Velhammer

Typically I've seen manual PIINs for purchase orders used in two different scenarios: 1) Oral orders that are subsequently confirmed in writing (SPS allows you the option to stamp the front page as a confirming order, BCAS used to do it automatically if an "M" PIIN was assigned). 2) For "maintenance and service agreements" that are typically drafted prior to the up-coming fiscal year, allowing the PIIN to be assigned in advance, vice being generated by the automated procurement system.

Didn't realize I was in the midst of a political statement. I'll bow out of this discussion, after leaving you with one final thought: 15 USC ? 634. General powers ( Powers of Administrator: In the performance of, and with respect to, the functions, powers, and duties vested in him by this chapter the Administrator may? (6) make such rules and regulations as he deems necessary to carry out the authority vested in him by or pursuant to this chapter;

According to the SBA, Eligibile Actions don't include items such as mandatory sources (i.e. Ability One), contracts performed outside the US, and Foreign Sales (and others). There is an GAO report that summarizes the SBA's stance on excluded actions which can be found at http://www.gao.gov/new.items/d01551.pdf Does it matter: Depending on what activity you work for, any one of those three could be a major factor - or - all could be a non-issue. As far as what used to be: From what I recall (and I'm getting to be a bit of a dinosaur, so I don't even trust my own memory) FSS/GWAC's etc used to be excluded, because the credit used to go to the originating agency. Apparently that changed around 1999.

How about a study on the quality of the schools that government employees attend. You could use something like the Barron's guide to use as a bench mark.

Mary D: I agree with Don, ask. In this case, there really isn't too much competitive risk. You and your competitors will be determined to be either responsible or non-responsible; there is no "responsibler" I will say that I've seen good contractors, as a general practice, provide letters of credit from their financial institution(s). Typically such letters give a general size of their checking and the size of any lines of credit (i.e. mid six-figures). I've also seen offerors submit their D&B profiles and/or D&B Open Ratings, both of which contain information that satisfies a few of the the various items.

Vern: Could you expand on what you mean by "the boards and courts have interpreted 52.217-8 literally in the past". As for why the Army prepared the sole source, I would suspect it was a CYA move that in hind-sight hurt more than it helped. I wouldn't be surprised if that decision was made at the HCA level with the urging of legal counsel. MCS was clearly inquiring about the status and this contract was already on the sky-line.

Vern: To answer your question, I took the "within 30 days of contract expiration" to be a deadline (i.e. they had to exercise the extension NLT 1 May), rather than a window (they can exercise between 2 May and 31 May). Why? Probably because that is the way 52.217-9 is laid out. (I'll go ahead and flog myself for making another "unwarranted assumption")

I'm a little confused about a statement made in the latest MCS decision (B-401472): "FAR sect. 17.207(f) further states that to meet the requirements of FAR Part 6, regarding full and open competition, the option must have been evaluated as part of the initial competition and be exercisable at an amount specified in or reasonably determinable from the terms of the basic contract. The option to extend the contract here under FAR clause 52.217-8 was not evaluated as part of the initial competition, so that the exercise of this option amounts to a contract extension beyond the scope of the contract, and therefore effectively constitutes a new procurement." It is clear that the agency did not exercise the option to extend services within the timeframe stated in the original contract. But I'm not sure if the GAO is saying (without specifically saying) that the extension was not authorized under 52.217-8, so this becomes a new procurement subject to Part 6 requirements. If so, no real disagreement. However, it appears that the GAO is taking issue with the idea that the agency exercised an "unevaluated option." I do not see how an option under the extension of services clause could be evaluated as part of the initial competition. Presumably, no one sets out with the intent of ever having to exercise the extension of services clause. As such, I've never seen pre-pricing of options specifically for the extension of services clause. I think the requirements of 17.207(f) are met because the clause already establishes that the services will be performed within the limits and at the rates specified in the contract subject to any adjustments due from changes in the wage determination; so the amount is "reasonably determinable from the terms of the basic contract" which would have been evaluated as part of the initial competition. Am I reading this wrong or is there something else I haven't considered?

Both, and others. See FAR 7.102(. In my experience, it doesn't happen that way. I've worked in offices where the 1102's have to try to define the technical requirements of the acquisition plan, and then more recently worked in a systems office where the Program Managers Office did the plan, including the acquisition specific items (contract type, POAM, evaluation criteria). Neither was an optimal or efficient method. I've never seen a true, collaborative effort where people sat around the table and discussed each of the elements in the early stages of the acquisition; hopefully it exists somewhere.

I would think that your particular situation may require additional terms and conditions (i.e. clauses) that require a written order be issued. Presumably you have insurance, maintenance, or other requirements that should be written; or you may need to lay out terms and conditions similar to the vehicle clauses in FAR Part 8. The DFAS Memo that came out many years ago also exempted micro-purchase PO's from the Flag/SES signature, if the contract needed to include terms and conditions that had to be in writing.

Gov2310: I've seen a "government novation" done on two occasions. The first was during the first Gulf War, when we novated our contracts over to the Saudi government, primarily so they could assume the payment function. In this case, there was literally a locally generated legal form called a Novation Agreement, written in both languages, that required the signatures of the Gov't KO, the Saudi Gov't Rep, and the contractor. The second occasion was when an office within the same DoD component closed. In that case, unilateral modifications were issued by the closing office, transferring all PCO and ACO functions to the gaining office. Since there were no changes in the general terms and conditions, it was relatively straight forward.

The only place I've seen this addressed is in FAR 6.302-3 (a)(2)(iii) to acquire the services of an expert or neutral person for any current or anticipated litigation or dispute. The DoD FMR only discusses the Equal Access to Justice Act, as far as I can find.

Orion: Know the type of contract would be extremely useful. 32.112-1 may be applicable, but if this happens to be a construction contract; then 28.106-7 may be applicable.

Scjet: Are you talking about transferring the administration of the contract, or "novating" the entire contract (PCO and ACO functions) from DoD to NASA?

Interesting... I had a similar issue on a T&M contract; where I had asked for a breakdown of labor and fringe, along with their indirect rates. I had requested the info to ensure both compliance with the SCA and the limitation on sub-contracting. To me, it made perfect sense to determine that the vendor had taken exception to a material requirement of the solicitation (Pay the rates required by the SCA). The vendor clearly demonstrated that they did not know what the WD rate and fringe requirements were (even though the WD was included in the solicitation, referenced numerous times in the amendments, and the issue was specifically addressed during discussions with the firm). After the protest was filed, someone pointed out to me that a company is free to take a loss on a contract and that we would be able to drop the hammer on them after the first invoice (contract administration) if they weren't paying the correct rates. Fortunately the protest was dismissed for being late; otherwise you may have had another case to cite.

Mr. Mansfield: I agree with what you are saying, it is a question of what serves as the "obligation document" to record the obligation. I believe we are forced to use a DO/TO, if you want to be able to accurately report it to FPDS and for those agencies that have interfaces between the contract writing system and the respective accounting system. GeoJeff: Agree, there is a field; but I don't believe the CAR will authenticate. Unable to test it currently, but the business rules state that if the Award Type is an IDV (i.e. IDC type) then the award type is blank. (Section 12B of the business rule). Section 3C (Dollars obligated) says that if the award type has a value (which it does not for IDV's) the value must be greater than or equal to zero. Although not stated, presumably if the IDV is blank, then the Obligation amount must also be blank. Link provided below: http://www.fpds-ng.com/downloads/FPDS-DES-...c#_Toc204158310

Mr. Mansfield: In the waning days of the DD350, the business rules were changed to preclude the reporting of the minimum guarantee amounts on any "D" contract. (Even if it was a combination FFP with IDIQ work). When FPDS-NG was introduced, the same business rules were in place. Presumably these business rules are written as an interpretation of policy and regulation. The only feasible course of action was to issue the basic contract and then issue task order 0001 (or 9999 at some agencies such as SpaWar) to obligate the minimum guarantee, shortly after award.

Desparado: Agree that 4.1201 seems applicable across the board; but the prescription for the clause 52.204-8 (4.1202) starts out "Except for commercial item solicitations..." So to answer your question, I would say the prospective contractors are not required to complete ORCA.

Here are my two cents on the original post. If you are the type of person that likes to develop others, then having a warrant is the best way to accomplish that task. You and the trainee both have your skin in the game. Otherwise, trainees may seek you out for information; but the guy/gal with the warrant may not agree with your recommended course of action. Another benefit is the ability to influence the implementation of policy. Contracting is like religion and politics; we all have our own views are rarely agree with everything that goes on in our offices. It is hard to over-turn an archaic policy when you are sitting in the cheap seats.

Brian: Early or not, I agree. Not withstanding the fact that some of the qualifiers could be used to establish relevance to the current solicitation, this seems to have gone down a path of more than just "how well did they perform".

For the rest of the forum's members: No, the decision has not been posted. As I indicated in a more detailed response to ALAL, the denial for reconsideration adds no real value to the initial decision; except to cause embarrassment to the agency and SBA. I will send it to Admin if the GAO doesn't post at some point in the future.

Both requests for reconsideration were denied. Even though the GAO acknowledge the SBA was "entitled to substantial deference (in interpreting the statute); if the agency's interpretation is reasonable, it should be upheld." ... "We concluded that the SBA's regulatory implementation of the HUBZone and SDVOSBC statutes... was not reasonable and, as a result was not entitled to deference." For the USMC portion, the GAO essentially stated that the agency didn't raise any new issues, and didn't substantiate the impact of not being allowed to submit an agency report on the second protest.