Jump to content

Sam101

Members
  • Posts

    67
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Recent Profile Visitors

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

  1. I'm in a situation where I need to either do a T4C or do it the cheap way and just do a regular mod and call it a deductive change, I'm leaning towards a T4C but can a T4C be bad for a contractor's record? Can an agency somehow find out that a T4C occurred and somehow use that against the contractor? I know a T4C is not the contractor's fault but can evaluators in the back of their mind think that something bad happend? Is there some database which shows if a contractor had a T4C happen to them? Or if an RFP asks "have you ever had a contract terminated?"
  2. I'm 99% sure that this is a dumb question but say you get a price proposal that looks like this: Base Year CLIN 1: $5,000.00 Option Year 1 CLIN 101: $7,000.00 Option Year 2 CLIN 201: $6,000.00 Option Year 3 CLIN 301: $6,000.00 Option Year 4 CLIN 401: $6,000.00 It looks goofy like the offeror is trying to kind of spread out the loss of bidding low on CLINs 2 through 4 but it's probably not unbalanced pricing since it's not significant. Is this common? I almost just want to award with making CLIN 2 be $6,000.00 and take it as an obvious clerical error, I don't want to enter into negotiations, or if I ask for clarification and they say they did it on purpose I'll want to say this just looks messed up and say it's $6,000.00 or you're out of the competition for unbalanced pricing... even though it's possibly not, in which case I can't say that they're out... has this happened to anyone before?
  3. ji, It says "the Contractor shall not be required to make any deliveries under this contract after the completion of customer order, including options, 60 months following the expiration of the basic contract ordering period." This is in their FSS contract, if I were inputting this clause in an agency IDIQ I would phrase it the same... although as Vern mentioned it does say [insert date], in which case I would calculate the date and insert it... I never awarded an agency IDIQ, just BPAs so I never had to worry about that clause.
  4. Not upset, just surprised that a buyer can pay 2021's rates in 2026.
  5. Hello, am I understanding correctly that for FSS task orders if FAR 52.216-22(d) of the Schedule contract says "60 months" that it means that if on the last day of the FSS Schedule contract the hourly rate for a project manager is $100.00 per hour then for the duration of the entire 60 month task order period of performance the government will pay no more than $100.00 per hour for that labor category? That means no increase in rates for 5 years, right? And, as a secondary question, am I understanding correctly that agency's don't care about AllWorld Language Consultants, Inc. B-411481.3 and just ignore GAO's opinion in regards to options in that case?
  6. I wonder if GAO went a bit too far in B-416076 EFS Ebrex SARL saying that that 80% unsated evaluation factor was not proper, minus the misleading discussions part, I agree that discussions were misleading. But I kind of disagree with the fact that it was not proper for the agency to use the 80% cut-off for Acceptable even if it was not stated in the solicitation that that would happen in the evaluation stage. Perhaps not making it a cut-off and instead making it part of the subjective analysis that Ebrex just deserves an Acceptable and not a Good might have worked. As it relates to this thread, the agency did state in their RFP that "those aspects of relevancy include experience performing deliveries as a full line food service distributor, dollar value, and number of customers." FAR 15.304(d) says "[t]he rating method need not be disclosed in the solicitation" doesn't it? Apart from that if the agency wanted to enter into discussions with Coastal they should have eliminated Ebrex from the competitive range because Ebrex didn't have a chance of winning even if discussions were to be held with them anyways, eliminating the "discussions were not meaningful" problem.
  7. Are recurring supplies treated like severable services in terms of funding the requirement if I'm using annual one-year funds? If I have a contract where the contractor delivers 1 bottle of water per month (commercial item) to my office and the period of performance is 07/01/2021 - 06/30/2022, can I fund the entire 12 months with FY21 funds like I can with severable services? I see the Principles of Federal Appropriations page 5-13 says "We do not mean to suggest that an agency may purchase only those supplies that it will actually use during the fiscal year. Agencies normally maintain inventories of common use items. The bona fide needs rule does not prevent maintaining a legitimate inventory at reasonable and historical levels, the “need” being to maintain the inventory level so as to avoid disruption of operations" but I take this to mean that it's OK to purchase more supply "as a one-time bulk buy" than is going to be used this fiscal year but I'm not sure that it means that I can treat recurring supplies like severable services, does it? I can buy 12 bottles of water and keep them in the fridge and drink one bottle per month, but can I get the water bottles delivered one month at a time and still fund all of it with current year funds?
  8. I guess if the government can document that "knowledge of our agency" is worth up to 15% to 20% more I guess that's OK and same goes for wanting a new contractor.
  9. If two offerors have exactly the same proposals but the only difference is that one is the incumbent, how much lower/higher priced does the incumbent need to be to be awarded the contract? How much lower/higher priced does the new contractor need to be to be awarded the contract?
  10. Hi Vern, 1. I usually buy professional services NAICS Code 541611 - Administrative Management and General Management Consulting Services. 2. By approach I mean "what processes/methods will you use to accomplish the requirements of the SOW, to include the description of labor categories and hours for each labor categories that you plan to use." But the exact language will depend on the SOW of course. 3. It can be for information purposes just so that the government understands that the offeror can do the work and understands the requirement or if it's for complex services I'll include the language from the best parts of the offeror's approach in the award version of the SOW. The hours are just for information purposes though because 1,000.00 hours for project manager will be considered a weakness because it's too much level of effort for what the government needs, otherwise the evaluation panel will only find out when when see the price volume (if hours are broken out there).
  11. Lately I been instructing offerors/quoters in section L to state how many hours for each labor category they plan to use to perform the SOW as part if their technical approach section. For example: Offeror A: Project manager: 100 hours Senior developer: 200 hours Offeror B: Project manager: 125 hours Senior developer: 150 hours First of all, this is helpful to evaluating technical approach because it shows the extent to which the offeror understands the requirement, if this information is only seen in the price volume then the technical team will only realize that thier outstanding rated offeror is proposing 1,000 hours for the project manager after they see the price volume... the number of hours is a technical thing just as much as a price thing, so I want to see that number in the technical approach. Other times I also "release the budget" and tell quoters (never done this for an RFP) that "the estimated level of effort is $100,000.00" and I get quotes around that range give or take, I seen SOWs that unless you disclose the level of effort in terms of dollars or hours to the vendors that some will quote $500,000.00 and some will quote $5 million for the same exact SOW. In my case the IGCE was around $500,000.00 and the $5 million quote could have been avoided if I had stated in the RFQ somewhere that this SOW's level of effort is around $500K.
  12. If say a strength is defined as anything that exceeds the minimum requirement then all strengths are some additional things to the SOW which makes the SOW change in such a way that an amendment to the RFP would need to be done or the RFP would need to be recompeted if there are too many changes wouldn't it? I know the answer is no but I don't understand why the answer is no.
  13. @formerfed I heard that too but I'm not understanding how an agency wouldn't have to recompete that new SOW since it's not the same as the original requirement.
  14. How is an offeror's proposal related to the SOW once the contract is awarded? Here's a simple example of what I'm not understanding: Government requirement: Acquisistion support services for an agency in Washington, DC. SOW: The contractor shall provide a senior level contract specialist to support the daily tasks of the agency's contracting division. This position is 100% remote telework and if requested to be on site for a site visit the government will reimburse travel costs. Offeror A's proposal: Bob Smith will be the contract specialist and he lives in DC and here is his letter of commitment and resume. Agency awards to Offeror A based on the perceived benefit that they will not have to pay for travel costs and the reliability that the CS is close by so no delays will occur in them being able to come on site to DC if need be. A week after the contract is awarded Bob Smith moves to California and the contractor thinks that this is OK because the SOW says that this contract is 100% telework. If the government incorporates the proposal into the SOW or modifies the SOW to say the CS shall live in DC wouldn't that be an out of scope change to the RFP's SOW? And if the SOW is not modified then the government is not getting the benefit that they thought they would get when they were doing the trade off analysis. In terms of incorporating a proposal into an award, wouldn't that always be changing the SOW? Am I understanding correctly that when the government awards a contract that it just hopes that the contractor will perform in accordance with thier proposal but really the contractor is only required to perform what is written in the SOW and that it is not proper for the government to change the SOW right before award to make all the stuff in the proposal be incorporated into the award SOW because an unsucessful offeror can say that those changes are out of scope?
  15. If you have a NAICS code in mind you can try searching by that and key words and make sure to uncheck the active box so that you see the RFPs that are not in active status.
×
×
  • Create New...