formerfed

@Patrick S I don’t see the updated content on the link

@newtocontracting12 The major consideration here is the relationship with your commercial business customer. From your prior posts, I assume at some point you are selling to a commercial business citing your GSA Schedule contract. See FAR 51 https://www.acquisition.gov/far/part-51#FAR_51_000. If you are using it under this authority, you can’t charge more than the contract rates. However if you are selling to a commercial business referencing GSA pricing (or greater) and it’s not an order under your contract, that’s something different. Edit. One obscure thing to be aware of is GSA uses offeror pricing data to various types of customers to negotiate their contract prices. When you submit your offer, you likely shared information on what you charge other customers. GSAs goal in negotiations is obtaining prices equal to or more favorable than the offerors best customer. If you are later selling to a contractor (non GSA contract transaction or under the GSA contract) but selling at lower prices than you disclosed, that might trigger an auditors interest. Price reduction clause. As an example, suppose your commercial labor rate is $120/hr. You charge everyone that rate except GSA which is $100. Your offer says that’s the best anyone gets. But later after award let’s say you charge a commercial company that won’t be using your contract the same as GSAs $100 or $110 even. If GSA finds out later, they may come back and seek something pursuant to the price reductions clause.

This reminded me of an approach used successfully by one office during COVID. Other offices adopted it later. Evaluations were completed using virtual team software. The evaluation lead loaded a proposal each morning for evaluators to read but do nothing more. In the afternoon the proposal was discussed, scored, and documented. The same happened each day until all proposals were finished. The only record generated was by the lead during consensus discussions.

Carl, you misinterpreted my comment. I have the upmost respect for your points on this and all threads. I know you throughly research topics before posting. There are two approaches here and neither is blatantly wrong. You have carefully stated the merits of each.

The best point made in this entire thread. The paper Carl linked shows even differing positions by Vern Edwards and Ralph Nash. Why not take the path that’s quicker, easier, and less costly to both parties? A claim resolution at many agencies generally involves extensive legal involvement and research, lengthy administrative reviews, and high level approvals. On the other hand, a REA might be settled solely at the contracting officer level.

Good. The subject of GSA FSS is one of the most misunderstood. It has the potential to greatly streamline the process, narrow down the pool of viable sources, and reduce administrative time and expenses. But it often is used with many common misunderstandings.

Patrick S, I took a close look at “Inserting terms into FAR Part 12 procurements that are inconsistent with “customary commercial practices.” (CPDT Subcategory 3.1).” The summary of this and other issues overall under 3.1 is excellent. Great job!

@newtocontracting12 Thanks for the explanation. I’m just guessing here but it sounds like you proposed price escalations to GSA for future years and they didn’t accept the increases. A typical negotiation strategy for GSA is to allow future year prices to be tied into economic price indexes and require offerors to propose option years at a constant base rate. Option year prices are later adjusted via contract modifications. I really don’t know the proper answer to your question without reading #2 and #3. However from a business marketing and customer satisfaction perspective, I would contact the customer and explain the situation to them. If they want a rebate or credit, I would give it to them. Or perhaps negotiate something on middle ground. Perhaps after looking closely at the contract, you may be on solid grounds to do nothing. But often actions like this showing your company is fair and values the relationship goes a long way to ensure future business.

A key missing piece for all this is what is the specific problem that needs solved? Also a significant limitation to doing anything different is DoD has lots of interrelated pieces. It’s much more than just how contract items are labeled. Here_2_help hit it right on the head. The approach is a poor substitute for program management.

newtocontracting 12, I, for one, am having a difficult time following your situation. It’s your terminology. GSA Schedule contracts are typically awarded for a long time (often termed “evergreen” with up to a potential of 20 years in duration). They usually have an economic price adjustment provision that allows for revising prices for out years. So the only price adjustments are based on economic price indexes and GSA issues contract modifications reflecting contractors requests. Federal Supply Service (FSS) contracts is a term that essentially is synonymous with GSA contracts - FSS is part of GSA. Federal agencies are authorized to place orders under GSA/FSS contracts for supplies and/pr services at contract rates or discounted rates. In that situation agencies don’t have “contracts” with agencies but “orders” with the contractors. Orders are placed consistent with GSA contract established prices (less applicable discounts that ordering agencies using the contracts may negotiate). Your explanation of the situation leads me to believe you have something different. Did you enter into a contract with DOE that’s not an order under GSA but a DOE contract citing GSA prices? Or some other action that is with still another agency using a DOE contract?

If you do decide to proceed this way, be sure to describe your task order ordering procedures carefully and in detail in your solicitation. You don’t want post award protests.

Doinmybest, I have a lot of experience with PBA and while there are often very good reasons to utilize it, this isn’t one. What I recommend for situations similar to this where existing contracting approaches don’t seem to be as effective as people like is conducting market research. Carefully lay out the problem in succinct terms. Invite a handful of the best performing companies in the auditing business in for a meeting or virtual conference. Ask them for ideas, lessons learned, and best practices of others. Also ask other government ideas to share their experiences. A favorite question of mine for companies when concluding the sessions is “if you were in our place, what would you do? This should give you good thoughts on how to structure a better approach. If your management still insists on PBA, about the only thought I have is based on experiences of a few agencies using consulting type A&A services. They use a report card type evaluation of contractors performance much like an award fee process. The results tie into past performance which affects selection of the next competitive for new work. As far as I know they haven’t had any protests or challenges of the process. Somewhat related is multiple awarded debt collection contracts where future business is mostly dependent upon success in collections. But that uses more quantitative assessments than what audit services involve.

Good summary of protests Wash Tech on protests I wonder how the less experienced workforce of recent years impacts the protest effectiveness rating.

Patrick S, I went through many of self-scoring subcategories. That’s a big help in getting to the specifics. I know it’s a lot of dialogue for the contract specialist/contracting officer to go through but that’s the only individual(s) on the team that’s likely aware of all the details. Skimping might overlook important potential protest points. The “hot spots” are good.

@Patrick S Really good effort. My only suggestions if you have funding and support is engage agencies outside the IC community as well as expand the cited decisions caseload. So many decisions have a narrow focus and a literal reading can skew conclusions based upon an erroneous interpretation. Maybe a drill down capability with expanded coverage for various subjects?

Where potential problems might arise is with GSA auditors and customer agencies questioning this later. You can save potential problems as well as promoting customer support by crediting your billing with the 2% reduction. It’s difficult to assess your position but from what you said, it sounds like you should have adjusted the billing as soon as the new GSA revised award was made.

@Oyster I totally agree. One major deficiency in contract training courses that people usually take is with contract law. The most common courses spends way too much time on the basic stuff and doesn’t touch the really meaningful issues. As a minimum I think contracting management should require mid level and senior specialists to take more intensive law courses as well as subscribe to Lexis and Westlaw as you suggested. Sure it’s expensive but that’s a drop compared to the governments cost of handling protests and court decisions. But with the subscriptions or even this tool, contracting personnel need to understand the basics first to apply cases to their work.

I can see benefit to those mid range contracting personnel that lack years of experience. It brings up lots of potential pitfalls that can get overlooked. The more constructive feedback it receives, the better the tool. Perhaps OFPP can take it over at some point to manage and maintain.

It’s statutory. But it really doesn’t make any difference. https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/41/3305

Another similar idea is some offices stress collaboration and partnering in their solicitations. It appears in the evaluation factors and solicitation instructions where offerors respond with how they address various aspects such suitability of staff. It also can be included in past performance. Some other suggestions made here might help - better define the required work. That can be done in specific position terms or at an overall level. That helps set mutual expectations. I know sometimes with “admin support” personnel, there’s a reluctance to avoid appearances of staff augmentation or personnel services in writing needs so the wording is intentionally vague. But it’s important for the government to establish what they need and offerors to respond with their proposals with the right staff.

@Jamaal Valentine Makes perfect sense. Good summary analysis. Picking up on Carl’s prior point, if individual calls might exceed $25,000 in value the competitive BPA should be synopsized in the GPE.

Single award competitive BPAs were used in the past for office supplies and weren’t uncommon. They were synopsized and competed using hypothetical shopping lists which quoters priced against. Often the quoters associated discounts from their published prices were used as a basis for long term BPA pricing adjustments.

This is excellent advice. Don’t rely on questionnaires sent to offeror recommended “friends.” Also don’t place too much emphasis on CPARS. Instead contact any customers you can find. Often that means asking sources who else they are aware with experience dealing with the offeror. It often takes some digging but it’s usually worth it.

I’m not sure what you mean by “admin support” personnel but that often notes a step below professional type jobs. Regardless some ideas include requiring submission of detailed resumes addressing specific performance requirements, use of oral presentations including “pop” quizzes, and past performance evaluations covering this exact issue.

The practical point is arguing against small business can be meaningless. The regulations and stated policies aren’t completely clear on the point. The small business office sees a $1 million acquisition as an example and they don’t want to miss it not going to a small business. So if it comes down to a stalemate with contracting, management will likely agree with the small business office. It’s often a battle not worth fighting.