napolik

There could be circumstances when a recertification of socioeconomic status would be in order: after 5 years of the contract term; after a merger, sale, acquisition, or contract novation; or if you believe the contract holder may have become large and if you want to dispose of that contractor for whatever reason..

Is it a multiple award contract? Is it a small business set aside?

There are a number of questions related to this issue. Take a look at the following thread to see if the facts correspond: http://www.wifcon.com/discussion/index.php?/topic/1515-increase-of-ceiling-on-cpff-task-order/

Well, the bases for award are LPTA, tradeoff or HTRFRP. Does GAO say what is the basis?

GAO just issued a thought provoking decision on this matter: https://www.gao.gov/products/B-417248?utm_campaign=usgao_email&utm_content=gcdecisions&utm_medium=email&utm_source=govdelivery#mt=e-report

See Harris IT Services Corporation, B-411699; B-411796, Oct 2, 2015. https://www.gao.gov/products/B-411699,B-411796#mt=e-report

Let’s say that XY covered electrical system repair services for a US Navy ship located at sea. Let’s say that Z services cover ferry services to transport sailors and goods to and from the ship. Now, let’s say that Q covers motor repairs on the ship. If a motor repair contractor protested the issuance of the mod for Q services, do you think the GAO would look at the solicitation leading to the award of the electrical repair contract to determine if the motor repairs are in the scope of the electrical repair solicitation? Or, would GAO decline to review the scope of the competition leading to the award of the contract for XY services because the X services mod was issued?

Hooray for the profound polliwog!

So, the fact that ferry services were added to the contract for electrical repairs puts motor repairs within the scope?

How does one determine if it is authorized by the changes clause or within or outside the current contract scope?

One infers that Q services are within scope of the Z services. But, suppose they weren't. Suppose the facts were these. Let’s say that XY covered electrical system repair services for a US Navy ship located at sea. Let’s say that Z services cover ferry services to transport sailors and goods to and from the ship. Now, let’s say that Q covers motor repairs on the ship. If a motor repair contractor protested the issuance of the mod for Q services, do you think the GAO would look at the solicitation leading to the award of the electrical repair contract to determine if the motor repairs are in the scope of the electrical repair solicitation? Or, would GAO decline to review the scope of the competition leading to the award of the contract for XY services because the X services mod was issued?

One needs to look at the original solicitation to see if Q is within the scope of the original competition.

http://smallgovcon.com/gaobidprotests/in-scope-vs-out-of-scope-modifications-gao-explains-the-difference/

Make Amphibians Great Again!

https://nitaac.nih.gov/customer-support/faqs/does-contract-holder-require-approval-nitaac-subcontractors-perform-work-andor

I hope you're not a harlequin!! https://www.theatlantic.com/science/archive/2019/03/bd-frogs-apocalypse-disease/585862/

For some reason, the second URL keeps warping into a WIFCON cite. Here is the correct cite: http://smallgovcon.com/naics-code-appeals/gao-reports-on-how-contracting-officers-select-naics-codes/

http://govcon.mofo.com/acquisition-regulations/naics-code-appeals-one-size-does-not-fit-all/ http://smallgovconhttp://smallgovcon.com/naics-code-appeals/gao-reports-on-how-contracting-officers-select-naics-codes/

Yes. But, sometimes, your comments can be confusing because they are a bit too amphibious!

Are you being a tad polemical?

Even if the LPTA solicitation included a statement that the earliest submitted proposal would receive the award in the event that more than one proposal/ quote contained the same evaluated price, I suspect that a protest against this criterion would be successful. In my view, to base a source selection upon the timeliness of proposal/ quote submission would be deemed to be unreasonable since the timing of proposal/ quote submission has nothing to do with the integrity of the selection decision or with legislation addressing the resolution of ties (i.e. socioeconomic factors or drawing by lots).

So, if the time for submission of offers or quotes is 4:30PM, if 3 offers or quotes are submitted at 2:00 PM, 2:01 PM and 2:02 PM, and if there are 3 equal evaluated prices, then the 2:00 PM submission wins?

My aging eyes cannot seem to locate it. Could you post it again?