napolik
-
Posts
784 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Blogs
Events
Store
Breaking News
Posts posted by napolik
-
-
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!
-
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.
QuoteUnder the Small Business Act, agencies may not find a small business nonresponsible without referring the matter to the SBA, which has the ultimate authority to determine the responsibility of small businesses under its COC procedures. 15 U.S.C. § 637(b)(7); FAR subpart 19.6; Federal Support Corp., B-245573, Jan. 16, 1992, 92-1 CPD ¶ 81 at 4. Past performance traditionally is considered a responsibility factor, that is, a matter relating to the offeror’s ability to perform the contract. See FAR § 9.104-1(c); Sanford & Sons Co., B-231607, Sept. 20, 1988, 88-2 CPD ¶ 266 at 2. Traditional responsibility factors may be used as technical evaluation factors in a negotiated procurement, but only when a comparative evaluation of those areas is to be made. See, e.g., Medical Info. Servs., B-287824, July 10, 2002, 2001 CPD ¶ 122 at 5; Nomura Enter., Inc., B-277768, Nov. 19, 1997, 97-2 CPD ¶ 148 at 3. Comparative evaluation in this context means that competing proposals will be rated on a scale, relative to each other, as opposed to a pass/fail basis. Docusort, Inc., B-254852, Jan. 25, 1994, 94-1 CPD ¶ 38 at 6. We have cautioned that an agency may not disqualify a small business under the guise of a relative assessment of responsibility-based technical factors in an attempt to avoid referral to the SBA. Federal Support Corp., supra, at 4; Sanford & Sons Co., supra, at 3.
Quote9 The result would be the same had the agency evaluated the bids on a lowest-priced technically acceptable basis. Where an agency utilizes a lowest-priced technically acceptable source selection process, the FAR provides that past performance need not be an evaluation factor at all. However, when it is included, it cannot be utilized for the purpose of making a “comparative assessment”; rather, past performance is to be determined solely on a pass/fail basis. FAR § 15.101-2. Our Office has long held that pass/fail evaluations of capability issues, such as past performance, are tantamount to responsibility determinations, with the result that a rating of “unacceptable” in these areas is the same as a determination of nonresponsibility. See, e.g., Phil Howry Co., B-291402.3, B-291402.4, Feb. 6, 2003, 2003 CPD ¶ 33 at 6. Consistent with this premise, in the context of a lowest-priced technically acceptable evaluation scheme, where the contracting officer determines that a small business’ past performance is not acceptable, “the matter shall be referred to the Small Business Administration for a Certificate of Competency determination.” FAR § 15.101-2(b)(1). Although the agency states that this procurement was conducted under the provisions of FAR part 13, we think that the COC requirements apply here as well. In this regard, the COC referral requirements of FAR part 19 require agencies to make a referral whenever an agency finds an apparently successful small business offeror nonresponsible. FAR § 19.602-1. As discussed above, our Office views past performance as a responsibility criterion where it is used as a pass/fail factor.
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
QuoteFinally, Coastal also argues that in negotiated procurements, our Office has treated personnel experience and qualifications requirements as a matter of technical acceptability, akin to a question of responsiveness, and that therefore we must likewise view the key personnel experience requirements in this IFB as a matter of bid responsiveness. We again disagree. Our Office treats questions of responsibility consistently under sealed bidding and under negotiated procurement procedures. See Docusort, Inc., B-254852, Jan. 25, 1994, 94-1 CPD ¶ 38 (when a minimum management experience requirement, a traditional responsibility factor, is evaluated on go/no go basis, rejection of proposals solely on the basis of the offeror’s failure to comply with such a factor must be referred to SBA); Paragon Dynamics, Inc., B-251280, Mar. 19, 1993, 93-1 CPD ¶ 248 at 4 (failure on the part of the offeror's proposed software development engineer to meet the minimum experience and capability requirements concerned a responsibility-related factor); ASR Mgmt. & Tech. Servs., B-244862, B-247422, Apr. 23, 1992, 92-1 CPD ¶ 383 at 7 (noting that, although personnel qualifications are a “responsibility-type factor,” when they are evaluated on a comparative basis, they may properly be considered in an agency’s selection decision). In addition, the Small Business Act requires referral to SBA of questions of responsibility even where negotiated procurement procedures are used. See, e.g., Phil Howry Co., B-291402.3, B–291402.4, Feb. 6, 2003, 2003 CPD ¶ 33 at 5.
-
-
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.
-
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.
QuoteDIGEST
2. Protester's contention that a fourth agency procurement for brand-name filters improperly limits competition is sustained where the procurement history information set forth in the solicitation shows that the value of the requirement is likely to exceed the applicable simplified acquisition threshold of $100,000; accordingly, the streamlined procedures applicable to simplified acquisitions cannot be used for this requirement.
...................................................
However, as noted above, RFQ SPM7L4-09-U-A006 provides an estimated quantity of 1,356 filters over the 2-year term of the IDPO. At the lowest historical price listed in the RFQ, the value of this requirement is more than double the simplified acquisition threshold. Since, in our view, neither CPF nor DLA had adequately addressed the implications of this aspect of the record, we asked both parties to address whether DLA's explanation for its actions was consistent with the requirements of the FAR for requirements of this magnitude--that is, greater than $100,000. Fax from GAO to Parties, Jan. 9, 2009, at 1.
In response, DLA argues that the IDPO does not obligate the government to purchase the estimated quantity, and in fact limits purchases to $100,000. DLA argues that this approach is approved by the Defense Supply Center Columbus Acquisition Guide (DAG). Letter from DLA to GAO, Jan. 13, 2009, at 2 (citing DAG sect. 13.9002).[11] In its submission, CPF continued its arguments that the record here shows that the agency has failed to conduct proper acquisition planning. Letter from CPF to GAO, Jan. 14, 2009, at 1‑2.
Although DLA argues that its actions are consistent with the statutes and regulations applicable to simplified acquisitions, the use of these procedures must be based on a reasonable expectation that the value of the requirement is at or below the simplified acquisition threshold. Where an agency uses simplified acquisition procedures to meet requirements that should reasonably be valued above the simplified acquisition threshold, our Office will sustain the protest. E.g., Global Commcons Solutions, Inc., B-299044, B-299044.2, Jan. 29, 2007, 2007 CPD para. 30 at 3 (protest sustained where agency used simplified acquisition procedures for commercial item acquisition that record demonstrated could only reasonably be valued above the applicable threshold).
We see no basis for DLA's approach of using simplified acquisition procedures where its estimated requirement for these filters cannot reasonably be expected to fall within the applicable threshold ($100,000) for a simplified acquisition of this nature. Although DLA responds that the use of simplified acquisition procedures is appropriate here because it limits the purchase under each of these IDPOs to $100,000, regardless of the value of the estimated quantity, we think DLA is, in essence, splitting these orders to allow the use of simplified acquisition procedures, which is expressly barred by FAR sect.13.003(c)(2). Cf. Mas‑Hamilton Group, Inc., B‑249049, Oct. 20, 1992, 92-2 CPD para. 259 at 5-6. Under this provision, agencies are advised:
Do not break down requirements aggregating more than the simplified acquisition threshold . . . into several purchases that are less than the applicable threshold merely to--
(i) Permit use of simplified acquisition procedures.
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.
Are you sure these items are not "commercial items "?
Quote“Commercial item” means --
(1) Any item, other than real property, that is of a type customarily used by the general public or by non-governmental entities for purposes other than governmental purposes, and--
(i) Has been sold, leased, or licensed to the general public; or,
(ii) Has been offered for sale, lease, or license to the general public;
(2) Any item that evolved from an item described in paragraph (1) of this definition through advances in technology or performance and that is not yet available in the commercial marketplace, but will be available in the commercial marketplace in time to satisfy the delivery requirements under a Government solicitation;
(3) Any item that would satisfy a criterion expressed in paragraphs (1) or (2) of this definition, but for --
(i) Modifications of a type customarily available in the commercial marketplace; or
(ii) Minor modifications of a type not customarily available in the commercial marketplace made to meet Federal Government requirements. Minor modifications means modifications that do not significantly alter the nongovernmental function or essential physical characteristics of an item or component, or change the purpose of a process. Factors to be considered in determining whether a modification is minor include the value and size of the modification and the comparative value and size of the final product. Dollar values and percentages may be used as guideposts, but are not conclusive evidence that a modification is minor;
(4) Any combination of items meeting the requirements of paragraphs (1), (2), (3), or (5) of this definition that are of a type customarily combined and sold in combination to the general public;
(5) Installation services, maintenance services, repair services, training services, and other services if--
(i) Such services are procured for support of an item referred to in paragraph (1), (2), (3), or (4) of this definition, regardless of whether such services are provided by the same source or at the same time as the item; and
(ii) The source of such services provides similar services contemporaneously to the general public under terms and conditions similar to those offered to the Federal Government;
(6) Services of a type offered and sold competitively in substantial quantities in the commercial marketplace based on established catalog or market prices for specific tasks performed or specific outcomes to be achieved and under standard commercial terms and conditions. For purposes of these services—
(i) “Catalog price” means a price included in a catalog, price list, schedule, or other form that is regularly maintained by the manufacturer or vendor, is either published or otherwise available for inspection by customers, and states prices at which sales are currently, or were last, made to a significant number of buyers constituting the general public; and
(ii) “Market prices” means current prices that are established in the course of ordinary trade between buyers and sellers free to bargain and that can be substantiated through competition or from sources independent of the offerors.
(7) Any item, combination of items, or service referred to in paragraphs (1) through (6) of this definition, notwithstanding the fact that the item, combination of items, or service is transferred between or among separate divisions, subsidiaries, or affiliates of a contractor; or
(8) A nondevelopmental item, if the procuring agency determines the item was developed exclusively at private expense and sold in substantial quantities, on a competitive basis, to multiple State and local governments.
-
-
Quote
But there is a distinction/there is something wrong going on when the contracting officer breaks up a contract into 2 separate contracts to keep each contract under the $150,000 SAP threshold?
Another question: Are the contracts covering the same, or different, items?
-
On 2/11/2017 at 3:56 PM, govcon3684 said:
Hi,
I've been looking at a lot of bid abstracts for sales to components of the DoD where the winning bid will have a unit amount and per unit price that pushes the contract up over the $150,000 SAP threshold. However, the procurement history and some of the bid abstracts indicate that the unit amount is revised downward to keep the contract under $150,000. That revision keeps the contract under the SAP. I've also seen other instances where larger contracts are broken up into a series of smaller contracts to all stay under $150,000.00. Who modifies these contracts like this? Is there a consequence for going over the SAP? Or is it just more work for the contracting officer?
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.
-
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?
-
Quote
52.213-9008 Automated Contract Evaluation System.
As prescribed in 13.106-2(b)(S-90)(i), insert the following provision:
AUTOMATED CONTRACT EVALUATION SYSTEM (SEP 2016)
(a) Automated contract evaluation: Acquisitions are candidates for automated award under automated contract evaluation systems when the solicitation states that automated contract evaluation systems apply. The program uses price logic and other automated filters to make fully-automated and contracting officer -assisted automated awards valued at the simplified acquisition threshold or less. A purchase order with a “V” in the ninth position denotes an order issued under an automated contract evaluation system, which only considers “qualified quotes” for award. Qualified quotes are in exact compliance with the solicitation requirements (bid type equal to “bid without exception”), and are submitted on the Defense Logistics Agency’s Internet Bid Board System (DIBBS).
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.
-
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?
-
Which agency issued the solicitation and awarded the contract?
-
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?
-
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?
-
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?
.
-
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!
-
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.
-
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:
Quote15.101-2 Lowest price technically acceptable source selection process.
(a) The lowest price technically acceptable source selection process is appropriate when best value is expected to result from selection of the technically acceptable proposal with the lowest evaluated price.
(b) When using the lowest price technically acceptable process, the following apply:
(1) The evaluation factors and significant subfactors that establish the requirements of acceptability shall be set forth in the solicitation. Solicitations shall specify that award will be made on the basis of the lowest evaluated price of proposals meeting or exceeding the acceptability standards for non-cost factors. If the contracting officer documents the file pursuant to 15.304(c)(3)(iii), past performance need not be an evaluation factor in lowest price technically acceptable source selections. If the contracting officer elects to consider past performance as an evaluation factor, it shall be evaluated in accordance with 15.305. However, the comparative assessment in 15.305(a)(2)(i) does not apply. If the contracting officer determines that a small business’ past performance is not acceptable, the matter shall be referred to the Small Business Administration for a Certificate of Competency determination, in accordance with the procedures contained in Subpart 19.6 and 15 U.S.C. 637(b)(7)).
(2) Tradeoffs are not permitted.
(3) Proposals are evaluated for acceptability but not ranked using the non-cost/price factors.
(4) Exchanges may occur (see 15.306).
See also 15.304(c ) (3) (iii):
Quote15.304 Evaluation factors and significant subfactors.
(a) The award decision is based on evaluation factors and significant subfactors that are tailored to the acquisition.
(b) Evaluation factors and significant subfactors must—
(1) Represent the key areas of importance and emphasis to be considered in the source selection decision; and
(2) Support meaningful comparison and discrimination between and among competing proposals.
(c) The evaluation factors and significant subfactors that apply to an acquisition and their relative importance, are within the broad discretion of agency acquisition officials, subject to the following requirements:
(1) Price or cost to the Government shall be evaluated in every source selection (10 U.S.C. 2305(a)(3)(A)(ii) and 41 U.S.C. 3306(c)(1)(B)) (also see part 36 for architect-engineer contracts);
(2) The quality of the product or service shall be addressed in every source selection through consideration of one or more non-cost evaluation factors such as past performance, compliance with solicitation requirements, technical excellence, management capability, personnel qualifications, and prior experience (10 U.S.C. 2305(a)(3)(A)(i) and 41 U.S.C. 3306(c)(1)(A)); and
(3)(i) Past performance, except as set forth in paragraph (c)(3)(iii) of this section, shall be evaluated in all source selections for negotiated competitive acquisitions expected to exceed the simplified acquisition threshold.
(ii) For solicitations that are not set aside for small business concerns, involving consolidation or bundling, that offer a significant opportunity for subcontracting, the contracting officer shall include a factor to evaluate past performance indicating the extent to which the offeror attained applicable goals for small business participation under contracts that required subcontracting plans (15 U.S.C. 637(d)(4)(G)(ii)).
(iii) Past performance need not be evaluated if the contracting officer documents the reason past performance is not an appropriate evaluation factor for the acquisition.
Since this was an 8(a) set aside, I can understand why past performance was not used as a factor.
-
On 10/5/2016 at 10:06 AM, Vern Edwards said:
One concern will be what to do with the offeror who, despite instructions, includes identifying information in its proposal? (It might not be obvious to the CO. It might be buried deep.) Do you have to kick them out of the competition? If you don't, are you laying the foundation for a sustained protest? If you decide to keep them in, how do you "equalize" the competition? If you decide to solve the problem by revealing all identities to the evaluators, how do you answer the charge that you didn't prevent prejudice from tainting the evaluation, which was why you tried the blind competition in the first place? You were obviously afraid that your evaluators were prejudiced.
The more gimmicks you try, the more traps you set for yourself. Blind competition is not innovative thinking. It is needless excess.
Reject the proposal!!
http://www.gao.gov/products/B-414060?utm_medium=email&utm_source=govdelivery#mt=e-report
-
Issue the amendment to the firms submitting offers or quotes. Then, award the revised maximum number of contracts.
-
See Latvian Connection, LLC; Solution Managers International--USA, B-408182.3, B-408182.4, Aug. 13, 2013:
QuoteThe protesters assert that the changes made to the solicitation by amendments 0008 and 0009 are so substantial that the agency must cancel the solicitation and issue a new one to afford all potential offerors, including them, an opportunity to compete for the contract. As discussed below, we find the agency reasonably decided to amend, rather than cancel and reissue, the solicitation. Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) § 15.206(e) states that a contracting officer should cancel a solicitation under the following circumstances: If, in the judgment of the contracting officer, . . . an amendment proposed for issuance after offers have been received is so substantial as to exceed what prospective offerors reasonably could have anticipated, so that additional sources likely would have submitted offers had the substance of the amendment been known to them, the contracting officer shall cancel the original solicitation and issue a new one, regardless of the stage of the acquisition. Our review of agency decisions about whether an amendment to a solicitation requires cancellation is limited to whether the exercise of agency discretion is reasonable. See Government Contract Servs. Co., B-294367, Oct. 25, 2004, 2004 CPD ¶ 215 at 4; The New Jersey & H St. Ltd. P’ship, B-288026, B-288026.2, July 17, 2001, 2001 CPD ¶ 125 at 4.
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.
-
If each office has its own purchase card holder, let each office use its card for its employee(s).
-
What did you state in your solicitation?
How many offers did you receive?
-
25 minutes ago, Vern Edwards said:
The German company will manufacture the new pistol in New Hampshire. Good manufacturing jobs for Americans. Let's see -- award was made on January 19, so the credit goes to....
Maybe I shouldn't go there.
You issued your own trigger warning!
Take a selfie, distribute it and celebrate yourself!
-
See the Indefinite Quantity clause in the contract:
QuoteI-145 52.216-22 INDEFINITE QUANTITY OCT/1995
(a) This is an indefinite-quantity contract for the supplies or services specified, and effective for the period stated, in the Schedule. The quantities of supplies and services specified in the Schedule are estimates only and are not purchased by this contract.
(b) Delivery or performance shall be made only as authorized by orders issued in accordance with the Ordering clause. The Contractor shall furnish to the Government, when and if ordered, the supplies or services specified in the Schedule up to and including the quantity designated in the Schedule as the maximum. The Government shall order at least the quantity of supplies or services designated in the Schedule as the minimum.
(c) Except for any limitations on quantities in the Order Limitations clause or in the Schedule, there is no limit on the number of orders that may be issued. The Government may issue orders requiring delivery to multiple destinations or performance at multiple locations.
(d) Any order issued during the effective period of this contract and not completed within that period shall be completed by the Contractor within the time specified in the order. The contract shall govern the Contractor's and Government's rights and obligations with respect to that order to the same extent as if the order were completed during the contracts effective period; provided, that the Contractor shall not be required to make any deliveries under this contract after TEN (10) YEARS AFTER DATE OF AWARD. (End of Clause)
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.
Not a good clerk
in Contracting Workforce
Posted
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!