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.

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

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.

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:

What does your payment clause say?

Are you sure you haven't got a firm-fixed-price level-of-effort (FFP LOE) contract? See FAR 16.207.

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.

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.

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.

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.

R613 Support- Administrative: Post Office

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

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:

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.

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.

FrankJon, have you done a tradeoff under any FAR procurement method (i.e. 8.4, 13, 15 or 16.5)?

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.

OK. What is the frog's question?

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.

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?

What does the written agreement say? See FAR 17.502-1(b )(1) What does your agreement with the other agency say?

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.

This is a case where Fat shaming is appropriate!

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

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.