Weno2

I had an attorney take the same position a few weeks ago. GSA Interact responded to the following question, "Is a Schedule BPA a "Contract?"

Here's the link: Interact (gsa.gov)

Vern, thank you for your contributions.  All of us from the contracting community who have benefited from you (and those who did and didn't realize it) thank you.  

You lit thousands of torches in the contracting community.  Now it's on us to start - or continue - to light the torches. 

The latest Alliant 3 (currently in draft RFP form) is not setting prices at the base K level - only at the task order (TO) level.  

Is this the first acquisition considering this "innovative" method?  I believe it's been discussed here before.

Is this something other contracting offices should consider implementing, or did GSA get a special waiver for trying this "innovative" method?

See FAR 42.1502, Policy

Bob, I've played a sax solo in front of thousands:  I rather have your legacy.

Thank you Bob for everything.  And thanks to all who have provided positive in Wifcon.

7 hours ago, govt2310 said:

Assume that the 4 technically unacceptable offerors were so "technically unacceptable and not capable of being made technically acceptable without a complete rewrite."  Assume that the program office desires to move forward with awarding to the offeror proposing $172 million, that they do not want to amend the solicitation, redo the competitive range and do discussions, and so forth.  They just want to make award now.  If the contract type is an IDIQ, is it possible to make award to an offeror whose proposal exceeded the "ceiling" in the Solicitation, or is that offeror non-compliant/non-conforming/ineligible for award? 

FAR 2.101, Definitions, defines best value -   Best value means the expected outcome of an acquisition that, in the Government's estimation, provides the greatest overall benefit in response to the requirement.

How can you justify the government is getting "best value" awarding to a technically unacceptable contractor?

Regarding IDIQs, it's the amount of the maximum.  The signing level of the order's based on the dollar value of the certificate.  For example, the CO has a warrant for $5M.  If the IDIQ has a maximum dollar amount of $7M, the CO could not sign the K.  If there's an order under the IDIQ for $3M, the CO could sign the order.  If the order was for $5.1M, the CO could not sign the order.

The certificate of appointment language is "Unlimited signature authority for all contract actions up to but not exceeding $$$ (i.e., dollar value of warrant).  All work must be in compliance with the requirements of the FAR, the (name of agency regulations), and all associated policies, procedures, and guidance."

The Certificate of Appointment for our agency does not use the word "obligate".

"Unlimited signature authority for all contract actions are up to but not exceeding $XXX".

This is a change from previous language in the agency used, due to scope of authority issues similar to this one.  

The agency posts the 'Total Contract Value Dollar Range'.  For example, the range could be between $25-50K;, $50M-$150M.

Range value includes completed drawings and specifications, labor costs, etc.   Pretty-much what's in the government cost estimate.

Our agency also provides the estimated amount of a procurement as a category in our fiscal year forecast of procurement opportunities:  Posted on the agency's website.

In our agency's pre-solicitation sources sought notice template, we provide the estimated amount under Contemplated Dollar Value of the Project. 

My opinion is SBA shouldn't have used the words "Partial COC".

SBA determined the contractor has adequate financial resources for annual task order(s) not to exceed $1M.  

SBA stated: "Based on these facts the firm had adequate financial resources for annual task order(s) not to exceed $1.0 million.  However, a contracting officer is always free to exceed the financial ceiling established by SBA. 13 CFR 125.5(f)(3e).  Of course, there is more financial risk beyond what was stated by SBA.   Given SBA's determination, the firm cannot be denied the instant contract based on financial condition."

Options are to have SBA to suspend the case according to 13 CFR § 125.5(h)(2) or appeal their determination according to 13 CFR § 125.5(i). 

Thank you, DWGerald1102.

The SBA Area deputy director's response was basically the same as yours.  

It's an ID/IQ K, so the limit's applicable at the task order level.  According to the deputy director, if the limit was $1M, the yearly limit for task orders is $1M. 

Thanks for all who weighed in on this issue.

Correct cite is FAR 19.602-4(b).

13 C.F.R. 125.5(h) and (i) are applicable due to the value of the award.  I can accept the decision (h)(1), ask SBA to suspend the case (h)(2), or appeal the area director's decision to issue the COC (i).  

Just wanted to know if I'm missing something.  I'll ask SBA for an explanation and the process on how to monitor a partial COC, etc.

SBA is issuing partial COCs (partial financial capability).  For example, they will provide a range (e.g., $1M - $1.5M) for the partial financing.  SBA will issue the partial COC on behalf of the contractor and cites FAR 19.604-2(b); CO shall award the K to the concern in question if the SBA issues a COC. 

Has anyone had a procurement that SBA issued a partial COC?

Happy Birthday WIFCON!  The site has made our jobs easier.

Time to start and App.

On 5/30/2020 at 3:21 PM, formerfed said:

I wonder how much of the cost is attributed to contractors knowing they get reimbursed and not being concerned?  The alternative is contractors assigning individuals to temporary jobs waiting for the COVID-19 measure to lift.  That keeps revenue for the idle employees coming in but the Act took away that incentive.

I concur with here_2_help.  Contractors are also wondering when they will receive their reimbursement.  I'm figuring there are contracting offices waiting for direction from their chief financial officer on the specifics regarding the disbursement of funds to the contracting offices, etc.

Possibly when the solicitation is asking offerors to submit their past performance information before the due date, so the government can start the evaluation process. However, I've seen solicitations asking offerors to send past performance information separately.

Conduct a webinar or have a web-conference with the contractors who are unable to invite.

If the contractor is still in the 8(a) Program, it's a sole source 8(a) K, and you can award a new under FAR section 19.808-1, Sole source, could you consider issuing a new K, and place a TO under the K?

Since the K and TO is sole source under the 8(a) Program, you have more flexibility.

FAR 6.401(b)(2) reads,

(2) Because of differences in areas such as law, regulations, and business practices, it is generally necessary to conduct discussions with offerors relative to proposed contracts to be made and performed outside the United States (emphasis added) and its outlying areas. Competitive proposals will therefore be used for these contracts unless discussions are not required and the use of sealed bids is otherwise appropriate.

If your proposed contract is made and performed outside the US, makes sense to enter into discussions.  Domestic when the laws, regulations and practices are the same, not requiring discussions makes sense.  But there is a push (seeing in my Agency) to plan on entering discussions.

Contracting Cowboy,

Delivery schedule wouldn't be a "minor detail", if the government determines delivery is a critical element for award (e.g., "time is of the essence').

Regarding FAR 15.304(d), I never understood why the government wouldn't want to disclose the rating methods in the solicitation. 

We have nothing to hide, so why not disclose the rating methods in the solicitation.  For transparency sake- if anything at all.

 When I started working at one agency,  the contracting office didn't disclose the rating methods in the solicitations. I asked the contracting officers why, and they said "The program office told us not to."  The program office's excuse was, "We'll provide the methods when we start evaluating the technical proposals."  Whenever the contracting office asked the program office to provide rating methods, the program office would elevate the issue to the procurement executive level.

On ‎3‎/‎20‎/‎2018 at 12:29 PM, Tellmewhy said:

In line with this conversation I have another question.   If you look at www.acquisition.gov and review the matrix it shows that 52.212-5 incorporate by reference (IBR) yes.

If you look at http://farsite.hill.af.mil/vmfara.htm  matrix it states NO for IBR for 52.212-5. We are being told that the farsite will no longer be updated and to follow www.acquisition.gov .

I agree with ContractingPeoplesHatred that provisions and clauses should be incorporated to the maximum practical extent. How would you incorporate 52.212-5 by reference?

1.  FAR clause 52.212-5 is IBR in 48 CFR Part 52.

2.  You would follow the procedures in FAR 52.104(d) to cite the fill-ins.  You would cite 52.212-5; then you would state "The following clauses are incorporated by reference." If you needed to cite FAR 52.203-13, Contractor Code of Business Ethics and Conduct, you would just cite where it is in 52.212-5:  (b)(2), 52.203--13...

You would do the same for all the remaining clauses you need to cite in 52.212-5.

1.  Be more prudent in using draft RFPs. 

2.  Have evaluation factors for what you actually need to select a contractor. 

3.  Develop competent evaluation teams. 

4.  Have the contracting officer as the source selection official (SSO).  For example, there are agencies when the CO can only serve as the SSO for LPTA and Sealed Bid procurements.