price construction contracts -- and for all of these, the release is required before final payment, long before closeout.  If it isn't applicable, then it isn't applicable and need not be obtained for closeout.  When it is applicable, it should have already been obtained long before closeout occurs. 

Agency supplements are not the FAR.  They are agency supplements to the FAR.  Read FAR 1.101:  "The Federal Acquisition Regulations System consists of the Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR), which is the primary document, and agency acquisition regulations that implement or supplement the FAR." 

Read the FAR!  It is amazing what can be learned through reading!

"A release of claims is required only for a few contracts, including cost-reimbursement contracts, T&M contracts, and fixed-price construction contracts" can you point me to the reference?

so FAR 4.804-5(a)(13) Contractor’s closing statement isn't a release of claims?

When performing Contract Closeout, a release of claims is required, in the event that the contractor cant be reached and after attempts prove unsuccessful, it is recommended that the CO begin Administrative Unilateral Closeout. Does anyone have experience conducting  an Administrative Unilateral Closeout.

Does anyone have a template of an Administrative Unilateral Closeout memo? or whatever memo your agency uses to document the contract file when a contractor cant be located for contract closeout.

Thanks.

The requirement if for nationwide services, broken up in to Zones and requires businesses to have a facility clearance, out of the 4 zones only 1 zone had more than 1 small business that was deemed capable and had the required clearance.

Can a contracting officer proceed with out thier concucrence on set-a-sides? Any referecnes about this at the FAR level, I know it will vary at the agency level. The short and sweet story is that my OSDBU feels like everthing should be a total small business set-a-side.

I found:

FAR 6.101 Policy.

      (a) 10 U.S.C.2304 and 41 U.S.C.3301 require, with certain limited exceptions (see subpart  6.2 and 6.3), that contracting officers shall promote and provide for full and open competition in soliciting offers and awarding Government contracts.

      (b) Contracting officers shall provide for full and open competition through use of the competitive procedure(s) contained in this subpart that are best suited to the circumstances of the contract action and consistent with the need to fulfill the Government’s requirements efficiently (10 U.S.C.2304 and 41 U.S.C.3301).

and this, my requiremnet is a multiple-award IDIQ and I want to do a partial.

FAR 19.502-4 Partial set-asides of multiple-award contracts.

      (a) In accordance with section 1331 of the Small Business Jobs Act of 2010 ( 15 U.S.C. 644(r)(1)), contracting officers may, at their discretion, set aside a portion or portions of a multiple-award contract, except for construction, for any of the small business concerns identified at 19.000(a)(3) when—

           (1) Market research indicates that a total set-aside is not appropriate (see 19.502-2);

           (2) The requirement can be divided into distinct portions;

           (3) The acquisition is not subject to simplified acquisition procedures;

           (4) Two or more responsible small business concerns are reasonably expected to submit an offer on the set-aside portion or portions of the acquisition that are competitive in terms of fair market prices, quality, and delivery; and

           (5) The specific program eligibility requirements identified in this part apply.

      (b) When the contracting officer determines that a requirement is to be partially set aside, the solicitation shall identify which portion or portions are set aside and not set aside.

      (c) The contracting officer shall specify in the solicitation how offers shall be submitted with regard to the set-aside and non-set-aside portions.

      (d) Offers received from concerns that do not qualify as small business concerns shall be considered nonresponsive and shall be rejected on the set-aside portion of partial set-asides. However, before rejecting an offer otherwise eligible for award because of questions concerning the size representation, an SBA determination must be obtained (see subpart  19.3

Has anyone added a "construction contingency CLIN to their contract before?  The CLIN would be funded by the gov to help expedite the processing of any change orders, the funds are not guaranteed to the contractor and it is not priced by the contractor in their proposal.  

Scenario: A firm fixed price, Design-bid-build contract for a building, funding for the project comes from two different customers. The process of merging funds could be lengthy and could potentially cause a delay when funding change orders, hence the idea of "front loading" the funds for immediate use.

This is a domestic contract, contingency in this sense means unexpected modification. 

@joel hoffman the program office is accustomed to using  pre-qualification with their A&E work,  I just wanted to make sure that there wasn't a circumstance of using pre-qualifications for regular construction that I was unaware of.  The  project will move forward as a typical Part 15 procurement. 

Thanks for the input

@joel hoffman Basically they want to do a  two phase selection procedure for design-Bid-build. Their rational is that  the process would result in the best qualified contractors. It would be go/no factors.

I work for a non DOD agency, I have a construction requirement ( to build a regular building)  and my program office is asking to do Pre-Qualifications. I'v only done Pre-Qualifications for A&E contracts, so before I tell them no, I would like to know is anyone has references or input on the matter.

Thanks. 

27 minutes ago, Retreadfed said:

If they are in scope modifications, why are you preparing J&As?

Competition may be required for modifications of existing contracts if there is a cardinal change to the contract (such as an increase to the total estimated amount of the award, a change to the Statement of Work (SOW), or an extension of the period of performance).

17 hours ago, ji20874 said:

No.

Do you think there should be?

Are you talking about J&As or JEFOs?

Are you posting the JEFOs on FedBizOpps and your agency website so that all contract holders can see them?

Yes I think there should, mods sometimes add up to be 5x the original amount of the inital contract.

J&A as in Justification and Approvals I use it loosely to cover the authorities under Subpart 6.3, the J&A's were Justifications for Other Than Full and Open Competition. Is that what JOFO stand for?

J&A's were under the SAT so posting was required, just a copy for the file. 

Hypothetical situation . Let's say you have a competitively awarded Multiple Award IDIQ contract for Security Services, you compete and award a Task Order (Base +4 Options) for $100k.  Throughout the 5 year Period of performance 3 separate J&A's for ceiling increases of $75K were approved, these are in scope modifications and there is enough capacity on the IDIQ . So you have an Initial Task Order value of $100k and three modifications that have a value of $225K . 

I would like to know if there is guidance on a maximum cumulative modification dollar amount, for example, something saying " all modifications shall not exceed the total initial contract value by 75%".  

In 2016 -8 was used to extend option year 4 of the base IDIQ to January 2017.

In January 2017 -8 was used on  specific mission critical Task orders that ended in January 2017 to extend them to July 2017

- 8 for the base IDIQ expired in January, -8 for those extended task order will expire in July

@Vern Edwards

Term? it was a base plus 4 options, the base 6 month extension via 52.217-8 expired in January

FAR 52.216-22 paragraph (d) "180 days beyond the expiration date of the contract"

I appreciate all of the input, I’m leaning toward using FAR 52.237-3, here’s the scenario:

Base IDIQ expired January 2017

52.217-8 was used to extend Task orders to July 2017

52.237-3 will be used for phase in/out

52.217- 8 says “The option provision may be exercised more than once, but the total extension of performance hereunder shall not exceed 6 months.”  Does the phase in/out up to 90 days conflict?

Can FAR 52.237-3, Continuity of Services clause be utilized on an existing Task Order if the Base IDIQ is dead? The clause was in the Base not the Task Order. 

Can anyone recommend one over the other? The pros, cons of both. I have a requirement for IT advisory services, which is available through both vehicles. I have experience with GSA not NITAAC.

Thanks in advance.