Jump to content
The Wifcon Forums and Blogs

buddyandme

Members
  • Content Count

    51
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

0 Neutral

About buddyandme

  • Rank
    Member
  • Birthday 05/07/1954

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Male
  • Location
    California

Recent Profile Visitors

4,706 profile views
  1. C Culham - Yep I saw this site yesterday and it did help. Thanks
  2. Thanks and I appreciate the advice, its just that I always want to use a FAR citation when sending notices to contractors we are not considering.
  3. I never stated that FAR 16.5 applied only that fair opportunity applies to FSS orders. So after rereading FAR 8.405-5(a)(2)(ii) the statement that "specific small business program eligibility requirements identified in part 19 apply". Should I rely on those "specific program eligibility requirements to mean we can reject the large business proposal from consideration because the contractor is a large business? Just a bit confusing since 8.405-5 (a) says preference programs of part 19 are not mandatory and part 8.405-5(a)(2)(ii) speaks of specific eligibility requirements that do apply under part 19.
  4. Yes I understand that we cannot consider a large business when setting-aside a procurement for small business. But for FAR part 8 procurements where FAR part 8.405-5 states "preference programs of part 19 are not mandatory", we are not sure if I can reject the large businesses proposal from consideration. I have been looking for a FAR reference that will allow us to reject his proposal but have not found one.
  5. Question: When setting aside an order for SB under FAR 8.405-5 can a large business schedule contractor who submitted a proposal be considered for award? Since the preference programs of FAR part 19 are not mandatory under 8.405-5 and fair opportunity applies to FSS contracting I have not found any prohibition from considering an otherwise responsive and responsible contractor for award. Since I cannot find any reason not to consider the large business contractor and should they be found the "best value" I would award the order to them but would not take the SB credit. Comments are appreciated.
  6. Thanks H2H...this is a concern of several players involved in these requirements. I will definitely read the decision.
  7. I appreciate your input and advice. I've had discussions with SBA many times for a determination of adverse impact for a possible 8(a) contract but not for Ability One. What I do know is the Committee has to make an adverse impact determination prior to placing a new requirement on the procurement list but have found nothing that requires or even suggests I should discuss adverse impact with the SBA. I'm just wondering if SBA would even get involved to determine if there is an adverse impact.
  8. We have a continuing need to provide facility maintenance (O&M) for two large federal service centers. In the past years contracts have been awarded using competitive SB set-aside procedures. Both contracts are on their last option period (5th year). Just as we were preparing to solicit these two requirement as SB set-asides we were contacted by a representative of Ability One who asked that we consider adding our requirements to the procurement list and make awards under the authority of the Javits-Wagner-O'day act. Before we go down that road I have asked our cognizant SBA office if they need to perform an Adverse Impact analysis such as they would do prior to accepting an award under the 8(a) program (13CFR 124.504). SBA has not responded yet but I wanted to see if anyone on WIFCON has any experience with this issue. 1. Does SBA have any role in this process? 2. Can SBA determine an adverse impact and not allow us to make an award under the authority of the Javits-Wagner-O'day act? or Is the Committee the only group who can make the adverse impact determination?
  9. Don, the SOW that contains the references to the Government Property is only telling the contractor what the government is expecting them to do. It does not express the what if's, such as what if the contractor failed to conduct a required audit or failed to replace GFM with a like material. In a situation like that I would of course require the contractor to re-perform but what if he didn't. It is then I would go to the appropriate FAR clauses to enforce the contract but if the clause is not in the contract then what?
  10. Our commercial FFP contract for Facilities Maintenance contains references in the SOW that address the governments requirements for handling GFM,GFP and GFE. These references tell the contractor what the governments expectations are during performance of the contract, for such things as "Conducting audits of GFM,GFP and GFE, Reporting requirements, Responsibilities for repair and or replacement ect... I just assumed contract administration responsibility for this contract that is in the 5th year of a 60 month contract. I was reviewing a question the COR had regarding conducting an inventory of GFM and found that the contract did not contain any Government Furnished Property clauses as required by FAR part 45 - Government Property. It is my opinion that without these required clauses the governments rights are not protected nor are those of the contractor. I do not believe the plain language of the SOW that expresses how the governments expects the contractor to perform the different requirements related to GFM, GFP and GFE has the same force and effect as a contractually required FAR clause. We could of course attempt to bi-laterally add the appropriate clauses but would probably be inviting a equitable adjustment and a probable cost increase. My question is: Can the government enforce the provisions of the applicable FAR Part 45 - Government Property clauses if they are not contained within the contract? I am preparing to send a request for legal review but wanted to test the waters here first.
  11. FAR clauses are not mandatory for Micro purchases (13.201 (d)) but FAR does not prohibit the use of a clause. In these cases our agency is hypersensitive to disclosure of tax payer information and has required the procurement staff to use agency non-disclosure clauses when ordering information that contains taxpayer information. Can any person buy the same taxpayer information? If so, I believe you may be correct that commercial companies who have access to taxpayer information have to follow federal rules/laws that are designed to protect the release of information and as stewards of the taxpayer we also need to do the same. Does the addition of a clause for a $250.00 report really do anything protect the taxpayer? Perhaps we are only being required to use these clauses to protect the federal employee or agency who is using the taxpayer information. I'm not trying to make this more complicated but simply want to help my agency get the information faster and since a majority of these repetitive actions are < $2,500.00 using a GPC is more cost effective than a PO. I appreciate your thoughts in this matter.
  12. Thanks for you comments and yes we are considering doing just that.
  13. Background: Our agency procures reports that contain taxpayer information. The cost of procuring these reports are less than the micro purchase threshold. Mandatory clauses are necessary due to disclosure and privacy issues. Question: In order to reduce the time to procure these reports we are considering using the GPC card for requirements less than $2,500.00 in lieu of issuing PO's which has been past practice. The vendor must accept the mandated clauses in writing before beginning performance. Can we send a separate sheet containing the required clauses to the vendor and get acceptance in writing. Then after acceptance, order the reports using a GPC?
×
×
  • Create New...