Jump to content
The Wifcon Forums and Blogs

formerfed

Members
  • Content count

    740
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

0 Neutral

About formerfed

  • Rank
    Gold Member

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Not Telling

Recent Profile Visitors

12,309 profile views
  1. Reserving MACs for SBs

    I don't know if this is GSAs position but I would argue this. I'm doing a multiple award IDIQ contract vehicle for IT needs. It has extremely high order limitations so I know small business can't meet all the order requirements. But I anticipate small firms can perform on some orders. This meets the FAR 19.502-3 criteria for a partial set-aside. So I award Alliant on a full and open basis and Alliant SB as a set-aside to cover all the potential order needs. It complies with the rule of two and everything else.
  2. Reserving MACs for SBs

    Agreed. I would assume that by going to Alliant, the Rule of Two was applied and small firms couldn't meet my need.
  3. Reserving MACs for SBs

    My thought is since both Alliant and Alliant SB are very large IDIQ contracts, the scope is relatively open. Individual needs are met at the task order basis. So ordering agencies decide which vehicle to use based on the specifics of their work. The work is the same for both (same section c and labor categories); it's the magnitude of the jobs that differentiate.
  4. Reserving MACs for SBs

    Napolik, Back to your original question, it seems to me GSA did exactly that with Alliant. They determined that a total set-aside is not feasible so they did a partial. The partial is Alliant SB.
  5. If you have confidence in the government estimate, why not? I would tell each company that the government desires paying no more than $98,000 and what's their best price.
  6. The first question I would ask the technical office is the reason for the "how" to prescriptive elements. If something needs accomplished in a set way, make that part of the "constraints" section of the SOO. In other words you say "these are the objectives of the acquisition, however certain items listed as constraints need complied with." For example security reasons or interfacing with another project may require work to be performed a certain way.
  7. It doesn't make sense. I'm guessing the original intent got lost someplace along the way
  8. RFP states a proposed solution

    I worked at an Army location where all awards had to result from contracts prepared from scratch. Contracts couldn't be a simple unilateral acceptance of offers and everything was done via SF26 signed by both parties. If a solution resulted in a contractor selection, the pertinent parts of the proposal along with the essential parts of the SOW were put into the contract. Then the contractor was called in and the CO went over all the language as well as all the clauses with the contractor. The contractor and the CO essentially agreed to everything the contractor is required to do in clear terms. A lot of work but well worth it in most instances.
  9. Acquisition Support Personnel

    Excellent advice! OP, you are a contractor and an employee of that company. If things aren't going right, you raise the issue within your company. Your boss tells you what to do. It really shouldn't matter to you what the BPA says. That's something your employer deals with.
  10. Category Management?

    Competing objectives pretty much sums up a lot about government buying. Its confusing when you try and sort through it all. Pick just one like socio-economic and it's puzzling on its own. If I have a requirement that can be met by women owned, veteran owned, minority owned business, etc., which do I pick? From a high level, category management makes sense. Have the agency with the most expertise and knowledge do the consolidated buying. But if I truly consolidate and leverage the buying power to get the most favorable pricing, I likely will exclude small businesses. I also likely will award to a very few number of sources at the expense of spreading buisness to many companies. So a handful of companies reap rewards which many other companies are injured. At the same time this concept probably hurts individual agencies and their programs because it takes away preferences and unique but needed features of products and services. There's a cost associated with "one size fits all." What would be nice is for the government to eliminate these conflicts.
  11. Since this is a $500,000 action using simplified acquisition procedures, I wouldn't necessarily consider the quote technically unacceptable. I could go back and ask why parts weren't included. The vendor could simply revise the quote and we've home free.
  12. Category Management?

    He could but just imagine all the pushback - intelligence agencies saying national security is dependent upon their contractors, defense saying only certain large businesses are capable and their requirements are so unique it will drive up costs for other agencies, Homeland Security saying they need flexibility only companies familiar with them can provide. It goes on and on. Every agency says they are unique. Cabinet Secretaries can't even make their components share the same data centers.
  13. Don, They certainly could be used together. But I'm think if past performance was done in the manner described, agencies could get to award quicker and less effort for both industry and the government. From what I gather this process involves multiple awards initially. Each contractor performs for a certain period of time, delivers their products, the government evaluates and makes a selection decision. That involves a lot of time and expense for everyone. My thinking is could the government through the past performance process gain enough information and insight about the offerors to make a selection without the prototypes? I believe they could assuming the work is the typical IT development.
  14. Category Management?

    Category management is just another name for something that's practiced a lot, particularly in the private sector with large corporations. Its just a twist on strategic sourcing. Regardless, the big question is why should the government be duplicating contracting efforts for the same things many times over. Of course there are lots of good reasons. Then there are lots of reasons why they shouldn't. If you look at buying practices across the government for the same commodity, there are good results from very experienced buyers and there are horrible results from others. So why not have the best buyers contract on behalf of the entire government and really leverage the buying power? A lot of duplication and waste exist right now and without good reason. I heard one agency say they won't use GSA Schedules because their management evaluates the contracting office and their need for staffing resources on the volume and complexity of work they do. A GSA Schedule order gets a fraction of weight compared to them doing their own contract. Many other agencies say GSA Schedules won't allow them to negotiate their own special terms and conditions on task orders, which isn't true. So many existing ways to save money and time are in place now but aren't used such as GWACS, GSA Schedules, other agency contracts using interagency agreements, etc. In order for this concept to work, agencies need to be forced to use the sources. More importantly agencies will have to relinquish some of their existing flexibilities to buy items unique to them or those that simply reflect personal preferences. I remember a firearms manufacturer at a conference saying that the non-military section of the government uses 22 makes/models of handguns. Probably most important, agencies need to give up control over the management of their needs and spending. That's an uphill battle and I don't see the Administration willing to do battle to win.
  15. This also isn't a whole lot different than negotiating varying profit/fee percentages with contract types. A contract may contain multiple CLIN with varying contract types. Based on associated risks by CLIN, you would expect different profit rates.
×