napolik

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.

https://www.naics.com/frequently-asked-questions/ If local, state or federal laws require the firm to possess a license, tell the contracting officer that the firm will not be able to perform the contract. Don't bother mentioning the NAICS code unless the procurement was set aside for small businesses and the firm does not meet the $11 million standard.

The NAICS Code 541110 does not obligate a firm to possess a professional license. The code simply establishes the small business size standard of $11 million. If you go to the SBA, the SBA will not investigate the firm's possession of a license. It will determine only if the firm meets the $11 million standard. Did the solicitation require the firm to have a professional license? If it did contain the requirement, you can protest to the contracting officer or to the GAO.

Thank you, Don. However, I looked at the Section Cs of the Alliant 2 and the Alliant 2 SB solicitations. With the exception of a few words, they are identical. I also compared the lists of labor categories showing Max and Min rates. They are identical. How can GSA present the same requirement to the LBs and the SBs? What happened to the Rule of Two? Mb

When competing a multiple-award contract, FAR 19.502-4(a) authorizes contracting officers to “ … reserve one or more contract awards for any of the small business concerns identified in 19.000(a)(3).” This is a practice I used while I was in government. However, today I read an opinion from a law firm in Dec 16 that raises a number of questions in my mind for which I have been unable to find answers: http://www.wileyrein.com/newsroom-articles-FAR-to-Include-New-Guidance-Regarding-Small-Business-Set-Asides-Under-Multiple-Award-Contracts.html Question 1: How can one conclude that the Rule of Two is not met if “ … one or more contract awards …” are reserved for small businesses? Questions 2, 3 and 4: How can GSA award an Alliant GWAC and an Alliant Small Business GWAC? Doesn’t the SB GWAC demonstrate that the Rule of Two is met? How can GSA issue the Alliant GWAC when it also issues an Alliant SB GWAC?

It appears that you are correct. See SIZE APPEAL OF: Ramcor Services Group, Inc., SBA No. SIZ-5510 (2013). http://stanhinton.com/OHA_Decisions/SIZ-5510.pdf. Also, the GAO buys into this SBA OHA decision. See Software Engineering Services Corporation, B-411739, Oct. 8, 2015. http://www.gao.gov/products/D12073#_ftnref6

Since you were so kind to respond to my response, let me pick your brain some more. The contractor makes its certs in March of 2016, submits an offer in January of 2017 against a FAR 15 small business set aside, and updates the SAM certs in March of 2017. The new SAM certs make the contractor an LB for the size standard identified in the set aside solicitation that closed in January 2017. The CO conducts discussions, requests and receives FPRs on 10 April prepares to make award on 15 April to the contractor who was a small biz in January 2017 but who is a LB in April 2017. The CO sends the preaward notice required by FAR 15.503. After checking SAM for the proposed awardee's SB status, an unsuccessful offeror challenges the offeror's size status. Could things get a bit confusing?

Merci beaucoup!

So, if the contractor has certified as small in SAM, the key date is the offer date, not the certification date?

For purposes of determining size status against a solicitation for a new contract – not a task order under a MAC, is the determinative date the date of the initial offer in response to the solicitation? 13 CFR 121.404 (g):

Speaking of calls, the term is still in play: http://www.gao.gov/assets/690/686694.pdf

Read this GAO decision: Menendez-Donnell & Associates, B-286599, Jan. 16, 2001: http://www.gao.gov/assets/340/332405.pdf. See if the facts align with your circumstances. Also, include Experience as a separate evaluation factor. Take a look at Vern’s first post on 26 April 2016: http://www.wifcon.com/discussion/index.php?/topic/3493-interpreting-what-neutral-means-in-the-eyes-of-gao-past-performance/