Jump to content
The Wifcon Forums and Blogs

napolik

Members
  • Content Count

    780
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by napolik

  1. Phew! What an amazing Amphib! Let me hop onto another quote: http://amphibianrescue.org/2012/12/06/superhero-qualities-in-frogs/
  2. Yes but the agency must obligate to specific account and record. Didya View All Over Again: http://www.wifcon.com/arc/forum304.htm
  3. The insert appears to cover only the Section M Evaluation Criteria and the Basis of Award. Can you provide the Section L proposal requirements?
  4. What are the evaluation criteria (Section M) and the proposal requirements (Section L)?
  5. Also, take a look at this blog: http://www.berenzweiglaw.com/sba-helps-on-responsibility-type-evaluations/ I suggest reading this decision referenced in the blog: Competitive Range Sols., LLC, B-413104.10, Apr. 18, 2017. https://www.gao.gov/products/B-413104.10#mt=e-report
  6. In your organization, are/were you required to get the SBA specialist's concurrence before taking a contract action?
  7. So far, it appears that an unacceptable proposal of a small biz determined to be unacceptable based upon an LPTA evaluation of a responsibility related criterion (e.g. experience) must be referred to the SBA for a COC. However, it does not need to be referred if the small biz failed to provide documentation required by the solicitation: Sea Box, Inc., B-414742, Sept 6, 2017 http://www.wifcon.com/cgen/414742.pdf
  8. You are correct. My focus has been narrowly on what I consider to be the most important cert - small business status.
  9. Also, see Title 13, Chapter I, Part 121 of the Code of Federal Regulations.
  10. The Oryza Group, LLC., B-416719,B-416719.2: Nov 26, 2018 https://www.gao.gov/products/B-416719,B-416719.2#mt=e-report
  11. Q. Must a contracting officer document reps and certs for each and every order under an indefinite-delivery contract? A. Not unless the CO has the urge to do it based upon his/her beliefs and or the "advice" of the small biz specialist.
  12. While the CO is not required to get a recertification, if the CO wants a recertification at the time of issuance of an RFQ under the IDC, the CO can do so. CMS Information Services, Inc., B-290541, Aug 7, 2002 https://www.gao.gov/products/402788#mt=e-report Also, see this recent discussion of size recertification: https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/brief-history-size-status-recertification-kenneth-dodds
  13. The last 2 URLs yield nothing. The first 2 yield copies of protests against solicitations, not against source selections. My point is that one can use "responsibility" eval factors for source selection and avoid the requirement for a COC if one is using a tradeoff vice an LPTA.
  14. In the decision, the small business was found to be unacceptable, and the basis for the award was LPTA? Please identify the decision.
  15. Cascadian American Enterprises, B-412208.3; B-412208.4, Feb 5, 2016 https://www.gao.gov/assets/680/675014.pdf See Alternative Procurement Strategies: An Obscure Aspect Of The FAR, The Nash & Cibinic Report, May 2001.
  16. I was responding to the Awesome Amphibian's post: 4 hours ago, PepeTheFrog said: Your theory that the government has waded into the pool of more complex contracting via inclusion of certain clauses has merit. From PepeTheFrog's memory, there have been GAO cases where the government uses too many FAR Part 15 terms, concepts, processes, clauses, provisions, etc. while maintaining that the procurement is under FAR Part 13. Sometimes, the GAO recommends that the procurement be treated under the higher standards of FAR Part 15, despite the FAR Part 13 label and intent (favoring substance over form).
  17. Finlen Complex, Inc., B-288280, October 10, 2001 DIGEST 1. Notwithstanding statement in solicitation that simplified acquisition procedures were being used and authority at Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) Sec. 12.602(a) not to disclose the relative weight of evaluation factors when using simplified procedures, an agency's failure to disclose the relative weight of evaluation factors was unreasonable because basic fairness dictated disclosure of the relative weights where the agency required offerors to prepare detailed written proposals addressing unique government requirements. 2. Protester's contention that an agency's decision to assign a weight of 5 percent to a solicitation's past performance evaluation factor violates FAR Sec. 12.206 (providing that past performance should be an important element of every evaluation) is denied as the FAR provision is discretionary, not mandatory. 3. Even in a commercial acquisition using simplified procedures, where an agency requests detailed written proposals, a selection decision is improper where it lacks a rationale which sets forth a basis for the tradeoffs made, including an explanation of any perceived benefits associated with additional costs. https://www.gao.gov/products/407353
  18. The original post identified an IDC contract. It needed to identify if the IDC is multiple award and if it is a socio-economic set aside. If the IDC is not multiple award and if it is not a set aside, I agree that you accept the reps and certs submitted for the original contract.
  19. There could be circumstances when a recertification of socioeconomic status would be in order: after 5 years of the contract term; after a merger, sale, acquisition, or contract novation; or if you believe the contract holder may have become large and if you want to dispose of that contractor for whatever reason..
  20. Is it a multiple award contract? Is it a small business set aside?
  21. There are a number of questions related to this issue. Take a look at the following thread to see if the facts correspond: http://www.wifcon.com/discussion/index.php?/topic/1515-increase-of-ceiling-on-cpff-task-order/
  22. Well, the bases for award are LPTA, tradeoff or HTRFRP. Does GAO say what is the basis?
×
×
  • Create New...