Jump to content
The Wifcon Forums and Blogs

napolik

Members
  • Content count

    647
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by napolik

  1. Contract modification to stay under $150,000

    FAR 13 has 2 thresholds. $150,000 for non-commercial items [FAR 13.003 (b )(1)] and $ 7 million for commercial items [FAR 13.500 (a)]. One cannot exceed the thresholds without moving the procurement to a different FAR Part (e.g. FAR Part 15). Contracting officers stay within the thresholds for non-commercial or commercial items by negotiating reductions in quantities or unit prices. In the case of DLA, perhaps the AUTOMATED CONTRACT EVALUATION SYSTEM does the work. These negotiations to stay within thresholds are not uncommon.
  2. Contract modification to stay under $150,000

    Well, either the quantity or the unit price was reduced to get under $150k non-commercial SAP threshold. The reduction occurred automatically pursuant to some provision in the solicitation or in some agreement to participate in the automated system described above. Or, it occurred after the CO had negotiations. By the way, do you have the contract / purchase order number?
  3. Contract modification to stay under $150,000

    I have been unable to get a full RFQ containing the evaluation provision. However, I'll bet the automated system issues a solicitation containing a provision stating that no award will exceed $150k and that DLA reserves the right to adjust quantities and or prices to stay below the $150k threshold.
  4. Contract modification to stay under $150,000

    govcon 3684, I looked at some of the DLA regs implementing the FAR and DFARS. For noncommercial items for which FAR 13 imposes the SAP limit of $150,000, contractors must sign agreements stating that "The aggregate value of all orders shall not exceed the simplified acquisition threshold (see FAR 2.101)." I also see that DLA uses an automated procurement system. I have not been able to see the provisions of a DLA RFQ used with the automated system, but I'll bet that 1) the RFQs lead to awards of IDIQ contracts and that 2) there is a provision stating that the system automatically will seek price reductions if the total evaluated quote prices does exceed $150,000. Or, perhaps the provision says that the quantity of items will be reduced so the total price remains at, or below, $150,000. So, every award stays at $150,000 or below. The "abstract" you viewed, does it show the names and prices of the firms submitting quotes?
  5. Contract modification to stay under $150,000

    Which agency issued the solicitation and awarded the contract?
  6. Contract modification to stay under $150,000

    I am surprised that you have been able to get your hands on a abstract of quote prices submitted under FAR Part 13. Except for the prices of the winning quote, the prices placed on the abstract by the contract specialist should not be released to the general public. Can you provide the number of the solicitation that requested the bids or quotes (e.g. N68171-17-Q-1234, or N68171-17-B-1234)? Also, if you have a copy of the solicitation, is there a provision that describes the basis for the award?
  7. Nice post, Monsieur. Do you understand why pcojt10 is trying to add a cost reimbursement line item and to exercise an option to extend the delivery date of a fixed price contract?
  8. Contract modification to stay under $150,000

    Bids and bid abstracts are covered by FAR Part 14, Sealed Bidding. Bid abstracts are available to the public. See FAR 14.403 ( b). The $150,000 threshold does not apply to FAR Part 14. The $150,000 threshold is covered by FAR 13, Simplified Acquisition Procedures. Abstracts of quote or offer prices are not made available to the public. See FAR 13.106-3. Are you sure you saw abstracts of quotes submitted under FAR Part 13? .
  9. I am at a complete loss of ideas and words. Why in the world would one convert a FFP contract to cost reimbursement type when the Gov't delays the delivery? You extend the delivery period, and, if necessary, you increase the price to reflect the increase costs to the contractor associated with the delay in delivery. Even less comprehensible is the introduction of an option! An option for what? Please explain before the falling gray hair obscures all the letters on the keyboard!
  10. As my hair grays, thins and falls out, I notice that my memories are thinning and falling as well. However, my stronger memories in life involve my experiences in procurement. Since I can recall experiences relevant to pcojt10’s circumstance, I will share the ones involving modifications of firm-fixed price contracts. I was fortunate enough to find a job in an organization that emphasized OJT. The OJT involved training sessions on specific procurement circumstances, and it took the form of case assignments that exposed me to various types of supplies and services and various types of contracts. My first assignment was to a branch that used firm-fixed-price contracts for machine tool construction and repair. I competed, awarded and administered dozens of contracts. In a significant number of contracts, issues arose after the contract was awarded. The customers revised specs, delivery dates and delivery locations, and details of government furnished property (GFP); contractors made erroneous interpretations of contract terms, presented non-compliant machine tools or made errors in delivery. Whenever an issue involving specs or delivery arose, I would modify the contract to change specs, or to shift delivery dates or locations. In so doing, either I changed the specs in Section C, or the schedule and locations in Section D, or I changed both Sections C and D. Sometimes, I also changed the prices in Section B to reflect increases or decreases in prices associated with the revisions to specs, delivery or GFP. The contract mod was very simple and straightforward and within the scope of the contract: increase or decrease prices, adjust specs, shift delivery dates and sites, and/or modify the GFP. As is the case with pcojt10’s circumstance, there was no need to add options or cost reimbursement line items. Modification of the contract was simple and straightforward. Follow Monsieur Vern’s advice.
  11. Blind competitions?

    The GAO decision didn't indicate which Best Value method was used. Whether LPTA or tradeoff, the CO need not consider past performance if he or she documents the file: See also 15.304(c ) (3) (iii): Since this was an 8(a) set aside, I can understand why past performance was not used as a factor.
  12. Blind competitions?

    Reject the proposal!! http://www.gao.gov/products/B-414060?utm_medium=email&utm_source=govdelivery#mt=e-report
  13. Awarding to More Awardees

    Issue the amendment to the firms submitting offers or quotes. Then, award the revised maximum number of contracts.
  14. Awarding to More Awardees

    See Latvian Connection, LLC; Solution Managers International--USA, B-408182.3, B-408182.4, Aug. 13, 2013: I believe the number of offers or quotes would not have increased had you amended the solicitation prior to its closing. So, I think it is reasonable to amend the solicitation and to issue the amendment solely to the firms that submitted offers/ quotes.
  15. If each office has its own purchase card holder, let each office use its card for its employee(s).
  16. Awarding to More Awardees

    What did you state in your solicitation? How many offers did you receive?
  17. SIg Sauer

    You issued your own trigger warning! Take a selfie, distribute it and celebrate yourself!
  18. SIg Sauer

    See the Indefinite Quantity clause in the contract: The Army provides consideration via paragraph (b ). It should have obligated the funds at the time of contract execution. Perhaps the CO issued the first order at the time of contract execution. If not, there may be an internal problem with the GAO.
  19. SIg Sauer

  20. SIg Sauer

    The 2 sentences above come from the contract, page 2. This clause comes from page 277:
  21. The last little bit: Quote PUBLIC LAW 109-461 On December 22, 2006, President Bush signed Public Law (P.L.) 109-461, The Veterans Health Care, Benefits and Information Technology Act of 2006. This law directs the Secretary of Veterans Affairs to “give priority to a small business concern owned and controlled by veterans, if such business concern also meets the requirements of that contracting preference.” 38 U.S.C. § 8128(a). To implement the Veterans Benefits Act, VA established the “Veterans First Contracting Program” on June 20, 2007. See AR 38-540 to 541 (New Guidelines for Placing Items and Services on the AbilityOne Procurement List (Apr. 28, 2010) (“New Guidelines”)). The program directed VA to consider service-disabled veteran-owned small businesses (“SDVOSB”) and veteran-owned small businesses (“VOSB”) as a first and second priority when satisfying its acquisition requirements. Id. at 38-541. A final implementing rule establishing changes to the Department’s acquisition regulations was made effective January 7, 2010. See 74 Fed. Reg. 64619-01 (Dec. 8, 2009) (codified in scattered sections of 48 C.F.R. Subparts 802, 804, 808, 809, 810, 813, 815, 817, 819, 828, and 852). VA’S IMPLEMENTATION OF PUBLIC LAW 109-461 In 2006, Congress created the Veteran First contracting program to help provide preference to small businesses owned by veterans and service-disabled veterans over other companies. VA was charged with putting procedures in place to verify the ownership and status of the companies that wanted to participate in Veterans First. The VA has failed time and time again to follow the “Veterans First” law, which establishes set aside guidelines for service-disabled veteran-owned small businesses. While the GAO has investigated and agreed with the protest’s claims, an internal memo from the VA dated October 17th makes the assertion that since the GAO is part of the legislative branch, the VA is not bound by their findings and that the courts would decide the issue.. The memo goes on further to state that “GAO recommendation does not change how VA will acquire goods and services in support of its mission.” On October 26, 2010, the United States Court of Federal Claims (USCFC) set precedence on behalf of all SDVOSB / VOSB, when it ruled in favor of Angelica Textile Services, Inc., in the case of Angelica Textile Services, Inc., v. United States (10-496C) . The Federal Court decision confirmed that veterans have a contract preference and priority. Here are some excerpts from the court ruling : • “The Veterans Benefits Act is a specific mandate to the Department, and only to the Department, to grant first priority to SDVOSBs and VOSBs in the awarding of contracts.” • Above “any other provision of law” such as FAR Part 8 Required Sources of Supply • Above “any other provision of law” such as FAR Part 19.14; • Above general federal statues and initiatives • In all market types such federal supply schedules and open market; • Exclusively within the VA under 8127 (b), (c), or (d) and 8128 Unquote https://www.legion.org/legislative/testimony/160365/va’s-service-disabled-veteran-owned-small-business-certification
  22. The VAAR does address priorities that can be translated into tiers or cascades. This citation appears to be the device for implementing the legislation: Quote 819.7004 Contracting Order of Priority. In determining the acquisition strategy applicable to an acquisition, the contracting officer shall consider, in the following order of priority, contracting preferences that ensure contracts will be awarded: (a) To SDVOSBs; (b) To VOSB, including but not limited to SDVOSBs; (c) Pursuant to— (1) Section 8(a) of the Small Business Act (15 U.S.C. 637(a)); or (2) The Historically-Underutilized Business Zone (HUBZone) Program (15 U.S.C. 657a); and (d) Pursuant to any other small business contracting preference. Unquote Also see this: Quote 815.304-70 Evaluation factor commitments. (a) VA contracting officers shall: (1) Include provisions in negotiated solicitations giving preference to offers received from VOSBs and additional preference to offers received from SDVOSBs; (2) Use past performance in meeting SDVOSB subcontracting goals as a nonprice evaluation factor in selecting offers for award; (3) Use the proposed inclusion of SDVOSBs or VOSBs as subcontractors as an evaluation factor when competitively negotiating the award of contracts or task or delivery orders; and (4) Use participation in VA’s Mentor-Protégé Program as an evaluation factor when competitively negotiating the award of contracts or task or delivery orders. (b) If an offeror proposes to use an SDVOSB or VOSB subcontractor in accordance with 852.215–70, Service-Disabled Veteran-Owned and Veteran-Owned Small Business Evaluation Factors, the contracting officer shall ensure that the offeror, if awarded the contract, actually does use the proposed subcontractor or another SDVOSB or VOSB subcontractor for that subcontract or for work of similar value. Unquote
  23. PUBLIC LAW 109–461—DEC. 22, 2006 appears to give the VA authority to do cascades.
  24. I have been searching, and this is the best I could do, so far . PUBLIC LAW 109–461—DEC. 22, 2006 appears to give the VA authority to do cascades. Specifically, Quote § 8127. Small business concerns owned and controlled by veterans: contracting goals and preferences ‘‘(i) PRIORITY FOR CONTRACTING PREFERENCES.—Preferences for awarding contracts to small business concerns shall be applied in the following order of priority: ‘‘(1) Contracts awarded pursuant to subsection (b), (c), or (d) to small business concerns owned and controlled by veterans with service-connected disabilities. ‘‘(2) Contracts awarded pursuant to subsection (b), (c), or (d) to small business concerns owned and controlled by veterans that are not covered by paragraph (1). ‘‘(3) Contracts awarded pursuant to— ‘‘(A) section 8(a) of the Small Business Act (15 U.S.C. 637(a)); or ‘‘(B) section 31 of such Act (15 U.S.C. 657a). ‘‘(4) Contracts awarded pursuant to any other small business contracting preference. Unquote https://www.va.gov/ogc/docs/pl109-461.pdf These priorities appear in a 2016 VA solicitation: Quote The proposed acquisition will be an unrestricted acquisition. Please note that this Pre-Solicitation notification informs the Small Business Community of the VA's proposed acquisition and its intent to use a cascading method for selection. Construction & Facilities Management will advertise an announcement./Request for SF330s nationwide for locations listed but not limited to Lake Worth, FL, Elwood, IL, Phoenix, AZ, Bushnell, FL, Holly, MI, Bourne, MA, San Antonio, TX, Montevallo, AL, Houston, TX. Cascading Method for Small Business Awards In accordance with FAR Subpart 19 and PL 109-461, award under this solicitation will be made on a competitive basis from a cascading method as defined below who submits a technically acceptable (as evaluated by Technical Evaluation Board), responsive offer (qualified, responsible, and meets minimum technical requirements), with a fair and reasonable price (determined by Contracting Officer), provided that there is adequate competition among such offerors. a) If there is inadequate competition and/or if the offeror does not meet our requirement based on our best value criteria for award to a SDVOSB concern, award will be made competitively to an eligible Veteran Owned Small Business (VOSB) concern. b ) If there is inadequate competition and/or if the offeror does not meet our requirement based on our best value criteria for award to a VOSB concern, award will be made competitively to an eligible 8a, HubZone, or a Woman Owned business concern. c) If there is inadequate competition and/or if the offeror does not meet our requirement based on our best value criteria for award to a 8a, HubZone, or a Woman Owned business concern, award will be made competitively to an eligible small business concern IAW FAR 19.5. Unquote https://oppex.com/notice/FBO_4ca6b4ec54319c9cf4a9eabb591a269d
  25. It appears that agencies must have specific statutory authority to use tiers or cascades: Quote 13 CFR 125.2 - What are SBA's and the procuring agency's responsibilities when providing contracting assistance to small businesses? (e) Multiple Award Contract – (7) Tiered evaluation of offers, or cascading. An agency cannot create a tiered evaluation of offers or “cascade” unless it has specific statutory authority to do so. This is a procedure used in negotiated acquisitions when the contracting officer establishes a tiered or cascading order of precedence for evaluating offers that is specified in the solicitation, which states that if no award can be made at the first tier, it will evaluate offers at the next lower tier, until award can be made. For example, unless the agency has specific statutory authority to do so, an agency is not permitted to state an intention to award one contract to an 8(a) BD Participant and one to a HUBZone SBC, but only if no awards are made to 8(a) BD Participants. Unquote https://www.law.cornell.edu/cfr/text/13/125.2
×