Jump to content
The Wifcon Forums and Blogs


  • Posts

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Recent Profile Visitors

The recent visitors block is disabled and is not being shown to other users.

  1. Has anyone else received Vendor Capability Questionnaires from the DLA? The DLA is asking for information to get an accurate assessment of technical and financial capabilities as they relate to particular contracts. The questions include providing a description of the company's background; resumes for key technical/management personnel; and the exact location of machinery and equipment, among other things. I'm hearing that if answers to these questions are not submitted in time, the DLA is freezing/restricting access to DIBBS. Some people have told me that DLA is saying that this is being done to crack down on a few bad actors. Other people have said that this is being done to restrict the access of foreign corporations who could not actually satisfy or perform under the contracts on which they are bidding. Has anyone heard anything about this? Thanks
  2. The contracts I have seen are for the exact same part. Instead of one contract for approximately $300,000, the contract will be broken up into two separate contracts at around $149,999 each.
  3. Great. Thank you. So, just so I am clear, there is nothing wrong with negotiating reductions in quantities or unit price to stay under $150,000, particularly if the initial expectation was that the contract would fall under the $150,000 SAP. This is true even if the contract is awarded through a manual evaluation instead of an automated evaluation? But there is a distinction/there is something wrong going on when the contracting officer breaks up a contract into 2 separate contracts to keep each contract under the $150,000 SAP threshold? (c)(1) The contracting officer shall not use simplified acquisition procedures to acquire supplies and services if the anticipated award will exceed— (i) The simplified acquisition threshold; or (ii) $7 million ($13 million for acquisitions as described in 13.500(c)), including options, for acquisitions of commercial items using subpart 13.5. (2) Do not break down requirements aggregating more than the simplified acquisition threshold (or for commercial items, the threshold in subpart 13.5) or the micro-purchase threshold into several purchases that are less than the applicable threshold merely to— (i) Permit use of simplified acquisition procedures; or (ii) Avoid any requirement that applies to purchases exceeding the micro-purchase threshold.
  4. I've attached the abstract here. It looks like it was a manual evaluation. Abstract of Quotes.pdf
  5. There were two quotes received. The quote with the box with an x marked next to it for suggested award offered both a lower price and a faster delivery time.
  6. Hi Napolik, The document I have is definitely an abstract of quotes with a small business set aside. The estimated price was $143,492.4. The winning bid was for 72 units at $2,194.66 each, which put the total contract price at $158,015.52. However, the award summary indicates a total contract price of $149,236.88. The procurement history for this particular item shows that when the contract was awarded it was only for 68 units as opposed to 72 and the price was $149,236.88, which kept it below the SAP threshold.
  7. Hi, I've been looking at a lot of bid abstracts for sales to components of the DoD where the winning bid will have a unit amount and per unit price that pushes the contract up over the $150,000 SAP threshold. However, the procurement history and some of the bid abstracts indicate that the unit amount is revised downward to keep the contract under $150,000. That revision keeps the contract under the SAP. I've also seen other instances where larger contracts are broken up into a series of smaller contracts to all stay under $150,000.00. Who modifies these contracts like this? Is there a consequence for going over the SAP? Or is it just more work for the contracting officer?
  • Create New...