Jump to content
The Wifcon Forums and Blogs


  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by brian

  1. story of my life. Sorry. I looked at the Hill AFB Farsite, and its just as you said. This is where I found the old version: http://www.acquisition.gov/far/html/Subpart%205_2.html I'll bet my computer is somehow pulling up an old cached version, because it still says:
  2. It's all in how you write up the evaluation scheme. If retaining the Incumbent or their personnel is more important than getting the best mix of performance and price, then let your Eval Criteria / Factors do the talking.
  3. CO's are given greast latitude thru FAR 15 source selection procedures to winnow a too-big field of offers. FAR 9 Responsibility determinations afford great discretion. So I don't see why allowing me to bid on the next-generation stealth aerial tanker would be a problem. My biggest job ever was under $ 6 M, IIRC. No way I could pull it off. I, and bidders like me, could be eliminated quickly without delaying the process.
  4. of course, Don, you mean 5.207 (c )(15)(ii) which only applies to 6.302-1, Only one responsible source and no other supplies or services will satisfy agency requirements. So, going sole source under 6.302-1(a) (2) (ii) for supplies, or 6.302-1(a) (2) (iii) for services, a statement is included that says that all responsible sources may submit a capability statement, proposal, or quotation, which shall be considered by the agency. The poet in me says that is not really giving others "a chance to compete," not when the solicitation will permit an outsider to submit a proposal, but the requiring activity has already determined that you outsiders cannot possibly be competitive (your supplies or services will not satisfy agency requirements.) My perception, at all levels, from janitorial services to major weapons systems, many contracting officials and their clients don't really like opening things up to competition. They have trained "their" incumbent and want to stay in their comfort zone. That's understandable. But I think its improper. . I apologize to anyone trying to read that post of mine around 10:30 last night, my time. It took me at least a dozen edits before I could get it even halfway understandable. And that's before I started making the ends of the lines rhyme.
  5. It seems likely to me that a price for the exact same item would be higher in a sole-source situation than in a competitive situation. Enterprises work hard, invest, in order to differentiate themselves. That investment ought to have a return, an ROI, no ? When is a "sole source acquisition" due to unique qualifications ever appropriate ? Seems to me - rarely. I concede the exception for Unsolicited Proposals, but why would anyone sole source an engine to GE ? Whatever for ? Let others try and compete. Let Contractors decide if they can compete economically, not a government contracting bureaucrat. Let Contractors decide if they want the business so bad that they will do whatever it takes to compete on delivery. Why does any contracting official ever choose to proceed that way ? I'd guess that the reasons would be unrelated to getting the best value. So, if a CO decides to go sole source, its because they expect, golly, they WANT to pay a higher price. ......... maybe there is some other good business reason for doing a sole source for unique qualifications. I can't think of any. I'm not talking about 6.302-2 thru 6.302-7, just 6.302-1(a) (2) (ii) and (iii) These authorities to sole source are based on either avoiding: Substantial duplication of cost to the Government that is not expected to be recovered through competition; or Unacceptable delays in fulfilling the agency’s requirements. Can't a well-written solicitation take care of that ?
  6. brian

    Will you take a pledge?

    well, that explains why I saw a requirement on FedBid for a Religious Education Director, and whoever won the reverse auction would then have to pass an interview with the base chaplain. The Fed Bid posting said a Master's Degree was required; the awardee didn't have even a BA.
  7. parsing FAR 12.102(e )(5 ), it says to me that Part 12 shall not apply to the acquisition of commercial items directly from another Federal agency. To me, an 8(a ) kt is not the same as acquiring items directly from another Federal agency. As they are the Prime, and pass every aspect of performance through to the 8(a) sub, whatever is acquired through an 8(a) kt is only indirectly acquired from SBA. in my view.
  8. Don, you might be misreading the meaning of "directly" in FAR 12.102( e )(5). I think it means that one Agency contracts with another agency, as in an "Interagency Agreement," and the second agency directly provides the goods or services. In an 8(a) contract, the SBA does not provide the goods or services directly, but relies on their 8(a) subcontractor to do that.
  9. wvanpup, I think this contract is a "kitchen sink IDIQ" in support of an overseas contingency operation. If so, they've got no rules, and no adult supervision. The mission in Afghanistan is transferring appropriated dollars into the accounts of favored contractors. "Quality Assurance" is a section in a PWS, not something that people do.
  10. Nitpicking, but I would say that the out-of-scope Mod was made not due to urgency, but due to a fear of competition. The wrong Contractor might win, screwing everything up.
  11. if it is a Commercial Item, and FAR 12.102(a) sez it's gotta be a CI acquisiton, then make it FFP, or competitive. So many choices. Here's a neat trick I see used from time to time: post it on Fedbid, but mislabel it in fbo. You can still make it T&M. Nobody even looks, except the preferred vendor, and VOILA! you got only one bid, from the preferred vendor, but it was competed.
  12. Bottom Line, the whole idea of Part 12 Commercial Item acquisitions is to take advantage of best practices in the private sector. "Cost reimbursement" is not a best practice from the private sector. It's just not. It is generally prohibited for Part 12 acquisitions. I think that's what Vern was getting at. HE_1102 can do whaever he wants, but I interpret the FAR to prohibit "a T&M, 8(a) sole source, commercial contract using 13.5 procedures." Take the Commercial Item stuff out and he'll be fine.
  13. I've been reading this site for years. I have some apprehension of my limitations. I tend to think that a GAO Protest is the appropriate response to any situation: It's raining - file a protest. It's not raining - file a protest. I don't mean that only you and Don and Bob and Joel are smarter than me. Everyone here is, though you do seem to be the smartest. But I think you missed the call on what the operative comment is. I think its: "A protest is challenging an outcome, not a government action." I'd be interested in seeing your response to that.
  14. Keep in mind that the CO may decide to simply not exercise options, rather than terminating and making a new award, or resoliciting. Heck, the CO even has discretion, upon finding that the contractor committed fraud, of simply doing nothing. The CO has to consider a lot of other things besides what you would consider "fairness:" criticality, continuity, seriousness, criminal intent, &tc. So, even if you protest and have a solid case, you might not get what you want. As a separate matter, SBA has been known to get the Justice Department to investigate and bring charges in cases where an ineligible business falsely represented that they were eligible for a preference program. I occasionally read about those cases on the WIFCON front page.
  15. I disagree with almost everything posted here, even though all these posters are smarter and more experienced than me. Keep that last part in mind while reading my response. The Government doesn't have to make an intentional error, or even an accidental error, for there to be a valid basis for protest. A protest is challenging an outcome, not a government action. The government action is simply the entrée, the thing that gives the CO or GAO jurisdiction or a basis for taking corrective action. In my opinion, from what facts you have presented here, the Government didn't do anything wrong, and yet you can still protest the outcome. If the government awarded a contract, failed to award a contract, canceled a solicitation, whatever, and if you are an interested party, and if you were injured, and if there was some something that wasn't right, ___ whether an impropriety by SOMEONE, including a competitor, ___ or even if the proximate cause was an innocuous act of God, and if you act timely - within 10 days of learning the basis of your protest - then the CO will consider your protest. This is one of the extremely rare situations where I would recommend an Agency protest over a GAO protest. As others suggest, you ought to collect as much factual data as you can to put in your protest. If I were you, and the contract was worth the effort, I would take photos, make screen shots, put together an easily read narrative of what happened, and recommend a specific course of action. Include an Affidavit from the local SBA PCR, if you can get one. Maybe even give the offending party an opportunity to respond, and include that in your package. Who knows ? They might have a reasonable explanation for what happened. Make it easy for the CO. Don't expect them to do YOUR research. Have someone with some objectivity proofread it. The Government was defrauded. The CO will probably care very much about that, after they find out about it. But if nobody files a complaint, and all the CO has are vague suspicions or whispered allegations, the easier course of action might to be to just let it slide. Heck, the CO probably doesn't even know yet that they were defrauded. You would be doing the Agency a favor by filing an Agency Protest. Of course, pursuant to FAR 33.103(b,) prior to submission of an agency protest, all parties shall use their best efforts to resolve concerns raised by an interested party at the contracting officer level through open and frank discussions.
  16. brian

    Stale offer?

    Doctor John, before filing a protest, send the CO a letter, explaining what you just said.
  17. brian

    Indemnity in DOE grants

    don't know the answer, but good on you for digging this up.
  18. don't let it bother you too much. I seem to have a lot of trouble reading complicated stuff. One of the reasons I check this site.
  19. not a lot to go on. Is there money added for more performance ? Did the Ktr not finish a job when promised ?
  20. Mr. E, Google was a contractor for the Agency. They provided certain IT services, and furnished hardware to support providing those services. The Agency effectively required anyone emailing them to go through the Google servers providing that service to the Agency. Do you feel the government has a duty to deal fairly and honestly with the public ? If so, then I can't follow your argument.
  21. For what its worth, I lost a contract many years ago to a government entity that bid less than the raw costs of the minimum required personnel at Wage Determination rates. How ? They got work-study students to do the work, and that was subsidized by grants from another governmental entity. Fair or not, it was legal.
  22. I'm not sure I know what you mean. Maybe if you rewrote this, and made it just a bit longer, I could follow what you are asking.
  23. KNWEBS - not my place to make strategic decisions for you, but ... you could be the PRime, the Mentor could be the Sub, and you could ease them into taking more responsibility over the course of the contract. Then, at renewal, you could switch roles. Or, I think a knowledgeable counselor at laws could structure an apropriate JV instrument for $1K. Depends how far along this is.