Gns

Don beat me to the punch. Paragraph (c) seems to refer to full-time education. If they are going part-time, the paragraph doesn't apply. Paragraph (b) is talking about their salary during working hours. If they are not taking the class during working hours, you wouldn't be paying their salary anyway.

If it's a multiple award contract, I'd assume they need to compete for the orders. If they don't want the contract, how many competitions do you think they will win? They may be obligated to perform a minimum quantity. Faced with a T4D they likely would find a way to do the minimum. After that, you are missing one of the firms you hoped would compete for the work. One of the worst contracts to be in is one where the other party doesn't want to be there. Personally, I'd just T4C and move on and find a way to bring in additional firms.

That would be a beautiful view to wake up to with coffee.

I think you also need to consider the expected range of the cost of repairs. If they are tearing apart heavy equipment, will any orders be expected to exceed $25K? If so, the existence of a Part 13 BPA wouldn't necessarily alleviate the need for a synopsis. That may change your strategy. I'm not sure I wouldn't just go with a single-award IDIQ unless you think the volume is too much for these shops or your afraid you are going to get cheated on the individual repairs. If your calls are on a T&M basis, many repair shops use an "hourly shop rate" and that could be used in forming the basis of your competition. But, I wonder if you have enough work to justify making more than one award. If it's price based (on the shop rate) why wouldn't the same firm win each individual call? Do you expect a repair shop to bid a different (lower) rate each time you have a requirement? That seems like a lot of effort for a small purchase. If these are Mom and Pop type firms, they aren't likely set up to submit technical proposals so a best value/tradeoff probably isn't practical. Just my thoughts...

Funny. I'm wondering if the new KO didn't think the old KO had the authority to give the go-ahead without the firm being registered in SAM? If so, I’d acknowledge that FAR 4.1102 does indicate that prospective contractors shall be registered in the SAM database prior to award of a contract but allows exceptions, including instances where contracts awarded by deployed contracting officers in the course of military operations and contracts to support unusual or compelling. Many automated systems these days will not allow an order through until the firm is registered in SAM, but that doesn’t stop a KO from properly exercising their authority. A two month wait is not all that uncommon.

What's the dollar value of the individual orders? If they are small enough, have them use a PCard.

You might keep in mind that if you “fail” a small business concern on a go/no-go factor for one or more responsibility type evaluation factors (such as key personnel), as opposed to evaluating the concern on a comparative basis, that you will likely need to refer the concern to SBA for consideration for a COC. You won't end up with a streamlined approach in that event.

Maybe people still use the unpriced PO but I think this is one area of the FAR that is mostly a hold-over from a bygone era. FAR 13.302-1 now indicates that except as provided under the unpriced purchase order method, purchase orders "generally" are issued on a fixed-price basis. I don't know when that language switched from "shall" (used in a 1995 version). When I started in DoD in the early 80's, our small purchase people issued what are now T-M orders on an unpriced basis and then a poor sole went back, reviewed invoices, and negotiated fixed-prices for each.

Regardless of whether the firm missed something in the RFP/Q or not, I think this brings up another point that puzzles me. At places I've worked, I have seen a long-term trend, from both the Gov't and from Industry, of a fear of picking up the telephone and saying hi and conveying info on what's going on. The Gov't frequently sends out letters/emails without talking to anyone and Industry sits in fear of asking what is going on for fear of offending someone. Just my thoughts...

ji20874 - thanks. Yes, I was referring to sole source as directed. Sorry for posting and then taking a while to get back. The snow had me out of the office. I agree the ordering procedures at 8.405 does force one to reach out to more than one firm unless one can justify not doing so. Because a sole source 8(a) is not one of the circumstances listed at 8.405-6 I can agree that it is not permissable to do a sole source 8(a) via Schedule.

Thanks for all the input. I still go back to the plain language at 8.405-5 which indicates that you are able to set-aside to any of the "concerns" listed at 19.000(a)(3). 8(a) vendors are concerns listed in 19.000(a)(3). To me, none of the other parts of FAR either directly support an affirmative or negative position with regards to doing a directed 8(a) set-aside. Nonetheless, I'm leery of proceeding down that path. I can just do directed buys outside of the Schedule but it is a bit quicker to just cut orders off Schedule and I can typically use my less-senior buyers to do that.

I'm not comfortable with the wording at FAR 19.000(a)(3) and would appreciate some help. I've always been under the impression that I cannot make a directed 8(a) buy using GSA Schedules. However, looking at the current wording in FAR, I'm not as comfortable with my previous interpretation. FAR 8.405-5, Small business, is clear to me. It indicates I'm allowed to set-aside orders for any of the small business concerns identified in 19.000(a)(3). 8.405-5 Small business.(a) Although the preference programs of part 19 are not mandatory in this subpart, in accordance with section 1331 of Public Law 111-240 (15 U.S.C. 644®)— (1) Ordering activity contracting officers may, at their discretion— (i) Set aside orders for any of the small business concerns identified in 19.000(a)(3); and FAR 19.000(a)(3) goes on to state: 19.000 Scope of part. (a) (3) Setting acquisitions aside for exclusive competitive participation by small business, 8(a) business development participants, HUBZone small business concerns, service-disabled veteran-owned small business concerns, and economically disadvantaged women-owned small business concerns and women-owned small business concerns eligible under the Women-Owned Small Business Program; What I'm having difficulty with is: (1) the placement of the word "competitive". Are they strictly speaking to competitive participation by small business, or competitive participation by 8(a) businesses, competitive HUBZones, etc. (2) FAR 8.405-5 states I can set an order aside for any of the small business "concerns" listed in 19.000(a)(3). 8(a)'s are one of the various "concerns" listed. I probably took a long time to get to my question. But, can you do a directed 8(a) through the GSA Schedules program? Any help appreciated.

I'm not comfortable with the wording at FAR 19.000(a)(3) and would appreciate some help. I've always been under the impression that I cannot make a directed 8(a) buy using GSA Schedules. However, looking at the current wording in FAR, I'm not as comfortable with my previous interpretation. FAR 8.405-5, Small business, is clear to me. It indicates I'm allowed to set-aside orders for any of the small business concerns identified in 19.000(a)(3). 8.405-5 Small business.(a) Although the preference programs of part 19 are not mandatory in this subpart, in accordance with section 1331 of Public Law 111-240 (15 U.S.C. 644®)— (1) Ordering activity contracting officers may, at their discretion— (i) Set aside orders for any of the small business concerns identified in 19.000(a)(3); and FAR 19.000(a)(3) goes on to state: 19.000 Scope of part. (a) (3) Setting acquisitions aside for exclusive competitive participation by small business, 8(a) business development participants, HUBZone small business concerns, service-disabled veteran-owned small business concerns, and economically disadvantaged women-owned small business concerns and women-owned small business concerns eligible under the Women-Owned Small Business Program; What I'm having difficulty with is: (1) the placement of the word "competitive". Are they strictly speaking to competitive participation by small business, or competitive participation by 8(a) businesses, competitive HUBZones, etc. (2) FAR 8.405-5 states I can set an order aside for any of the small business "concerns" listed in 19.000(a)(3). 8(a)'s are one of the various "concerns" listed. I probably took a long time to get to my question. But, can you do a directed 8(a) through the GSA Schedules program? Any help appreciated.

FAR 19.804-4 Repetitive acquisitions, indicates that "In order for repetitive acquisitions to be awarded through the 8(a) Program, there must be separate offers and acceptances." The two paragraphs that follow vaguely discuss specific requirements for BOA's and IDIQ's. I'm reading separate offers and acceptances as beng applicable to individual orders like those placed against a BPA. I'm primarily interested in setting up a directed single award BPA with an 8(a) firm (Part 13 BPA as opposed to Part 8 Schedule) but the requirement to obtain individual acceptances would make this approach unappealing as I'd expect to have 50-75 orders per year. The total value of orders is probably $250K per year. I'm not clear if doing an IDIQ contract with an established maximum would get me out of the separate offers/acceptances. I'm wondering if anyone else has found a way to streamline this?

Thanks, I double-checked and yes the definitions including "national buy" at 19.801 have been removed. I'm not sure what version of the FAR I stumbled to online but it was obviously out of date. FAR 5.205(f) still references doing a synopsis for a national buy so I'm still not that clear.