Vel

Retreadfed is correct, but unfortunately "SOFA" is not a term that is used in every country. For example, with Spain it is called the Agreement on Defense Cooperation; in Africa there are programs such as Africa First and Djibouti First. I recommend you check the embassy websites of the countries you are inquiring about. They typically have a "Business" page with the specifics for the respective countries. I would also add that the intended use of the interpreters may drive a requirement for them to be U.S. citizens if they are required to have a security clearance. It could be a mixture of both.

No. The replacement of the roof is a single undertaking and is considered a non-severable service because the benefit is not received until the work is complete. If the need is for the replacement of the roof, and it is executed this FY, it is a bonafide need for FY24 even if it takes longer than a year to perform.

Perhaps it originated from FAR 14.201-8: (c) Advantages or disadvantages to the Government that might result from making more than one award (see 14.201-6(q)). The contracting officer shall assume, for the purpose of making multiple awards, that $500 would be the administrative cost to the Government for issuing and administering each contract awarded under a solicitation. Individual awards shall be for the items or combinations of items that result in the lowest aggregate cost to the Government, including the assumed administrative costs.

The GAO Red Book Chapter 5 Annual update contains this, on page 5-1: A multiple year appropriation is available by its very terms for the bona fide needs of the agency arising during that multiple year period. Consequently, an agency using a multiple year appropriation would not violate the bona fide needs rule, discussed in more detail in section B of this chapter, if it enters into a severable services contract for more than one year as long as the period of contract performance does not exceed the period of availability of the multiple year appropriation. B-317636, Apr. 21, 2009.

Mac, in my prior experience doing R&D contracts with universities; they have forward pricing rate agreements (FPRA) that were negotiated with the Department of Health and Human Services. I don't recall if the FPRAs addressed per diem rates, but it may be worth taking a look if you can get your hands on it.

💡 - Thanks for setting me straight, Vern.

The Department of Defense apparently believes that 17.204(e) applies to the parent IDIQ. (DFARS) 217.204 Contracts. (e)(i) Notwithstanding FAR 17.204(e), the ordering period of a task order or delivery order contract (including a contract for information technology) awarded by DoD pursuant to 10 U.S.C. 3403— (A) May be for any period up to 5 years; (B) May be subsequently extended for one or more successive periods in accordance with an option provided in the contract or a modification of the contract; and (C) Shall not exceed 10 years unless the head of the agency determines in writing that exceptional circumstances require a longer ordering period. ---- So, if your agency FAR supplement allows for something similar, then you could have a 60 month base ordering period, but would need at least one option for another 60 months.

I believe that FAR 16.500(d) answers this, by saying that the placement of orders must be "consistent" with the procedures at 36.6. For NAVFAC, our internal procedures require HQ approval before establishing multiple award IDIQs for AE services, so they are rare; but once they are established the procedures states: Contract task order requirements must be competed using a streamlined A-E selection process. Once a multiple award contract is awarded, any decision not to compete a task order requirement must be approved by the appropriate Competition Advocate. In practice, at my prior command, we submitted the SAES and the selection critieria for the individual task orders to all firms and provided them an opportunity to submit an addendum to their (previously submitted) SF330 to address the specific requirements of the project and the evaluation criteria (in lieu of actual verbal discussions). We then negotiated the price with the most highly qualified firm. The basic contracts did list these ordering procedures.

I've always viewed this type of work (Title II or PCAS) as a severable service, because the benefit is received at the time the services are rendered. Depending on the type of funding you have, and the original duration of the task order; you may not be able to continue to use the funds that are currently obligated on the task order. Assuming it was annual appropriations and the duration was a year, I believe that if you want to extend the term of the task order, you would need to add current year funds for the amount for the work not yet performed. If you deobligate the expired funds at the same time, and there is no additional work being added, this won't increase the overall value of the task order.

Interesting discussion. I was wondering if you had seen the DPAP Memo on Direct and Indirect Charging of Contractor Proposal Preparation and Negotiation Support Costs, from 2011. You can find it here: https://www.acq.osd.mil/dpap/policy/policyvault/usa002866-11-dpap.pdf The next to last paragraph may give you some ideas on controlling the costs.

You can look at the various annexes that DASN (P) mandates for acquisition planning at https://www.secnav.navy.mil/rda/DASN-P/Pages/NMCARS.aspx They are annexes 17 through 21. There is a table at 5207-1 that shows when (and at what thresholds) the various annexes are required. While still cumbersome, the stream-lined acquisition plans (annexes 17 - 20) are much better than the prior format that covered everything in 7.105.

I've had this happen before. I told the vendor "No" because I had not advised in the sources sought notice that the names of companies that responded would be released. If you do decide to do so, then I would release the information publicly.

Have you considered what FAR 13.105 says?

NAVFAC has a design submittal requirement for a "Consolidated RFP Documents" in design-build projects. People commonly refer to this as a conformed contract. The requirement is to: consolidated RFP documents incorporating the Contractor's Proposal and all RFP amendments and revisions that are contained in the contract award. There is no requirement to update this submittal as modifications are issued after award. While this submittal requires government approval, and may be useful for design reviews, it does not substitute as the official contract file.

Interesting, Vern. The issue is still lingering with IAP, but I don't know that we'll get a final answer on this particular issue, because they were arguing DFARS 215.306, vice FAR 15.306.

Based on what you cited, I'd say no. Sounds remarkably similar to the circumstances in the recent IAP Worldwide Services case from earlier this year.

Your question is fairly broad. You could use a single solicitation and then make multiple awards for specific classes of supplies or services, resulting in several multiple award contracts (MACs) that are commodity or service based. If your focus is really on small business, then you could use a partial set-aside or a reserve. FAR 19.501(a)(1) generally discusses partial or full small business set-asides, and 19.501(a)(2) generally discusses small business reserves. 19.504(c) provides a little more info on placing orders under reserves. Of course, FAR 16.505(b)(2)(i)(F) provides an exception to the fair opportunity process by allowing set-asides when placing orders. Since you appear to be concerned about determining the smaller firms responsible at the time of award of the IDIQ, the establishment of a reserve may be the better course of action if these firms are actually small businesses for the commodity or service required. If the small business firms had a lower ordering threshold, then presumably they would not need the same financial, technical and production capabilities as the unrestricted firms. The reserve could state that all orders under X quantity, X dollar amount, or specific class of supply or service would be offered to only small business awardees. If no acceptable proposals were received (or market research determined there would be inadequate competition), then the opportunity would be open to all offerors. If this is scratching your itch, then we can discuss more. If I’m on the wrong track I’ll just shut up and wait for others to try to help you.

Looks like the Agency did exactly that in B-420497 CGS-ASP Security JV LLC. --- "In addition the RFP included another provision that provided as follows: Offerors, including any offeror organized as a joint venture, must have an active SAM registration at the time of proposal submission and throughout the procurement process. Any offeror whose registration is not active in SAM at the time of proposal submission will be excluded from the process and their proposals will not be evaluated. RFP at 89. (bold in original, italics supplied)" (...) "Here, the RFP was explicit that an active SAM registration at the time of proposal submission was required as a precondition of proposal evaluation."

By price breakdown, I assume you mean the breakdown of the individual units prices (i.e. direct labor, overhead, G&A, and Profit) vice the break-out of unit pricing by position. I also assume that this is a severable service, so an option year would be included. I believe that you can fulfill the requirements of FAR 22.1103 and 15.404-1(g) without a price breakdown. Since the compensation plan is required by the provision FAR 52.222-46, I don't consider that to be "other than cost or pricing data."

After I read the case, I went looking for the Article, and also found it on WIFCON.

Admittedly, I’ve never worked for GSA and even my experience at placing orders under schedules is not very vast. But my take on the requirements that you posted (assuming I were a contractor) would be to develop the most competitive SCLS rates, taking into consideration the multiple WDs as well as the potential to run across CBAs with high rates. If the situation arose where the work was not covered by the Act, then offering or negotiating lower rates may then be possible.

Vern: I’ll take the bait, realizing this is a David vs. Goliath matchup. I agree that when 52.222-41 is incorporated at the IDIQ level, it applies to all task orders. But I’m not sure I agree that the test of the principle purpose is not performed at the task order level. The definition of Contract in Part 2 does include “job order or task letters issued under basic ordering agreements.” An IDIQ does not order any services that are subject to the act, but the task orders do. 52.222-41(b) reads in part “This clause does not apply to contracts or subcontracts administratively exempted by the Secretary of Labor or exempted by 41 U.S.C. 6702, as interpreted in Subpart C of 29 CFR Part 4.” To say that all orders are subject to 52.222-41 and employees must be compensated by the relevant wage determination would seem to render the sentence, quoted above, as irrelevant. By that logic, it would seem that even an order under $2,500 would then be subject to the wage determinations. Yes, I do agree your solution is plausible.

C Culham: Respectfully, your first post included a link to the DOL Field Operations Handbook Chapter 14. One of the exemptions and exclusions listed at 14c07, states: “…For example, a contract for professional services performed essentially by bona fide professional employees, with the use of service employees being only a minor factor in contract performance, is not covered by the SCA...” Paragraph (b) of that section mentions a 10 to 20 percent guideline to determine whether there is more than a minor use of service employees. As an example, if I were performing a study which ordered 900 hours of engineering services, and the report required 100 hours of a clerk-typist; it seems as though the clerk-typist would be exempt from SCLS. But if that same study required 750 hours of engineering services and 250 hours of a clerk typist, then clerk-typist would not be exempt. Agree... disagree?

I wanted to say thanks to those who provided their input. The info that Vern provided regarding M.A. Mortenson Co., ASBCA 40750, 97-1 BCA ¶ 28623 and the link he provided that led to a discussion of Appeal of—Watts Constructors, LLC, 2015 WL 566315, ASBCA NO. 59602 (https://www.floridaconstructionlegalupdates.com/government-contracting-and-treating-extended-field-overhead-as-a-direct-or-indirect-cost/) were helpful in formulating my planned approach. Perhaps, once the issue is resolved, I'll post the results in the "what happened" forum.

ji20874 It is a competitively awarded fixed price contract. I sent them a request for proposal for the time and cost impacts to incorporate the revised drawings into the contract and have received their proposal; which now attempts to charge the full delay as a daily rate (per diem basis), vice the percentage method previously used on this (and other) contracts.