Jump to content
The Wifcon Forums and Blogs


  • Content count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by napolik

  1. napolik

    page limitations on proposals

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

    page limitations on proposals

    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?
  3. napolik

    page limitations on proposals

    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.
  4. 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.
  5. 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.
  6. 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.
  7. 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
  8. 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
  9. 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?
  10. So, if the contractor has certified as small in SAM, the key date is the offer date, not the certification date?
  11. napolik

    Types of orders

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

    PP Neutral Rating

    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/
  13. napolik


    Neither 8.4 nor 16.5 impose the procedural burdens seen in 15.3. Both give one the chance to focus on getting the best deal for the customer vice on competitive ranges, the content of exchanges and final proposal revisions. I believe that NITAAC's fee is .65% with a max of $150,000 and that the contractors' schedule prices are increased by an Industrial Funding Fee of .75%. The contractors pay the fee quarterly to GSA.
  14. napolik

    LPTA Question

    Speaking of LPTA evaluations, look at the GAO decision issued today, B-414531, FreeAlliance.com, LLC, June 19, 2017: Subjectivity had to have entered this evaluation. http://www.gao.gov/products/B-414531
  15. napolik

    LPTA Question

    I think you will need to provide a bit more detail as to the contents of the tech approach and the definitions/ characteristics of pass/ fail (e.g. staffing adequacy (i.e. types and volume of labor for tasks; personnel degree/ experience requirements); security clearances; source of resources (i.e. prime or subcontracts). The elements of the tech approach must be mirrored in the pass/ fail criteria.
  16. napolik

    LPTA Question

    DOD and Congress appear to discourage use of subjectivity in LPTA when conducting DoD source selections. Here is an excerpt from Appendix C of the current DoD Source Selection Procedures: http://www.acq.osd.mil/dpap/policy/policyvault/USA004370-14-DPAP.pdf And Congress isn’t too thrilled with subjectivity in LPTA.See Section 813(b) of the FY 2017 NDAA: Section 813(c) further provides that The DAR Council is working a case to implement Section 813 - Case Number 2017-D017. We should know shortly just what DARsters will do. Here is the status:
  17. What does your payment clause say?
  18. Are you sure you haven't got a firm-fixed-price level-of-effort (FFP LOE) contract? See FAR 16.207.
  19. napolik

    Quotes vs. Proposals

    Do not use FAR 15 procedures to conduct a simplified acquisition. Read this article from Monsieur Edwards: Competitive Processes in Government Contracting: The FAR Part 15 Process Model and Process Inefficiency. You will find it here: http://www.wifcon.com/anal/analcomproc.htm. Here is a useful excerpt: In addition, read this protest decision: Finlen Complex, Inc., B-288280, Oct. 10, 2001: http://www.gao.gov/products/407353. You will see how the Army converted a FAR Part 13 simplified acquisition into an onerous FAR 15 negotiated procurement and fell victim to all the FAR 15.3 procedures.
  20. napolik

    Quotes vs. Proposals

    Under FAR Part 13, you may issue either an RFP or an RFQ. When you issue an RFP, you can create a contract unilaterally by accepting the offer or proposal. When you use an RFQ, you cannot accept the quotation and create a contract. The contract arises from a RFQ when the contractor signs a contract document you provide or when the contractor commences performance of the work covered by the quotation.
  21. 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.
  22. napolik

    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.
  23. R613 Support- Administrative: Post Office
  24. 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