Jump to content


  • Posts

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by LindaK

  1. Bob: If you happen to work for DoD, use of "tiered evaluations" (same thing as cascading evaluations) was covered in the FY06 Defense Authorization Act and shows up in the DFARS under 210.001(a)(i)(B).
  2. 1. Have you ever tried personal initiative but you were shot down by "higher ups" because the FAR did not authorize something? No, not that I can remember - my contracting world is not that complicated that it falls outside the regulations/policies/EO... found elsewhere. 2. Have you ever used personal initiative and your idea was supported by "higher-ups?" See above 3. In federal contracting, is it easier to be human or to be an automaton? Have to agree with what's been said above (with the exception of CDS who apparently has found a utopian contracting office for which I am jealous). In my experience, I see a huge push to homogenize the federal acquisition field - make all documents and contracts look alike. That's best accomplished by automation. Human thought wreaks havoc on automation. 4. If you answer automaton to #3, is it because of GAO protests, supervisors, etc? To a degree, yes. But it involves much more than that. I have actually seen this FAR principle abused rather than properly used because the individual ignores the principle in its entirety and thinks that if the FAR doesn't prohibit it, it can be done, but fails to take the additional step of researching whether the action violates other regulations, laws or policies.
  3. Contractor/subcontractor personnel may not engage in any of the following behaviors at a government work site: Alcohol consumption; Gambling; Non-professional contact or relationships with Government personnel.
  4. To add to Vern's suggestion, the number for General Inquiries to ASBCA is 703-681-8500
  5. Todd, The DLA Master Solicitation for Automated Simplified Acquisitions clearly states at 3.©(3)(d): "TIE QUOTES: If evaluated offers results in a tie between qualified quotes, the award decision will be based on the following order of precedence: (1) A domestic end product offer over a non-qualifying country end product offer It would appear that the contracting officer was following the procedure outlined in the solicitation for tie quotes - apparently you identified the product of a non-qualifying country and the awardee indicated that it was providing a domestic end product. If this is a repetitive issue, and you are certain that there is not a domestic product that would satisfy the requirement, I strongly encourage you to engage with the contracting officer and perhaps the small business office to find a workable solution for the future. There should be a process in place in which you can notify the contracting officer that the only solution for a solicitation is a non-qualifying country end product and as a result, paragraph (1) of the Tie Quotes process should not apply - without having your quote being rejected for taking exception to the requirements of the solicitation. That said, I agree with what others have said about protests, which is unfortunate and which does keep companies from protesting. I'm quite dismayed at what I see going on - more often lately than ever before (I mean, seriously, look at the language for the Tie Quotes - "If evaluated offers results in a tie between qualified quotes" - really?). I wish more companies would express objection. I don't see things changing without it.
  6. As for the NAICS quesiton, try 334614 - Software and other prerecorded compact disc, tape, and record reproducing.
  7. No apologies necessary. I can take it! It's as much a fear of disclosing things I've seen over the years that I shouldn't disclose for purposes of job security as it is in revealing my ignorance. I actually think the contributors here are more gentle in their responses than I might be. Couldn't resist an emoticon!
  8. I thank you Bob and all the contributors! Wish I had more time (and courage) to participate more often.
  9. Wishing you the happiest of happy! And thanks for your dedication to keeping this site going!
  10. Oh - and it involved the AF, not the Navy. Maybe that's why you don't recall it.
  11. Yes. Reported differently depending on what you read but in the settlement that was reached, Boeing agreed to pay a penalty in excess of $6M.
  12. I believe Vern is more on track with this issue. Violation of the Berry Amendment may constitute fraud. Boeing was charged with fraud in such a case in 2004 for selling aircraft parts that contained Russian titanium.
  13. Hi Vern! Same LindaK. I sent you a private note via this site (I think).
  14. Don: Thanks for beating me to the punch on the regulation. You nailed it! Some contracting officers 'reserve' these brand name requirements for small business, but a set-aside is inappropriate. A little bit of research will uncover incidences of abuse of programs such as the 8(a) program for these brand name items manufactured by other than small business concerns, so I'm not opposed to the rule in principle.
  15. cogp2: A sole source brand name solicitation at any dollar value is not appropriate as a small business set-aside regardless of whether the sole source is asmall business or not (except that you might use the sole source programs designed for 8(a), Hubzone, or SDVOSB if the actual manufacturer falls into one of those categories). Are you sure these aren't brand name or equal requirements under $25K for which a non-manufacturer exception applies?
  16. Troy: If you work for DoD, be aware that DFARS 216.703© limits the ordering period under a BOA to five years.
  17. If you have access to FPDS-NG (or you are on good terms with someone who has access), you could always run an AdHoc query and limit your search to a relevant NAICS and CPFF contract type to get a list of contracts. If you're with DoD, you could look at the contracts via EDA. I imagine other agencies have similar sites for posting contracts. But, as Vern noted, this will just give you an idea of how the contracts were structured. It's not a guarantee that they are well-written.
  18. An SBA OIG report (from July 2010) says that using the 8(a) program for 'pass through' items is an abuse of the 8(a) program. The report is available here: http://www.sba.gov/office-of-inspector-general/872/5203 Also, I believe that the final words under the final sentence under FAR 19.502-2© - which provides details of the non-manufacturer rule - is often overlooked (my emphasis added): "In both of these cases, the contracting officer’s determination in paragraph ((1) of this subsection or the decision not to set aside a procurement reserved for small business under paragraph (a) of this subsection will be based on the expectation of receiving offers from at least two responsible small businesses, including nonmanufacturers, offering the products of different concerns." If it's brand name, there's no competition, thus no set-aside.
  19. Maybe it's me - It's been a rough week and it's only Tuesday. But I have to ask - is anyone else a bit frightened by a post like this? A CO entrusted with making a $32M award and doesn't know where to begin when a protest has been received? I'm not judging the CO or the poster. I suppose it just goes to show how valuable a resource WIFCON can be. I'm just shaking my head - and it's starting to hurt!
  20. So I sense that the opinion here (and thanks for the replies!) is that the rule of two under GSA schedules would become a rule of three. My guess is that we will see the issue put to rest in a future bid protest decision. Too bad I didn't think to submit a comment to the proposed rule. Happy Holidays to all!
  21. Just curious if anyone has thoughts on this. The 'rule of two' clearly applies for a small business set-aside. However, the ordering procedures stipulated under FAR 8.405 require a posting of requirements above the SAT to eBuy or alternately (and often preferably) providing the solicitation to a sufficient number of schedule holders to reasonably ensure that you will get quotes from at least three sources. For a set aside under a GSA schedule, is there now a 'rule of three' in order to comply with FAR 8.405? Thanks!
  22. Everyone seems to be in agreement that 1) there's no certainty as to whether this is indeed defective pricing at this point, and 2) At this dollar value, DCAA/DCMA will not get involved. Anyone care to offer advice on the follow-up question - "what other steps can or should a contracting specialist take to resolve this matter?" Or do you recommend he/she ignore the information uncovered?
  23. Navy: I think you meant -- "Acquisitions for production or services when the total cost of all contracts for the acquisition program is estimated at $50 million or more for all years or $25 million or more for any fiscal year"... Anyone know how an acquisition for production is defined? Acquisition for services is easy, but I've been curious about why the term "acquisition for production" is used? I think it's hard to define, may purposefully so.
  24. A technically acceptable proposal is defined as one that complies with the instructions contained in Section L and doesn't take exception to any of the terms and conditions of the solictation. The language used comes from "sample contract language" provided as part of a clause book. I personally don't think it's clear as to what the Government intends to do. Was just attempting to get opinions from others. Around here it's viewed as requiring the Government to make a single award. Thanks again to everyone who offered up an opinion!
  25. Thanks for the opinions. Keep them coming. The procurement is negotiated under FAR Part 15 using LPTA as the evaluation scheme.
  • Create New...