Jump to content
The Wifcon Forums and Blogs


  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by govt2310

  1. FAR 15.804-3 was deleted from the FAR a long time ago. It no longer exists. I need to find it to see what it said as of 1989. I think it was added in Federal Acquisition Circular (FAC) 84-35. I looked at the list of FACs on Wifcon, and the list only goes back as far as 1997, when the 1997 "FAR Rewrite" happened. Is there any other archive I can check?
  2. To joel hoffman: Thanks! FAR 15.204-1(b) is exactly what I was looking for.
  3. I am under the belief that Sections L and M in the solicitation "drop out" at contract award. So they are not in the final contract document after award takes place. I can't find an authority that requires this, though. Where does it say this must be done? Is it in the FAR?
  4. I remember seeing somewhere, maybe in a GAO decision now lost, that the FAR requires an offeror to notify the agency of the unavailability of a proposed key personnel, even after submission of proposals. But I can't find this in the FAR (I was mainly looking through FAR Part 15 and FAR 52.215-___). Can anyone tell me where it says this in the FAR?
  5. Thanks everyone! This was all very helpful.
  6. Ah yes, thank you all. The United Marine Int'l LLC GAO decision was what I was thinking of. The Meir Dubinsky COFC decision is also interesting. Thanks again!
  7. I remember a GAO decision that came out years ago where the agency (I think it was the Army or the Air Force) issued a solicitation under FAR Part 12, but did not specify whether it was in conjunction with FAR 13, 14, or 15. A vendor protested (I believe it was a post-award protest, but I may be wrong) that it was reasonable to assume that it was in conjunction with FAR Part 15. The agency treated it as in conjunction with FAR Part 13. The agency made missteps in the solicitation that made it unclear whether the solicitation went with FAR Par t3/14/15. GAO sustained the protest, finding that, if the solicitation fails to specify whether the FAR Part 12 acquisition is in conjunction with FAR Part 13, 14, or 15, then it is reasonable for the potential offerors to assume that it is in conjunction with FAR Part 15. Does anyone remember this GAO decision and what the B number was?
  8. Does an agency have a duty to notify an offeror that it is excluded from the competitive range if this is a FAR 16.505 task order competition? There appear to be no instructions in FAR 16.505 itself for notification requirements for exclusion from the competitive range. FAR 16.505(b)(6) addresses the CO's duties concerning post-award notifications and debriefings, and it even says that the agency must follow FAR Part 15 on this, but I don't see any requirements or guidance on pre-award notices and debriefings.
  9. GAO stated in footnote 6 of its decision on Kellogg Brown & Root Services, Inc., B-400614.3, Feb. 10, 2009, that since the agency (the Army) in that case indicated in the FAR 16.505 task order solicitation that it would follow FAR Part 15 for a particular part of the contract formation process, and the agency relied upon decisions interpreting FAR Part 15 in defending its protest, that GAO then looked to FAR Part 15 and the cases interpreting FAR Part 15 in analyzing the issues in KBR’s protest. The KBR protest concerned the protocol for clarifications. It didn’t concern pre-award notice of exclusion from the competitive range. Hmm.
  10. Answer: The base contract ordering procedures say nothing about competitive range, discussions, etc.
  11. How does one make an IGCE for a Statement of Objectives (SOO)? The way it works is, the offeror's proposal is the proposed PWS. So the government agency doesn't write the PWS and post it with the solicitation. If that is the case, how can the agency make an IGCE?
  12. Thanks everyone. I will look into these book recommendations.
  13. You are right, Vern. I guess I am just seeking support for my belief that the requirement for an IGCE doesn't make sense in connetion with a SOO. If the SOO consists of say, 2 pages of broadly-written bullet points, most phrased to require the offeror to "propose a solution for" various issues the agency is having, without knowing more, I don't see how a useful, credible IGCE could be created.
  14. Can an agency consider price when evaluating for Technical Approach? I remember seeing a GAO decision once where the GAO stated that an agency must consider the offeror's Technical Approach when evaluating cost/price (this was a cost-reimbursement contract in the GAO decision). But does it go the other way? Does an agency have to consider Cost/Price when evaluating Technical Approach?
  15. If a solicitation states that the agency will perform a "cost/price realism analysis," and the contract type is a combination of T&M and FFP CLINs, does that mean the agency has a duty to figure out the FAR 15.404-1 "probable cost" of each offeror's proposal? For the FFP portion, I believe a price realism analysis is limited to the purpose of assessing whether the offeror has a clear understanding of the work involved, so the offeror's total price cannot be adjusted. But for the T&M portion, it seems similar to cost-reimbursement, so that makes me believe the agency does have a duty to figure out the "probable cost" when doing the cost realism analysis. Does anyone have experience with this?
  16. Thanks Don Mansfield and Vern Edwards! And here is a recent, interesting GAO decision: Arcadis U.S., Inc., B-412828, Jun. 16, 2016, where GAO held that it is unreasonable for an agency to consider Cost in the Technical Evaluation for a Fixed-Price Competition.
  17. FAR 45.201(c) states, "The solicitation shall describe the evaluation procedures to be followed, including rnetal charges or equivalents and other costs or savings to be evaluated" and shall require all offerors to submit information with their offers listing all "Government property" that the offeror or its subcontractors propose ot use on "rent-free basis." FAR 45.202(a) requires the Contracting Officer to "consider any potentially unfair competitive advantage that may result from an offeror or contractor possessing Government property" and "This shall be done by adjusting the offers by applying, for evaluation purposes only, a rental equivalent evaluation factor, as specified in FAR 52.245-9." QUESTION: Does anybody have an example of how this "rental equivalent evaluation factor" is evaluated for, where the solicitation involves a requirement for contractor services, where it is possible for the offeror or contractor's employees to be offered to work in the federal agency building - so using government-furnished cubicles, work stations, phones, paper, furniture, electricity, etc. - and where the solicitation also allows for offerors to submit proposals that propose their employees working offsite? How would an agency evaluate these proposals so it could compare apples-to-apples?
  18. govt2310

    Grant or Contract

    To Todd Davis: Putting aside the original question asked by jonmjohnson, my question is, from the federal agency's perspective, if there is no authorizing statute giving the federal agency the power to do a grant or cooperative agreement or other transaction for the purpose in question, and so the federal agency's only option left is to do it as a procurement, if a state government agency bids on the solicitation, should the federal agency even consider that state government agency "eligible" for award? Basically, I'm asking if there are any laws or regulations that forbid a state government entity from being an offeror and/or awardee on a federal government contract.
  19. govt2310

    Posting Justification Requirements Below SAT

    Question: what if the requirement is below the SAT ($150,000) and also below $25,000, but just over the micro-purchase threshold ($3,500)? Say the amount of the requirement is $4,000. FAR 13.106-1(b)(1)(i) allows the Contracting Officer to solicit from one source if the CO determines that the circumstances of the contract action deem only one source reasonably available. Boof wrote that the formal FAR Part 6 Justification requirements only apply if the acquisition is higher than the SAT of $150,000. Boof, where does it say that? I would like to read this United States Code citation or whatever citation it is. Thanks!
  20. Can an agency contract out the COR/COTR job? Or is that considered inherently governmental?
  21. govt2310

    Key Personnel in Solicitations

    If an agency still chooses to focus on Key Personnel Titles/Duties instead of Functions, and if an agency chooses to utilize the Statement of Objectives (SOO) method instead of a SOW, how can that agency evaluate Key Personnel under the Key Personnel Evaluation Factor? In a SOO, the agency does not designate the KP roles/titles/duties, rather, the offeror is supposed to determine the composition of its Key Personnel.
  22. HYPO: A Contracting Officer finds a company "responsible" just before making award. The CO makes award. After sending out the Notice of Award letters, an unsuccessful offeror files a protest at GAO alleging misevaluation of its own proposal. The agency takes corrective action. It takes 15 months to reevaluate and complete the corrective action. The results of the corrective action are the same as before: the original awardee is the awardee again. The CO did not "redo" the responsibility determination for the awardee. Instead, the CO believes that the previous responsibility determination they did -- which is now 15 months old -- is "still good." After making award and sending out the Notice of Award letters to the unsuccessful offerors, the same protester from before files a protest at GAO. QUESTIONS: Was the corrective action proper if the CO did not "redo" the responsibility determination, but instead, relied on the 15 month old responsibility determination from before? Is there a time limit on how long a CO's responsibility determination is good for?
  23. The original award was never terminated. The CO simply "froze" the contract by doing the CICA stay of performance. It was frozen for 15 months, then "unfrozen" when it turned out that the original awardee was the awardee again after corrective action.