Jump to content

govt2310

Members
  • Posts

    453
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by govt2310

  1. Timbuk2, Vern Edwards answered this question on his Wifcon Blog on June 22, 2009. Here is the link: http://www.wifcon.com/discussion/index.php?app=blog&module=display&section=blog&blogid=2&showentry=644
  2. Timbuk2, I apologize. Yes, it is clear on Page 7 -- I see it. It totally answers my question. Thank you!
  3. I looked at the KBR ca eB-400614 at the link you provided. It does not answer my question.
  4. FAR 16.505( B )(1)(ii) states that the policies in FAR 15.3 do not apply to FAR 16.505 task/delivery orders. Also, Note 13 in Bay Area Travel, Inc., GAO B-400564.2 et al (November 5, 2008), states the same thing ("Although the protesters argue that excluding the "policies" of FAR Subpart 15.3 does not prohibit hte import of the "procedures" set forth in those provisions, we conclude that FAR Part 15 procedures do not, as a general rule, govern task and delivery order competitions conducted under FAR Part 16"). However, I seem to remember that a long time ago the GAO had another decision weighing in on this issue, and that decision said that, in special circumstances depending on the facts, FAR 15 procedures could be applicable to FAR 16 orders if the agency set up the solicitation referencing FAR 15 procedures. But I can't find this case. Does anyone remember this case and remember what the citation was?
  5. Thanks Vern and C Culham! The link is awesome! I will show this thread and the GSA link to my co-worker.
  6. I see what you mean about FAR 19.502-4©. It says the contracting officer may, in his or her discretion, set aside an order off of a MAC IDIQ. Ok. My question is really this: if an ordering agency's contracting officer chooses, in his or her discretion, to NOT set aside the order, but simply does the order off of GSA Alliant SB GWAC under FAR 16.505, is it still proper to call this a "FAR 19 Total Small Business Set Aside"? I have previously worked on orders off of MAC IDIQs that had a mix of vendors, both large and small. A typical scenario involved a MAC IDIQ that had 20 contractors on it, but only 4 of them were small businesses. If an order was set aside for small businesses only, then only those 4 small business vendors were allowed to compete under fair opportunity for the order. But for GSA Alliant SB GWAC, 100% of the vendors on it are small vendors. GSA has already done the "total small business set aside" in awarding the Master Contract. So there is no point in setting the order aside only for small businesses, because no matter what, 100% of the offerors will be small business.
  7. I am asking if FAR Part 19 is applicable to the placement of orders under the GSA Alliant Small Business GWAC, which only has small business vendors on it.
  8. FAR 8.405-5 states that FAR 19 does NOT apply to FAR Part 8 GSA FSS orders. However, my question is about GSA Alliant Small Business, which is not a FAR Part 8 GSA FSS, but rather, it is a GWAC (see FAR 17.501(a)). A GWAC is a different animal than a GSA Schedule order. In my view, the same concept shoud apply, that an order off a GWAC that happens to only have small business vendors on it is just that, and not a "FAR 19" total small business set aside. I am hoping to find some applicable regulation that says this.
  9. I am having this debate with an office co-worker. In my opinion, FAR 19 DOES NOT APPLY to a FAR 16.505 Task Order RFP off of GSA Alliant Small Business. So such a task order should not be categorized in our contract file system as a "Total Small Business Set Aside." My co-worker believes FAR 19 does apply, and that it should be coded as a "Total Small Business Set Aside." I agree that an ordering agency can get "small business preference credit" for awarding a FAR 15.505 task order to a small business off of GSA Alliant SB, but I do not agree that FAR 19 "applies," nor should it be called a "Total Small Business Set Aside." Who is right?
  10. Are the labor rates "essential for contract pricing"? Well, in order to perform the PRICE REASONABLENESS ANALYSIS, we need to know the labor rates. And we must do that analysis first, before we can move on to evaluate the total contract pricing in comparison to the other offeror's proposed pricing. And we are also concerned because the RFP INSTRUCTIONS TO OFFERORS clearly instructed offerors to provide the labor rates in their price proposals, so we are wondering, is it appropriate to just deem this price proposal as "unacceptable," or is there no such thing as an "unacceptable" price proposal?
  11. Yes, the assumption is that there will be NO DISCUSSION, and yes, assume there is another completely acceptable proposal.
  12. Thanks to everyone for being so engaged on this topic. Now I am wondering what happens when we go the other way: If a Price Proposal is found "unacceptable" (for example, say the solicitation's instructions to offerors required the submission of labor rates, and the Offeror submitted a Price Proposal with absolutely no labor rates), does the agency still have to evaluate that Offeror's Technical Proposal? My belief is that the answer is the same: No, there is no point in evaluating the Technical Proposal when the agency has already established that this Offeror's Proposal cannot be the basis of a contract award in that we cannot figure out what the real price being offered is as the Price Proposal is lacking required information to figure out the est. total. But I wonder what others have to say on this question.
  13. Vern - thank you, the Sleetne case/EMSA Ltd. P'ship case were exactly what I was looking for ...
  14. If a solicitation states that the agency reserves the right to make award without discussions, and if the agency evaluates a proposal as technically unacceptable, then the agency does not have to go on to evaluate the proposal's price, right? This is assuming that the agency is sticking with it's prerogative to make award without discussions. It seems like a moot point for the agency to evaluate the proposal's price once it has already deemed the proposal technically unacceptable: the agency cannot make award to that proposal anyways, see? I tried to find an example of this scenario from GAO but could not find one. Does anyone know of any support for this?
  15. woops85 - Yes, the transition is mentioned as covering a period of time that starts at the expiration of the contract's period of performance.
  16. FAR 52.237-3, Continuity of Services clause, "may" be inserted in a solicitation per FAR 37.1109c). It is not mandatory. What if an agency program office decides not to include this clause, but instead, includes lengthy text in the Section SOW re: transition/continuity of services. What if most of that language appears very similar to FAR 52.237-3, except that it is slightly modified (changes the 90 days requirement to 180 days, for example)? My concern is, if FAR 52.237-3 were included, but the program office wanted the clause "tweaked" to meet its own needs, the proper process would be to seek a FAR deviation. But if it is OK to simply not include the tweaked clause but simply put it in Section C instead, then there is no need for approval of a FAR deviation. Is this the result the FAR Council intended? Is it simply an oversight?
  17. This case cites the Champion Business Services GAO Protest Decision which holds that an offeror cannot challenge its INCLUSION in the competitive range: In re Mech. Equip. Co., 2004 Comp. Gen. Proc. Dec. P192 / Matter of: Mechanical Equipment Company, Inc.; Highland Engineering, Inc.; Etnyre International, Ltd.; Kara Aerospace, Inc., B-292789.2, B-292789.3, B-292789.4, B-292789.5, B-292789.6, B-292789.7 from December 2003: "Kara also asserts that its proposals were improperly included in the competitive range, given the late imposition of the funding cap and the agency's failure to advise that Kara's price was noncompetitive. However, a protester's challenge against the agency's inclusion of its proposal in the competitive range does not constitute a valid basis for protest that our Office will consider. Verestar Gov't Servs. Group, B-291854, B-291854.2, Apr. 3, 2003, 2003 CPD P 68 at 8 n.4; Champion Bus. Servs., Inc., B-290556, June 25, 2002, 2002 CPD P 109 at 2.
  18. FAR 13.5(d) says that "The authority to issue solicitations under this subpart expires on January 1, 2012." In the past, this commercial item test program has been extended repeatedly. Has it been extended again or did it really expire on January 1, 2012? I have been on vacation and just got back, so I apologize if the answer is "obvious" and I missed hearing about it.
  19. Is an "Evaluation Plan" required? I have been part of many, many acquisitions that contained an "Evaluation Plan" document that set forth how the Technical Evaluation Panel (TEP) was to go about evaluating proposals. However, when I search the FAR (FAR 7 and FAR 15), I cannot find any requirement in the FAR for an Evaluation Plan for any type/size/dollar value of procurement. So is there any authority out there that requires an Evaluation Plan at all?
  20. I have never worked on a contract type with an "award term," where, like an award fee, if the KTR performs well, the agency can award the KTR an "award term" which is like tacking on extra time to the period of performance, say, an extra year added to the base period. My question is, how should such an award term be funded? Must the agency fully fund the award term at the time of original award? What if the base period is say, two years, so the award term won't be "exercised" (I know the award term is not an option, but I don't know what other word to use) until the end of second year of the base period -- does the agency have to fund the award term with the original year and type of funds from the time of the original award, or can it use the current year's annual appropriations? I read an article years ago that said "award fees" had to be fully funded at the time of original award, and even if it took years until they were "due" depending on the performance of the KTR, the agency always had to pay out of the original type and year of money. So I am thinking award terms is probably treated the same, right?
  21. Is it ever too late to exercise an option? For example, say a contract's base period was scheduled to expire on August 31, 2011. The option period covers September 1, 2011 to August 31, 2012. What happens if the agency delays the decision on whether to exercise the option for so long that the expiration date comes and passes? What if the contracting officer decides on Septembe 15, 2011, that he would like to finally exercise the option? Can he do that? And can he make the effective date of the start of performance of the work "retroactive" to September 1, 2011? I don't believe this is possible, but I have been told by several experienced 1102s at different agencies that this is common practice. Can anyone shed light on this?
  22. Technatomy Corporation, B-405130 June 14, 2011. DIGEST: The Government Accountability Office (GAO) will not dismiss a protest concerning the issuance of a task order under the authority of Title 41 of the U.S. Code, notwithstanding the sunset of 41 U.S.C. Sect. 4106(f) (2006 & Supp. IV 2010) (formerly codified at 41 U.S.C. Sect. 253j(e) (2006 & Supp. III 2009)). The sunset provision eliminated both a pre-existing restriction on GAO's jurisdiction to hear protests concerning the issuance of task or delivery orders under multiple-award indefinite- delivery/indefinite-quantity contracts, and a temporary partial waiver of that restriction concerning task orders over $10 million. With the elimination of both the underlying restriction, and the partial waiver of that restriction, GAO's jurisdiction reverts to its original jurisdiction for its bid protest function--i.e., the jurisdiction set forth in the Competition in Contracting Act of 1984--under which GAO had jurisdiction to hear such protests. See the decision online at http://www.gao.gov/decisions/bidpro/405130.pdf Thoughts?
  23. Someone mentioned to me that they heard of a type of contract vehicle where by an agency can "boot a contractor" off of a Multiple Award Schedule if they so choose, and replace them with another contractor. I am told this method is used at ARMY SOCOM and TRANSCOM. I googled this, and could not find any helpful information. Can anyone shed light on this? I have never heard of such a mechanism. If this is in the FAR, can you give me the FAR cite?
  24. Vern wrote: 3. If you're talking a software development project, what do "recompete" and "incumbent contractor" mean? How do you have an incumbent and a recompete for a software development project? If you're not talking about software development, what are you talking about? Once the software is developed, it requires maintenance, so that is what I meant by "recompete." You are right, "recompete" does not make sense here, that is the wrong term. But that is the word everyone I worked with used, and I was the new person, so I didn't argue. If somehow the contract history is messed up, which is when I always came on the scene hired as new employee to deal with the issue, where the government did not identify the source code as a deliverable at contract formation, if the "Additional Ordering Requirement" approach did not work, the contractor was obstinate, then the agency ended up having to start over and pay on a new contract for software development, this time, with the correct data rights and data delivery clauses and identified deliverables. Thanks to everyone for their insights and advice.
×
×
  • Create New...