Vbus

There is an interesting related thread in the wifcon archives: http://www.wifcon.com/discus/messages/8519/9045.html

I've never seen a version of 52.212-1 that is tailored specifically for RFQs. It would require tailoring not only to the term "offer/offeror" but also tailoring of several references to FAR 15 requirements (i.e. debriefings, discussions, late submissions, SF1449 [potentially]). I fear that because tailoring must be by addendum to the clause, a tailored version might be hard to read. -

There may not be a big difference between a "contractor" and a "vendor" but there is a HUGE difference between an "offeror" and a "quoter". I use the word "quoter" when soliciting RFQs.

govt2310, I also feel the language is unecessarily complex. Notwithstanding any small business set-aside requirements that must be considered with an open market purchase, why not try something simpler when you want to include socio-economic status as an evaluation factor, especially for FAR 8.4, FAR 13, or FAR 16 acquisitions?: "Best Value" will be used as the basis of award. Quotations will be reviewed and evaluated using the following four evaluation criteria and their symbolized relative importance to each other: - Technical Capability > Past Performance > Socio-Economic Status > Price You could also spell-out your preference for certain Socio-Economic Status if need be: Under the Socio-Economic Status criterion, the Government will give preference to the following six business size statuses and their symbolized relative importance to each other: - 8(a) SB Concern > HubZone SB Concern > SDVOSB > Woman Owned SB > Small Business > Large Business

I can find no official guidance on what constitutes a ?reasonable? basis for imposing a geographical limitation. I can only advise that if a CO has a reasonable basis for imposing a geographical limitation in a solicitation, then it may be included. Determining if that basis is reasonable up to the CO. Besides the AAA case cited before, GAO has ruled on many protests where the protester challenged the reasonableness of a geographic limitation... some denied, some sustained. For a good list, try a simple google search: site:gao.gov "geographic limitation" ?protest?. Again, the lesson is, if your geographic limitation is reasonable it will survive protest. You're right, there is not a blanket authority to limit competition to local companies, but there is certainly no requirement for a FAR Part 6 Justification for Other than Full and Open Competition when using a geographic limitation (unless it is required by your agency/office). GAO has recognized that yes, including a geographic limitation DOES restrict competition, but that it perfectly reasonable to do so if it is a legitimate requirement. See B-183713, Paul R. Jackson Construction Company, Inc. (October 9, 1975) http://redbook.gao.gov/1/fl0000312.php : If Kathleen has reason to question the validity of the geographic limitation that restricts the competition to only local sources, she should consider the requirement carefully before making her determination. But, if after considering the requirement and making the determination that the restriction to only local sources is reasonable, she shouldn't hesitate to include it in her solicitation and should not worry that doing so is in contradiction to the FAR.

http://www.dscp.dla.mil/subs/produce/school/index.asp

I'm arguing that there is no express statutory authority described in acquisition regulation that permits other than full and open competition solely on the basis of locality, and that if you have a requirement that can only be fulfilled by contractors in a certain geographic area, include that geographic limitation in your requirements/SOW and solicit as a full and open competition. If Kathleen has an International Agreement with a host country that her office will only contract with local sources, then as Larry describes, the authority at 10 USC 2304( c)(4) or 41 USC (253( c)(4) may apply. But absent that agreement, she should be soliciting on a full and open basis and describing the requirement for a local source in her solicitation. Government contracts include plenty of requirements that "limit" competition that don't require statutory authority to include in a solicitation. You may require a contractor's facility to have a Secret clearance, which you know will eliminate some firms from being able to compete for that contract. Does that mean you need to justify contracting without providing full and open competition? My point in citing AAA was that if you include a geographic limitation in your solicitation and it is challenged as being unduly restrictive, GAO will look only to see if there is a reasonable basis for the requirement. Like any contract requirement, if the geographic limitation is legitimate, then it will withstand a protest.

I'd like to suggest that there is no regulation, law, or agreement that explicitly allows you to solicit only local sources. (but see Larry's good posting above). My question is, do you need one? See B-237383, AAA Engineering & Drafting, Inc., (January 22, 1990) http://archive.gao.gov/decisions/140438.pdf: "An aqency may restrict a procurement to offerors within a specified geographical area if the restriction is reasonably necessary for the agency to meet its minimum needs." If you have a reasonable basis to solicit only local sources, you can.

contractor100, Despite whether or not V-05-12 lapses or not, FAR 8.404(a) still very clearly states: "Parts 13 (except 13.303-2©(3)), 14, 15, and 19 (except for the requirement at 19.202-1(e)(1)(iii)) do not apply to BPAs or orders placed against Federal Supply Schedules contracts." (The exception at 19.202-1(e)(1)(iii) is for bundled requirements.)

To briefly revisit this topic, I noticed on FedBizOpps the following sources sought announcement from the Army's CCE in which they appear to now be giving a stated preference to HubZone small businesses in their research for potential set-asides: June 15, 2009. QUOTE: "The US Army Contracting Command, Contracting Center of Excellence (CCE) at the Pentagon, on behalf of Office of the Judge Advocate General (OTJAG), Department of the Army, intends to procure IT support services using a HUBZone certified small business set-aside, small business set-aside, or under full and open procedures." The CCE's first sources sought that gives a stated preference to HubZone SBs was dated May 11, 2009... 7 days after the Mission Critical Solutions decision came out: May 11, 2009. Prior to that, the CCE posted sources sought with no stated preference among SBs, like the latest one found on March 24, 2009... this was about 6 weeks before the MCS decision: March, 24, 2009. This may be just the Army choosing to be "better safe than sorry", but either way it looks like GAO's position is beginning to take root. Now may be a good time to relocate your business to a HubZone!

I agree with dgm. If you are including options in your solicitation, FAR 17.208( c) requires you to include the provision at FAR 52.217-5 Evaluation of Options (or one substantially the same).

The GAO has sustained the following protest B-401057, Mission Critical Solutions, May 4, 2009, in which GAO decided that the Dept. of the Army improperly awarded a contract to an 8(a) firm before determining whether the acquisition could be set aside for HUBZone small businesses. This ruling seems to enforce GAO?s belief that set-asides under the HubZone program take precedence over all other small business set-asides. This is the second such protest decision in which GAO has ruled against the assertions of the Small Business Administration (SBA) that ?parity? exists amongst its set-aside programs for 8(a), HubZone, and Service Disabled Veteran Owned small businesses (SDVOSB). The prior ruling was B-400278, International Program Group, Inc., September 19, 2008, where GAO ruled that HubZone set-asides took precedence over SDVOSB set-asides. There is a great discussion of this case in the Wifcon archives: http://www.wifcon.com/discus/messages/8524/10352.html. GAO?s new ruling again places priority on the ?mandatory language? of HubZone set-asides over all other types of SB set-asides, including those already in the 8(a) Program. That mandatory language is found at 15 U.S.C. sect. 657a((2)(: ==== ?Notwithstanding any other provision of law a contract opportunity shall be awarded pursuant to this section on the basis of competition restricted to qualified HUBZone small business concerns if the contracting officer has a reasonable expectation that not less than 2 qualified HUBZone small business concerns will submit offers and that the award can be made at a fair market price.? ==== This interpretation seems to enforce the idea that a consideration of HubZone small businesses must be made at the very onset of the acquisition process, apparently even before the decision to resubmit a recurring requirement to SBA for continued acceptance in the 8(a) Program. In this decision, GAO writes: ==== ?The HUBZone statute requires that a ?contract opportunity? be awarded on the basis of competition restricted to HUBZone small business concerns when the enumerated conditions are met, and, in our view, a separate ?contract opportunity? arises every time an agency prepares to award a new contract. Our view is supported by SBA?s regulations, which define a ?contract opportunity? as a situation in which ?a requirement for a procurement exists.? ==== If that?s the case, where is the line? ?Notwithstanding any other provision of law? is pretty strong language? Must a HubZone set-aside be considered before ordering from required sources (AbilityOne, JWOD, FPI)? What about contemplated orders against agency established IDIQ contracts, GWACs, and GSA Schedules? Clearly GAO and SBA have not been on the same page for a while now. But what should a CO do? GAO is sustaining protests from HubZone firms on contracts that were not set-aside for HubZone small businesses. This decision seems like a pretty big deal. -

They better have the time! Just as Formerfed says, it's a CO's job to make sure all relevant FAR clauses go in a contract.

You assume wrong. I don't believe that a CO can unilaterally add provisions and clauses to an FSS order to which the contractor must fulfill. In fact it may be impossible for a contractor to fulfill some such provisions and make any order useless. For example, many agencies have EnergyStar compliance clauses that must be added to procurements when the agency buys electronics. However, if a schedule contractor does not offer products that are EnergyStar compliant, a CO who unilaterally includes that clause in an order to that contractor is not ordering within the terms of the contractor's stated schedule contract. But that doesn't mean that the CO can go against her own agency supplement and not include the EnergyStar requirement. She must be able to reach schedule contractors that DO offer EnergyStar compliant products. So whether by "copy 'n pasting" the clause text into the requirements document/SOW or (more simply) by adding the clause as part of the RFQ, a CO should be able to add agency supplement provisions and clauses to a schedule order, but only if accepted by the contractor. And as I stated before, I read FAR 8.404b as authority to add such requirements.

Whynot, Hopefully you are not being asked to resubmit reps & certs under FAR 52.212-5, but other certifications, such as those found in an ordering activity's agency supplement, may be completely appropriate to add to an FSS RFQ. Formerfed's example of Conflict of Interest certifications is something our agency supplement requires regardless of the acquisition procedures used, and I read FAR 8.404b as authority to add such requirements (though I think others may disagree).

Just enough to hire on a new proposal preparation team. Is "Win the Government's Money" a lesson on risk, a new RFQ method, or just for fun?

Vbus Inc. has fired its proposal preparation team for submitting a errant price proposal that should have been $980,001 instead of $9,980,001. (We would have appreciated the opportunity for communications prior to award to correct this error in our price proposal as is described in FAR 15.306((3)(i).)