napolik

It appears that you cannot use the FY 16/ 17 funds in FY 18. See B-317636, April 21, 2009. https://www.gao.gov/special.pubs/appforum2010/contract_law.pdf Go to the bottom of page 3 and the top of page 4:

I suspect not. But, perhaps the automated procurement systems, or a more sophisticated AI cousin, can empower them to read, assess, decide and act correctly. B-414785, Bluewater Management Group, LLC, September 18, 2017 http://www.gao.gov/products/B-414785

I wonder if the COs today have the knowledge, skills and disposition to swing on the pendulum.

Call order is still in GAO's dictionary: See B-414641, FedResults, Inc., August 8, 2017 at http://www.gao.gov/products/B-414641

Which page limits, margins and font sizes were you required to meet?

I am not speaking about orders under the MACs. I am speaking of the award of the MACs. How could GSA award Alliant 2 without setting it aside given the close similarity of its Section C and labor categories to those seen in Alliant 2 SB? What exception to the Rule of Two applies?

Too few facts. Do you know the bases for determining the contract to be "invalid"?

Yes, but FAR 19.502-2(b) says the Rule of Two applies to any acquisition over $150k. It doesn’t exempt MACs.

The Section Cs are virtually identical. So are the labor categories. Since GSA asks for the same work from the same labor categories and since GSA issued an Alliant 2 SB set aside, how can a set aside not be feasible? Thanks

So, the contractor's submission isn't incorporated into the order. In your opinion, what is the purpose of the very carefully coiffed 10 page submission? Typically, does the contracting officer have any discussions with you affecting the quality or price of the effort reflected in your quote?

I believe you must document the file as to why you are designating a specific sub, but I do not believe you need a J&A. See these two WIFCON threads: http://www.wifcon.com/discussion/index.php?/topic/2980-directing-a-prime-to-a-specific-subcontractor/ http://www.wifcon.com/discussion/index.php?/topic/658-competitive-rfp-with-directed-sub/

Does that 10 page "technical approach" represent an "offer" to be accepted and incorporated into the contract?

Does that 10 page "technical approach" represent an "offer" to be accepted and incorporated into the contract? Given a 50+ page SOW, why do you need 5, 10 or 50 pages of blather cut and pasted from the contractor's last proposal?

Unfortunately, contract specialists, today, focus much more on administrative and clerical details - such as page limits, fonts size and spacing, and inputs to procurement management systems - than on the substance of the buy - conducting one-on-one negotiations on quality and pricing, and making sensible tradeoffs.

I found a 25 minute video during which 3 GSA officials discuss the Alliant 2 and Alliant 2 SB solicitations: http://governmentcio.com/node/897. If one goes to the 14:25 minute mark, one will hear the PCO state that the two contracts are "almost identical". The 2 differences are the subcontracts clause and some proposal evaluation thresholds. I remain puzzled about the interpretation of the FAR and the SB regs that permits the issuance of a set aside and an unrestricted solicitation for the same work. I and Wiley Rein ESQ must not be reading the regs correctly. http://www.wileyrein.com/newsroom-articles-FAR-to-Include-New-Guidance-Regarding-Small-Business-Set-Asides-Under-Multiple-Award-Contracts.html I wonder if anyone reads the regs differently.