Jump to content
The Wifcon Forums and Blogs

contractor2589

Members
  • Content Count

    17
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

0 Neutral

About contractor2589

  • Rank
    New

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Male
  1. Wow. Ok. Thanks. So technically a company could get awarded a GSA MAS contract, become a large business the next day, then 4.9 years later get awarded a 5-year SBSA BPA under that MAS contract.
  2. I have looked but could not find a discussion on this, so any info or redirect to a previous topic would be helpful. My question: If a contractor is awarded a GSA MAS contract (for example, something under FSS "OOCORP") when the contractor is a small business, but then grows to exceed the size standard for a particular NAICS, can the contractor continue to compete for small business set-aside work or BPAs issued under that FSS within that particular NAICS until its GSA contract expires? In other words, if a small business set-aside BPA is competed under GSA FSS 00CORP, can a firm that doe
  3. Thanks, all. FYI, the only mention of these add-on items was that one bulleted line in the evaluation criteria ""Special features, such as systems or software, for effective program performance." Anyway, they cancelled the procurement action so I'm moving on. Thanks again.
  4. The evaluation criteria is based on best value with one of the criteria being "Special features, such as systems or software, for effective program performance." The scope does not refer to any such features or systems or tools, and nothing like that is necessary for the work itself. I"m concerned that they already have someone in mind and already know they will provide some add-on feature that they like, and I'm wondering if its legit to say, effectively, that "if you have some other whiz bang thing you can throw in, that would be great too." We have offered such things in previous proposals
  5. I realize that proposals for professional services generally include a technical approach, and innovative approaches are valued, but what if my innovative approach involves delivering, say, a custom software piece that is not required by the scope? Is this me being innovative, or are there prohibitions on evaluating proposals based on "value add" items like that? (I recall there is a restriction here, but my searching the web and this forum has not turned it up. Apologies if this is old turf.)
  6. So, perhaps I should ask in the transmittal letter of our proposal or somewhere that we be allowed to respond to any past performance information that is anything less than exceptional. To say, "please let us explain if you hear bad stuff" sounds terrible.
  7. Makes sense to me. If there were some sort of restriction, I just wanted to know about it. This solicitation is wired for a competitor, so I was just hoping to move the evaluation to something more quantitative. Thanks all.
  8. Are there any restrictions or requirements on how Past Performance is used as an evaluation criteria? We are faced with a solicitation that includes Past Performance as one of the two primary evaluation criteria. The agency states that this evaluation will not be based on the information/references we provide in our proposal, or any kind of quantitative analysis, but rather "subjective judgment" of all available and relevant information the agency can find. This seems like a huge variable that would allow the agency to validate nearly any best value judgment it makes. Frankly, I doubt there is
  9. You're advice is worth a lot, actually. I really appreciate the input that CAS does not represent "best" or "core" practices. That probably reflects a misunderstanding on my part, and certainly tells me that more investigation is warranted. I guess I viewed the situation as "we'll eventually have to meet all of CAS, so I might as well accept it when we get pulled that way on various fronts." I will tell you that our "audits" seem to be rather qualitative on many points, with a lot of loose references to requirements. Even when we ask for specific references to requirements, we get vague answer
  10. Carl: Thanks. I like how all of that reads. ODCs must be authorized by the ordering agency, not subject to IFF, profit/fee frowned upon, subject to the contractor's accounting system, etc. That's all seems like a reasonable approach, and it makes sense to me. here_2_help: We're not subject to CAS yet, and I appreciate (and found interesting) your commentary on what the CAS is really about. We don't meet all of the requirements of CAS, because it's not worth it until we have to, BUT, we are held to the core practices because we hold Federal cost reimbursable contracts. Based on those contracts,
  11. My general contracting commentary... When using noncost-reimbursable BPAs or IDIQs, we (the people) should be using multiple awards and competing each FFP task order whenever possible. These MATOC-type contracts eliminate the need for the Government to worry itself with how cost are calculated. We hold single-award IDIQ contracts, and it's great, but I would trade them and slug it out with my competitors in best value competitions rather than have to defend how we figure out how much a particular job will cost us. Competition among contractors is far more brutal than anything the agencies wil
  12. Here_2_help: Yeah, I didn't mean I was done, so much as I didn't want to drag this out for others. Your points are good. We are small, but the CAS represents solid accounting strategies, we need to accurately calculate our costs (so we know how cheaply we can do a job), and we don't see the point in operating outside CAS just because we can. You also right about allocation strategies, and we are looking hard at switching our practice to "value added" allocations (for purposes other than described here). Alas, even under Value Add, though, we would allocate indirect costs to all ODCs (includin
  13. I suppose I do understand, then: The Government requires (through DCAA audits triggered by other agencies) that we adhere to proper accounting practices and allocate G&A costs evenly to ODCs (including all travel costs) across all clients and contract, BUT this particular agency insists on controlling how we calculate our proposed costs by requiring that we eat the G&A costs associated with this work. I think we are simply seeing an attitude of either A) "G&A isn't a real cost" or "its a real cost and everyone EXCEPT ME should pay it." I can tell you that (at least at my small b
  14. The more I think about this, it really seems like the philosophy, negotiating methods, and contracting language of cost reimbursable contracting (or maybe single award IDIQs) spilling over into FFP contracting. It only becomes an issue when competition is curtailed. I would rather see more multiple award contracts, so the Government doesn't have to worry about how companies determine the amount of money it will accept for a particular job.
  15. That's a good point. Any cap on indirect rates exerts control over accounting practices. I can tell you that internally, we would adhere to our established accounting practices, make the allocations, reduce profits, and cover the G&A out of profit. That's really the only way we could possibly do it. I guess we could increase proposed profit to cover this. From my perspective, when it comes to FFP work, it feels like meddling in how a private company comes up with its costs. What if we used a completely unorthodox system (our own terminology and some alternative cost tracking system)? What
×
×
  • Create New...