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. For this particular IDIQ task order it will be competed between 2 vendors who were awarded the IDIQ, but in the ordering instructions it it states the ordering CO can contemplate the use of options at the task order level but must be approved at the agency level. I have not found any VA policy stating you cannot.
  2. Ok here's the deal, my CO specifically states you can only cut a task order for one year at a time. However, I believe that you can build in option if the IDIQ allows it. Can someone please confirm if they are cut task orders with options years.
  3. Can anyone provide FAR references for limitations of sub-contracting for full and open unrestricted solicitation? From my understanding Small Biz is not required to submit sub-contracting plans, however large biz is required. 52.219-14 Limitations on Subcontracting- This only applies to set-asides. 52.219-27 -This only applies to SDVOSB concerns
  4. We did receive the SME's eval today which will help further support going full and open unresricted
  5. FAR 52.219-14 Applies as does FAR 52.219-27 if the vendor is an SDVSOB. However, to meet the rule of 2 you just need 2 smalls, they don't both have to be SDVOSB's. I agree with you Jacques and you bring up some interesting ideas, this is a service contract the IT component is just a piece of a larger pie. For the other response, YES we are award of the Rule of 2, we are delving into more complex issues related to this. If you have ever worked on a large project and had OSDBU as a voting member of the IPT what contracting finds and what OSDBU believes are two different sides. This is why evidence has to be added to the MArket research etc. in order to move past set asides, not as easy as just saying oh, do I have 2 or not. That is just the first step.
  6. This is for a Pharmacy Benefit Manager Service large scope > $15 million. Yes, as I stated we are in the process of gathering all of our supporting facts which includes the SME's eval of the strengths and weaknesses. However, as I stated SDVOSB "B" was the stronger of the two based on the info we have, as they have been awarded contracts of very similar scope and magnitude, however they are stating they cannot meet the limitations due to the large IT component that is involved. The weaker SDVOSB "A" has not been awarded nor performed contracts similar to this scope or magnitude. And yes, the fact that due to the type and nature of service required, small businesses do not have the capability unless they can sub-contract to large business, this is why it is important to know whether they can comply with the limitations on sub-contracting.
  7. Good Morning, Here is the scenario, a sources sought we sent out, a total of 7 responses were received: 2 SDVOSB's, 1 SMALL BIZ, and 4 Large Business. Under the VHA the "Rule of 2 Applies" therefore we did have two SDVOSB's respond with capabilities statements etc. However, the 2 SDVOSB's were then asked if they could comply with the "limitations on subcontracting as they apply to a set-aside" (i.e. SDVOSB must be able to perform 50% of the work and maintain 50% of the revenue". SDVOSB "A" states that they could meet the limitations on sub-contracting (i.e. they seemed the less capable of the 2 SDVOSB's however based on the info they provided to the sources sought, past contracts they have performed on etc.) SDVOSB "B" originally responded stating that they could comply, however they then replied afterword and stated after a more thorough review of the requirement they would be unable to comply with the limitations on sub-contracting due to the large IT component which is involved which would require them to further subcontract this portion out (i.e. SDVOSB "B" based on the past contracts they have been awarded and performed on appeared to be the more capable of the 2 SDVOSB's). We were originally going to solicit SDVOSB's as a set aside and meet the rule of 2, however due to one of the SDVOSB's stating they could not meet the limitations on subcontracting this just left us with one SDVOSB, and one Small. Currently, the program office SME is evaluating these two for strengths and weaknesses. However, regardless, all of these small businesses state they will have to partner with a large business in order to meet this requirement. Currently, the incumbent is a large biz. This is a fairly large contract greater than 15 million value, therefore FAR part 15 will be utilized, IPT etc. However, currently it appears based on our market research which is showing it is very unlikely SDVOSB "A" who states they can meet the limitation of sub-contracting actually can. This is based on the stronger SDVOSB who has performed multiple contracts of this type and magnitude stating they would not be able to. Also, the weaker of the SDVOSB's "A" has not performed on any contracts of this large scope, the largest they performed on was a $1.5 million contract. We are waiting for the strengths and weaknesses from the SME as well. Based on the current situation and info, I believe it is best we move forward with an unrestricted solicitation and solicit full and open, as I believe our market research will support the conclusion that although SDVOSB "A" states they can meet the limitations on sub contracting, in all actual reality they cannot based on all of the reasons I have stated above. Therefore, this would only leave us with a SMall, and we would not be able to meet the Rule of 2, thus solicit unrestricted "Full and open" Please provide your thoughts and strategies you would take regarding this situation. Kind Regards, J
  • Create New...