Jump to content
The Wifcon Forums and Blogs


  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

0 Neutral

About slange

  • Rank
  1. In several places in FAR 8.4 (e.g. 8.405-1( d)(4), 8.405-2 ( c)(3)(iii)( C), 8.405-3((1)(ii)( C), 8.405-3( (2)(vi), and 8.405-3( c)(2)(iii)( A)(3)) COs are instructed to “Ensure all quotes received are fairly considered and award is made in accordance with the evaluation criteria in the RFQ.” The question that has been posed in my office is what does “fairly considered” really mean? Does “fairly considered” mean "evaluate" [per the RFQ]? Did GAO ever define “fairly considered” in a protest decision in such a way that the definition could be applied to all acquisitions under FAR 8.4 (i.e., the concept of fair consideration did not hinge on specifics of the given case)? I wasn’t able to find anything, but I could have missed it. The reason for this question is this: if an agency receives an unwieldy number of responses to an RFQ following the ordering procedures of FAR 8.405, can the agency simply decide it is only going to evaluate X number of responses (say 10; rather than the 20 quotes received)? [Doubtful, yes, but thought I’d ask] Would it be appropriate to say in the RFQ that the agency will only consider X number of responses (maybe the first 10 it receives). I want to end by saying that in no way would I ever recommend or condone either of actions in the preceding paragraph: they are arbitrary and patently unfair, in my opinion. However, I could be wrong and I’d like to hear what others have to say. And I’d like to know if there such a GAO case exists (second paragraph). Appreciate your time.
  2. Vern - thank you very much for the response. It clearly and succinctly puts the issue to rest for me. Navy_Contracting: Thank you for your thoughts as well, although I must admit the "opposing position" won a recent argument in my office. Don: thank you for the link; it was an interesting read.
  3. In the same situation presented by GOVCO (commercial item, sole source, IDIQ that allows for FFP and LH orders), I have heard people argue that since you are awarding an IDIQ contract, that (IDIQ) is your contract type. They essentially argue that the type of order you issue (FFP or LH) is irrelevant and any regulations addressing FFP or LH contracts (in this case, FAR 12.207() is not applicable to IDIQ contracts. As "support" for their argument, they state that FAR Part 16 is entitled "Contract Type" and Indefinite Quantity contracts are their own contract type, separate from FFP, T&M/LH, and CR. I do not agree with this argument. Regardless of the inclusion of Indefinite Quantity contracts in FAR Part 16 - and thus the argument that it is its own contract type - an Indefinite Quantity contract cannot exist w/o one or more pricing arrangements (i.e., FP, CR, T&M/LH). In fact, FAR 16.501-2© specifically says "Indefinite-delivery contracts may provide for any appropriate cost or pricing arrangement under PAR 16." All of this to say that I'd like to know if the WIFCON community thinks the following argument is valid: an IDIQ contract is its own contract type, and therefore rules that apply to T&M/LH contract types don't apply to an IDIQ contract or the T&M/LH orders that may be issued against it.
  4. The SmartBUY program was made "mandatory" in OMB memo M-04-08, Maximizing Use of SmartBuy and Avoiding Duplication of Agency Activities with the President’s 24 E-Gov Initiatives. There was a FAR Case at one time that was going to make the requirements of the memo officical regulatory guidance. That FAR Case was “closed” last year (March or April) and there has apparently been no attempt to resurrect it. I know the SmartBuy program still exists (http://www.gsa.gov/portal/content/105119). However, I couldn’t find a link to the OMB memo at the GSA web site (I would have thought there would be a link), and I don’t see any mention of SmartBuy as a “mandatory” program. My question is this: at your agency, do you follow the guidance of the OMB memo and treat the SmartBuy program as mandatory? Thanks for your input.
  5. Thanks for your insight Vern. And I couldn't agree more about those @&^^%*!^ GSA BPAs!
  6. Vern - Would you agree with the other commenters regarding the intial scenario described (and elaborated upon) by GOVCO? In other words, if I did not initally specify a brand name when I competed the BPA set-up among vendors, but I award a single BPA that obviously does specify a brand name, there is no need to justify the brand name requirement when I issue an order? I do believe the answer is logical (I "competed" the inital BPA based on specifications, not a brand name, therefore I did not have a "brand-name" requirement to begin with), but I too am hung up on the language in FAR 8.405-6(2)(iii). Thanks for considering the question.