Jump to content
The Wifcon Forums and Blogs


  • Content count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by napolik

  1. Here is the status of implementation of Section 825 of the 2017 NDAA: Open FAR Cases as of April 07, 2017 Case Number: 2017-010 Part Number: 13.106-1, 15.304, 16.505(b)(1), 16.505(b)(2) Title: (S) Evaluation Factors for Multiple-Award Contracts Synopsis: Implements section 825 of the NDAA for FY 2017 (Pub. L. 114-328). Section 825 amends 10 U.S.C. 2305(a)(3) to address the requirement to include cost or price to the Government as a factor in the evaluation of proposals for certain multiple-award task- or delivery-order contracts and 2304c(b) to modify the exceptions to fair opportunity. Applicable to DoD, NASA, and Coast Guard. Status: 03/23/2017 CAAC received DARC revisions to draft proposed FAR rule and FRN. CAAC discussed draft proposed FAR rule on 04/05/2017.
  2. Procurement Swamp Article

    I have maintained, futilely, that procurement offices need to be staffed via a deductive approach, not an inductive one. The inductive approach assigns billets based upon number of actions and number of dollars awarded, degree of competition, types of contracts, etc. This provides no incentive to be efficient. In fact, I have seen it create deliberately inefficient behavior so staffing can be maintained and increased. It's time to go deductive. Tell each office your staff is being cut XX% and suggest it use more efficient means to issue solicitations, evaluate offers/ quotes, make awards and administer contracts. The FAR has plenty of flexibility to let offices do more with less.
  3. R613 Support- Administrative: Post Office
  4. The general rule appears to be that subcontractors need not possess CAGE codes: https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2014/05/30/2014-12387/federal-acquisition-regulation-commercial-and-government-entity-code. However, agencies may sometimes require a subcontractor CAGE code (e.g. for security clearance or preaward survey or small business participation plan). See here for examples. http://www.gao.gov/assets/680/670041.pdf http://www.gao.gov/assets/670/669420.pdf http://www.gao.gov/assets/680/679880.pdf
  5. Go here: https://search.usa.gov/search?affiliate=acq_osd_mil_dpap&query=modification+training. Click on first result entitled “[PPTX] No Slide Title”. Go to slide 15. See “New work, requiring J&A” / "Cite the appropriate exemption to CICA" See also the second result entitled "[DOCX] MODIFICATIONS GUIDE" Go to page 2:
  6. Cite the authority you choose under FAR 6.302. 6.303-2 -- Content. (a) Each justification shall contain sufficient facts and rationale to justify the use of the specific authority cited. (b) As a minimum, each justification, except those for sole-source 8(a) contracts over $22 million (see paragraph (d) of this section), shall include the following information: (1) Identification of the agency and the contracting activity, and specific identification of the document as a “Justification for other than full and open competition.” (2) Nature and/or description of the action being approved. (3) A description of the supplies or services required to meet the agency’s needs (including the estimated value). (4) An identification of the statutory authority permitting other than full and open competition.
  7. Oxford Comma

    Me thinks that you PUNKtuators are going a wee bit overboard. Let's get away from Oxford and put things into a greener perspective: Erin go Bragh! Here’s to a long life and a merry one, a quick death and an easy one. A pretty girl and an honest one. A cold beer-and another one.
  8. FrankJon, have you done a tradeoff under any FAR procurement method (i.e. 8.4, 13, 15 or 16.5)?
  9. Take a look at Monsieur Edwards timeless essay here: http://www.wifcon.com/anal/analcomproc.htm. Read his entire essay, but focus on these two paragraphs: 1) Simplified Acquisitions, and 2) Do not follow the FAR Part 15 Process Model when making simplified acquisitions.
  10. You are correct that an IAA is not a contract governed by the FAR, but I have seen some peculiar IAAs with unusual terms. In any event, it is not clear to me if we are addressing the IAA itself or the contracts issued pursuant to the IAA.
  11. Do you, or do you not have written interagency agreement that establishes the general terms and conditions governing the relationship between your agency and the other agency?
  12. What does the written agreement say? See FAR 17.502-1(b )(1) What does your agreement with the other agency say?
  13. Contracting Scandals

    A very serious case that, perhaps, could have been avoided, or identified earlier, if the Navy had implemented the appropriate system for monitoring husbanding contracts.
  14. Contracting Scandals

    This is a case where Fat shaming is appropriate!
  15. Small Business Set-Aside

    You might wish to read Camden Shipping Corporation, B-406171; B-406323, Feb.27, 2012: http://www.gao.gov/assets/590/588932.pdf
  16. Small Business Set-Aside

    19.506 -- Withdrawing or Modifying Small Business Set-Asides. (a) If, before award of a contract involving a small business set-aside, the contracting officer considers that award would be detrimental to the public interest (e.g., payment of more than a fair market price), the contracting officer may withdraw the small business set-aside determination whether it was unilateral or joint. The contracting officer shall initiate a withdrawal of an individual small business set-aside by giving written notice to the agency small business specialist and the SBA procurement center representative (or, if a procurement center representative is not assigned, see 19.402(a)) stating the reasons. In a similar manner, the contracting officer may modify a unilateral or joint class small business set-aside to withdraw one or more individual acquisitions. (b) If the agency small business specialist does not agree to a withdrawal or modification, the case shall be promptly referred to the SBA representative (or, if a procurement center representative is not assigned, see 19.402(a)) for review. (c) The contracting officer shall prepare a written statement supporting any withdrawal or modification of a small business set-aside and include it in the contract file.
  17. Not a good clerk

    Speaking of FPDS, the GAO likes it, sufficiently: http://www.gao.gov/assets/690/683273.pdf
  18. Not a good clerk

    These days, most 1102s can't spell FPDS as their automated procurement systems "populate" FPDS automatically. In fact, many, if not most, automatic procurement systems create solicitations and contract awards with minimal involvement by 1102s. Gone are the days when 1102s assembled line items and specs, deliveries, inspections and acceptances and when they reviewed clause and provision prescriptions to assure compliance with FAR and with common sense (e.g. are Sections B, C, L and M consistent internally and with each other?). Gone are the days when they reviewed contract files as they entered data into FPDS. Errors are attributed to the software, not to the 1102 and the COs. Perhaps it's time to modify FAR 1.602 to reflect the new IT reality!
  19. Not a good clerk

    I have a good deal of sympathy with the 1102’s abandonment of his efforts to post a synopsis on FBO. This is particularly true if he abandoned his efforts on FBO in favor of reading, interpreting and applying the FAR correctly and of developing an acquisition strategy that enables his customer to meet its mission. With the wholesale application of IT to procurement over the past 20 years, the procurement knowledge of 1102s has declined noticeably. They spend too much time attempting to comply with arbitrary and capricious IT dictates and too little time reading FAR and GAO decisions interpreting the FAR, doing market research, putting together concise and comprehensible solicitations, and conducting efficient and effective source selections. When I was a young 1102, I didn’t fight with a typewriter or fax machine; a clerk did. Let’s restore an environment where the 1102 masters the FAR and the markets supporting his or her customers, not the incomprehensible software underlying FBO, SPS and FPDS!
  20. SB Set-Aside LPTA Evaluation Factors

    When conducting a competition involving a set aside, it is not uncommon to use responsibility factors as evaluation factors (e.g. past performance, personnel résumés). However, one cannot avoid the requirement for a responsibility determination and, if necessary, a certificate of competency, if the factor is evaluated on a “pass/ fail” basis and if the small business contractor’s quote/ proposal is determined to have failed. FitNet Purchasing Alliance File, B-410263, Nov. 26, 2014. http://www.gao.gov/assets/670/667235.pdf See also this decision involving an IFB and an assessment of personnel résumés: Coastal Environmental Group, Inc., B-407563; B-407563.3; B-407563.4, Jan. 14, 2013. http://www.gao.gov/assets/660/651544.pdf
  21. MATOC Small Business Set-Asides

    19.203 -- Relationship Among Small Business Programs. (a) There is no order of precedence among the 8(a) Program (subpart 19.8), HUBZone Program (subpart 19.13), Service-Disabled Veteran-Owned Small Business (SDVOSB) Procurement Program (subpart 19.14), or the Women-Owned Small Business (WOSB) Program (subpart 19.15). (b) At or below the simplified acquisition threshold. For acquisitions of supplies or services that have an anticipated dollar value exceeding $3,500 ($20,000 for acquisitions as described in 13.201(g)(1)), but not exceeding $150,000 ($750,000 for acquisitions described in paragraph (1)(i) of the simplified acquisition threshold definition at 2.101), the requirement at 19.502-2(a) to exclusively reserve acquisitions for small business concerns does not preclude the contracting officer from awarding a contract to a small business under the 8(a) Program, HUBZone Program, SDVOSB Program, or WOSB Program. (c) Above the simplified acquisition threshold. For acquisitions of supplies or services that have an anticipated dollar value exceeding the simplified acquisition threshold definition at 2.101, the contracting officer shall first consider an acquisition for the small business socioeconomic contracting programs (i.e., 8(a), HUBZone, SDVOSB, or WOSB programs) before considering a small business set-aside (see 19.502-2(b)). However, if a requirement has been accepted by the SBA under the 8(a) Program, it must remain in the 8(a) Program unless SBA agrees to its release in accordance with 13 CFR parts 124, 125 and 126. (d) In determining which socioeconomic program to use for an acquisition, the contracting officer should consider, at a minimum— (1) Results of market research that was done to determine if there are socioeconomic firms capable of satisfying the agency’s requirement; and (2) Agency progress in fulfilling its small business goals. (e) Small business set-asides have priority over acquisitions using full and open competition. See requirements for establishing a small business set-aside at subpart 19.5.
  22. Contract modification to stay under $150,000

    Hmmm. That appears to conflict with FAR 13.003(c)(2). In fact, GAO sustained a protest against DLA on this matter back in 2009: Critical Process Filtration, Inc., B-400746, B-400747, B-400750, B-400751, B-400752, B-400785, Jan 22, 2009. FAR sect. 13.003(c)(2); see also 10 U.S.C. sect. 2304(g)(2) ("A proposed purchase or contract for an amount above the simplified acquisition threshold may not be divided into several purchases or contracts for lesser amounts in order to use the simplified procedures . . ."). In our view, DLA is using the streamlined features of simplified acquisitions where the solicitation on its face demonstrates that the use of those procedures is improper. Indeed, DLA's experience under the resulting IDPO demonstrates this point: less than 1 month after issuance of the IDPO (which the RFQ described as having a maximum term of 2 years), DLA had already reached the $100,000 ceiling. In addition, the procurement history for this part, and the estimated quantity identified in the solicitation, strongly suggest that DLA will make additional purchases to meet its continuing needs. We therefore sustain this protest. http://www.gao.gov/decisions/bidpro/400746.htm Are you sure these items are not "commercial items "?
  23. Contract modification to stay under $150,000

    Another question: Are the contracts covering the same, or different, items?