Jump to content

brian

Members
  • Posts

    268
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by brian

  1. . Oh. Expert on contracting, and knows a little about human nature, too ? .
  2. . I've never heard of that trick, forming a daughter corporation and then closing the daughter out after completion of a contract as a way to prevent the SBA from knowing about affiliates and accurately determining the parent firm's size. If true, that sure suggests bad faith to me. Actually, I think that qualifies as fraud, which may always indicate bad faith. .
  3. Thanks. That shouldda been obvious to me, but it wasn't. .
  4. . Former Fed nails this one. If I'm the CO, I sure don't want to deal with a bunch of amateurs, and that's what this contractor looks like, sending their proposal too late to be assured that it will be delivered on time. I have been involved on the Government side with an acquisition valued at around $130 - 150 Million, that drew nearly a dozen offers. Every one of them had a company official carry their proposal in by hand at least an hour before the closing time. We were on the Denver Federal Center, with moderate security. Members of the proposal teams met for breakfast, congratulated themselves on getting a responsive proposal done on time and on budget, and then one or more of them walked it over. Actually, each offeror wheeled in several boxes with multiple copies of multiple volumes. My guess, this offeror was late because, although they had their proposal written in plenty of time, they failed to factor in the time to print and bind the copies. They should have turned it in lacking the required number of copies, even without binders, rather than disqualifying themselves by being late. Truthfully, one competent Business Development Manager, at about $120 K per year, would have prevented this. Who wants to administer a multi-billion dollar contract with an entity that can't be bothered to hire one competent contracting professional ? .
  5. . Followup: this thread includes mention of hard-copy documents to prove security clearances. I thought that the only acceptable proof of a clearance today was a Security Officer checking in JPAS. An employee just got a clearance in the last couple of weeks from State, and there was no hard-copy document sent to me. comments ? .
  6. . It depends. If you use the "Advanced Search" feature, you can look for stuff that has passed its archive date. For Agencies that post their actual solicitations to FBO, you can find them that way. But for Agencies like DOI and the Army who have their own websites for posting and hosting solicitations, and who only post a link at FBO to take readers back to their Agency site, I don't think you can get those through the Internet. Likewise, I think you can't get old stuff that was only available through FedTEDS. If I really wanted old stuff like that, and couldn't access it on my own, I'd ask the CO or Contract Administrator for help. Try explaining how that will help you prepare a better proposal. .
  7. . WIFCON front page currently has a link to Court of Federal Claims case No. 10-481c, Navarro Research and Engineering, Inc. v. U. S., and Portage, Inc., August 16, 2010. (August 23, 2010) http://www.wifcon.com/pdcg21_0a.htm#court "In the present action, Navarro is not challenging the procurement decision itself but rather seeks to enforce a post-award procedural remedy?an allegedly mandatory debriefing. In other words, even if Navarro were to prevail here, it would not be awarded the contract. It would still have to obtain review of the merits of the award and succeed. Thus, the government argues, Navarro has no direct economic interest, is not an interested party, and therefore lacks standing. Although the precise question presented is one of first impression, we believe that the relevant statutes and related case law mean that the government is incorrect." The case is ostensibly about STANDING. The Court created a nuanced expansion of standing, based on a plaintiff's challenge to the integrity of the entire procurement process, rather than strictly limiting standing to a party that demonstrates a direct economic interest. In this way, the Court says that the plaintiff is entitled to a debriefing, and the Court will require the Government to give them one. Are the facts here so unique that only Navarro can get the Court to order a debriefing, and only in this one set of circumstances, or does this create for disappointed bidders a new right to a Debriefing ? This would take away from creative CO's the one surest way of avoiding protests, which is simply by refusing to say what the Government did, and raise the level of accountability by orders of magnitude. Within the last month or so, I commented here at WIFCON that expanding bid protest authority of the Comp Gen to include requiring CO's to give mandatory debriefings would have a significant effect on corruption in federal contracting. I was dreaming of a legislative remedy, but I'll take what I can get. Am I reading too much into this ? .
  8. Well, Carl, I guess there's always that option: read the regulation. Thanks for doing my homework. .
  9. . IPOD, suppose you have an LPTA acquisition, and your Best Value offeror/quoter doesn't have the NAICS Code on the SF-1449 listed on their ORCA page. What should you do ? There are only about 20 different size standards in total, about 7-8 for # of employees, about 10 for average receipts $. Identify the size standard for your requirement. Look at a current table of size standards http://www.sba.gov/idc/groups/public/docum...td_tablepdf.pdf and find a couple of other NAICS Codes with the same standard. Then go back to ORCA and see if that bidder in line for award is small for one of those codes. If that takes you more than 10 minutes, go to my profile, get my email address, and ask me to look it up. Since I say its so simple, make me put up or shut up. .
  10. Sometimes I get so full of myself I ramble on too long, and even I can't sort out what I wrote. Good questions. (1) yes. NAICS Codes in ORCA are pulled automatically from DSBS. ORCA also pulls data that SB's entered in DSBS for # of employees and average receipts. ORCA then calculates if a business is small in a particular NAICS segment based on this self-reported data. ** SEE NOTE BELOW FOR ESB's. Having a particular NAICS code in my DSBS profile has nothing to do with my qualifications, experience or past performance in that particular industry niche. It really just means that I'm interested in seeing what work is getting solicited in that field. Maybe a buyer wants to make sure she doesn't get no bids to something she is thinking about setting aside, so she goes to DSBS to see what small businesses might submit a bid, and searches by NAICS Code. C.f., FAR 19.202-2. Maybe her market research consists of calling the SB's returned by such a search to assess whether or not the requirements of 19.502-2(a) or ( are met. Any SB contractor can list any NAICS code they want in their DSBS profile. It proves NOTHING. (2) no. If a requirement is set-aside, SBSA, SDVOSB, HUBZone, WOSB, GLBTOSB, whatever, the size standard is how contractors and the government know if the contractors qualify as small for that particular acquisition. But even if the acquisition is unrestricted, the size standard helps folks on both sides understand what informed the Agency's acquisition strategy. It ensures the Government folks are reminded of how restrictive (or not) a set-aside would be, and it reminds SB's where to target their marketing outreach. . ** NOTE: ORCS data on Emerging Small Businesses - I don't know what is wrong with them, but I show up as not ESB on NAICS codes where I think I should be considered ESB. But since I never see anything ESB set-aside (I think that only applies to the Comp Demo Program, if that even exists anymore.) My advice: if doing an ESB-reserved acquisition, don't trust what OECA says. Call some SB's. .
  11. Wynot, there is a way to get around all these rules. In a case where that agency is not happy with the 8(a) firm's performance, and wants to get a contract out of the program, think creatively. The SBA will try to get you to slide another 8(a) firm in there, rather than losing it out of the program altogether. Here's what you do: Cancel the requirement. Determine that the Agency no longer needs those services. At the same time, have another contracting office in the same Agency solicit for a different requirement, different name, different NAICS code, different location, different customer, but that will use the same workforce, doing essentially the same thing. Then, after award, during ramp-up or mobilization, cut a Mod so that the requirement exactly matches the old requirement, but updated as appropriate. I've seen it done. Doesn't make it right, but it becomes fait accompli. .
  12. Thanks, brother. Your willingness to share your knowledge and expertise is a big reason I come here. That, and the fact that site management runs a tight ship. I've never seen the ugliness here that I find on nearly EVERY other site on the 'Net. .
  13. . just in terms of pinning down the significance of separate DUNS numbers, I think it would help to correct your misapprehension that an entity can have only one (9-digit) DUNS number. It is just not true, your assertion that CCR only allows one (9-digit) DUNS number. I don't know how it happens, but more than once I have found a vendor with two or more. I have just one; can't see any need for more. But if I move, D&B requires me to get a new one. But I will still have my old one. But I have several DUNS+4. I use a separate bank account for each contract, and that calls for different DUNS+4 numbers on each bid or proposal. TO YOUR QUESTION: "does the reference to ?offeror? in the CCR database apply to the entire company or to just the segment of the company covered by the specific single DUNS number ?" Different DUNS numbers may or may not correspond to different segments. But every speck of data in the CCR database is tied to a specific DUNS number, not multiple ones. The same data can be put in multiple records for multiple DUNS numbers, but whatever you do or look at in CCR, it applies to one record at a time. Only the CCR folks in Warren can look across individual records, and if you were at TACOM you wouldn't be asking this question here. .
  14. MAN! Most folks in this community (WIFCON) work in Government. Most of the replies above indicate that the responders didn't even understand the question. Just to learn more about the Socio-economic programs in the FAR, I recommend that everyone who works for the Government in contracting get their own personal DUNS number, register in CCR, register in WAWF, and complete Reps & Certs in ORCA. The simple answer to your question is ABSOLUTELY YES, the Agency can award a contract to this bidder. Why the heck not ? This is not addressed in the FAR because it doesn't belong in the FAR. Any good CO ought to hang up on a competitor who calls to complain that the successful bidder hasn't joined the local Chamber of Commerce, or hasn't put an ad in the yellow pages, or hasn't included in his CCR profile the fact that he might perform services in that particular NAICS Code. Those details are immaterial. I've seen a couple of Solicitations that say the bidder must have the NAICS Code for that acquisition in their CCR profile, or they are not eligible for award. Do you know why the Agency wants to require that the specific NAICS code for their acquisition be listed in their CCR profile ? Of course you do. It's so that when the Government CS looks at the bidder's ORCA page, it will state explicitly if the bidder is small or not for that particular NAICS. I look forward with relish the first time I find such a requirement in something I want to bid on. I have this federal agency that works for me, for all contractors, and for the general public, to rein in the excesses of federal contracting personnel. Headed up by Gene Dodaro, this organization lives for the chance to chasten contracting officers who abuse their authority and discretion. When I find that requirement in something I want to bid on, I will ask Gene and his Procurement Law Control Group to spank that CO, and instruct all other federal CO's to knock it off. That's called a GAO Decision. That is a specious reason for finding a bidder not to be responsible. An Agency proposes to exclude a bidder because they don't list a particular NAICS code in their CCR profile. What does that have to do with technical capability, past performance, price, anything relevant ? Such a move would be unnecessarily restrictive of competition. It doesn't pertain to the Government's actual needs; this is strictly a matter of lazy folks in the contracting office. Whining that "I'm too lazy to do my job" is not a very solid basis for anything, and sure wouldn't withstand examination by the GAO. Where does the problem arise ? CCR only lets a company list a small number of codes (I think the limit is 15.) But if the company has listed a NAICS code with the exact same size standard as the standard for the NAICS code of the instant acquisition, how hard is it to check ? And whatever is or isn't listed in DSBS is apropos to absolutely nothing. That is strictly a networking tool, so that folks can find out what SB's have what capabilities. .
  15. . In the federal arena, what you are calling and RFP, we call "market research." What you are calling an interview, we call and RFI. They expected $100,000 of effort in return for the privilege of working with them. The $10 K was just for ancillary expenses. And after the "interview," after you left, Wilbur, the guy who sat in the back, didn't ask any questions, and never made eye contact, he told everyone that he could do whatever you said you could do, at NO COST, if he could get a 3-day weekend over Labor Day. .
  16. . Yeah, that seems like it's probably wrong. But the GAO says "go for it." See Champion Business Services, http://www.wifcon.com/cgen/290556.htm Well, actually, GAO says that they have no authority to admonish an Agency for doing that. .
  17. . I imagine that he exception for life safety systems was added to the definition of what "construction material" means on behalf of a specific "foreign" manufacturer. I'm guessing that manufacturer is Staefa Systems. Somehow, this looks to open up enough debate that their products will be able to be brought together into a system that is technically American manufactured. .
  18. . well, for one thing, don't try to characterize that as a "fixed price" instrument. .
  19. . I understood the original post to say that the employee was involuntarily terminated. Why, Hamburger Helper, do you say it was voluntary ? .
  20. . I may be wrong. Yet again. But I think Mr. Rutherford is displaying a "can do" attitude in which he believes it is the contracting professional's duty to get the Requiring Activity customer whatever they want, regardless of the requirements in law or in the FAR. He is attempting to creatively interpret what is chiseled in stone. I assume that the RA customer wants to keep doing business with the incumbent, and does not particularly care about competition, fairness, openness, price reasonableness or socio-economic programs. I believe that Mr. Rutherford misunderstands the role of the professional. I believe that role is to get the customer what they want WITHIN THE BOUNDS of the regulatory framework. .
  21. . Retread Fed, what I was thinking is that the customer who has the requirement, and furnishes proof that funds are certified as available for this contract - a COMMITMENT - cannot then withdraw the funds and commit them for something else, like another contract, personnel costs, etc. if the contract has been awarded, because the funds are now OBLIGATED. I guess I never worried about how quickly funds were expended, unless there was money obligated to a contract that was not spent prior to the end of that contract. .
  22. It's my understanding, and experience, that the minimum is obligated at award of an IDIQ. This is easy to see when a Sample Delivery Order is used to Solicit bids, and then is awarded at the same time as the overall IDIQ, in the form of an actual Deliver Order. But even when no deliveries are ordered at the time the IDIQ "framework" is awarded, that minimum amount is still obligated. Customers may not like to commit, then obligate, funds against a "possible" future need. But without consideration, a contract cannot be formed. If they don't want to commit funds, they can commit to placing all orders against that contract, a different form of consideration, for a slightly different type of contract. Or, with no consideration, it can simply be a FAR 16.7 Agreement in anticipation of a subsequent contract, perhaps in the form of calls/ orders. .
  23. Sometimes I forget that a couple of folks here aren't disgusted by my perceived abuse of the GAO Bid Protest Forum, if only because they aren't aware of it. In general, those who know, are. Once an Infantryman, always an Infantryman. I believe that the universe, or at least warfare, revolves around the Infantry, and I left active duty more than 20 years ago. It is my opinion that the employment of Mercenaries in the two major current wars is disrespectful of the sacrifices of all US military personnel, but is especially disrespectful of Infantrymen. Through decisions made by leaders who do not understand war and do not respect the military, this reliance on quasi-military armed forces reduces military service to a financial transaction and mocks those who serve out of devotion to their country. Moral arguments aside, I assert that the Anti-Pinkerton Act, 5 USC 3108, and FAR 37.109 prohibit the employment of Mercenaries. Most of my protests were efforts to get the Comptroller General or the COFC to decide if my interpretation is correct. This is clearly outside the bounds of 4 CFR 21, which authorizes the GAO Bid Protest authority. My name is known at the Army's in-house law firm, USALSA, and at JCC-I/A, where I am blacklisted, but not so much anywhere else. This blacklisting impairs my ability to win contracts related to the efforts in Iraq and Afghanistan, through which I might have been able to help the top political leadership in our country make course corrections, such as winding down wars that make us less safe. But even without that stigma, I probably still would have been a failure at business. Former Fed, your point is well taken. .
  24. . for those not in on the joke, a couple people who post here belong to a fraternity whose motto is "Follow me, do as I do." Often shortened to just "Follow me." .
  25. . so, DW, did you do as he did ? No need for off-line chat; you've addressed my points. As a small time operator, I interpret everything - including the weather - as a sign that "they" are out to get me. .
×
×
  • Create New...