woops85

We did one that involved BRAC that had a single optional CLIN per year for BRAC installs/decommissions (of IT installs into facilities). We used a Govt provided estimate for the CLIN price and then executed using a series of FFP SubCLINs when we had firm dates/places. Since it was BRAC related, we didn't know at time of contract award when a post would actually close and that was the trigger for decommissioning the facility on the post and setting up a replacement facility in some nearby commercial location. (Distance learning stuff)

Vern - I think it was in a GSA PIN or other Acq letter that GSA COs are bound by. Not where I can reach the GSA intranet at the moment but will look tonight and if I can find, then will post. I know the guidance here was not to do set-asides but to do "preference" with socio-economic status as an evaluation factor. Generally other than small businesses were Acceptable, small businesses were Good, and 8(a), HUBZone and SDVOSBs were Excellent. Some COs used this factor as the most important and others used it as a tie-breaker. But will post the old guidance

Anyone else find it funny that it was done when it wasn't supposed to be done and now that it can be done, sdvr has been told it's not allowed?

Mrs Bad - I think we can agree that we don't understand each other's logic. You want to apply a clause in one contract to other unrelated contracts. I say that as long as the future RFP is not an order under an existing vehicle, then there is no relation between the future RFP and the pre-existing contract and therefore the clauses in the contract don't apply. The FAR applies to the Government, not to vendors, unless and until the pertinent language in incorporated into a contract that the vendor has accepted.

MrsBad - you said "but in many cases the proposed prime contractor already has other contracts in place, often with the same proposed subcontractor providing the same type of subcontracted products/services. So this FAR clause would be in effect under those other contracts".

Agree but those other contracts have nothing to do with the new RFP or each other. Clauses in a contract pertain only to that contract. I'm assuming you aren't talking about orders under an ID/IQ because if the sub is on the ID/IQ team, there'd be no reason for a teaming agreement for the new order since the ID/IQ subcontract terms would apply

C Culham - Thanks. Not being familiar with this agency's financial systems, I hadn't thought of that aspect. Although one would hope they talk to each other, that is something we'd have to look into to be sure

So I've heard about a new opportunity coming up in the next year and I'm putting my team together. At this point there's no RFP, draft or otherwise, so there are no FAR clauses to reference. Plus although I'm anticipating doing business with the Government, the Teaming Agreement is purely an agreement between two commercial entities that must conform to the laws of the applicable state(s).

FAR 1.104 Applicability.

The FAR applies to all acquisitions as defined in Part 2 of the FAR, except where expressly excluded.

From FAR Part 2

?Acquisition? means the acquiring by contract with appropriated funds of supplies or services (including construction) by and for the use of the Federal Government through purchase or lease, whether the supplies or services are already in existence or must be created, developed, demonstrated, and evaluated. Acquisition begins at the point when agency needs are established and includes the description of requirements to satisfy agency needs, solicitation and selection of sources, award of contracts, contract financing, contract performance, contract administration, and those technical and management functions directly related to the process of fulfilling agency needs by contract.

Couldn't you compete the ID/IQ and within the ID/IQ specify that the SF-182 would be an acceptable ordering means for orders under a certain amount (could be designated as SAT or figure less than the SAT)? If it's a single award ID/IQ and there's no competition at the order level, you can pretty much establish any ordering process you want, right? Granted, you would need some process by which the CO gets all the SF-182s so you can track ceiling issues. Could be CO must sign them or simply that CO is provided a copy. Trick seems to be developing the ordering process and documenting it well enough in the ID/IQ so the vendor knows when an order is valid.

Organization I'm on detail to is looking at putting one or more training ID/IQs is place this year as well s we've been having similar discussions

If your awardee was a reseller that offered Dell, HP and Acer, and a particular order was for Dells only, would you need to do the brand name justification?

George Orwell's 1984. Been so long that I couldn't remember if I'd ever read it in its entirety or just parts

August has good strategy - network with folks at classes and find out what they do, what their office is like, etc. Make sure you ask about turnover rates - can people grow in the organization? Do people feel they have to leave to get more responsibility/promotion? But remember their answers may be very office specific. I'm at GSA and the 1102s in fleet, furniture, schedules and assisted acquisitions (to name a few) all have very different work environments and challenges. For every person who love workings in part of the organization but hated working in one of the other groups, there's someone else who feels the opposite way about the same two groups. Figure out what you need from the environment as well as what you want and ask questions that help you determine if it's a good environment for you

Are you trying to avoid any additional fee charged by the platform guys if they act as prime to the motor part of the company? Many of the defense contractors we deal with have intercompany charges that they treat just like any other subcontract charge.

In your example, what about warranty issues? If I accept the motor, I start the warranty period. I then issue it as GFE to the platform guys who take however long to do their part (all during my paid for warranty time). If the platform guys time is long enough, I can see an advantage to having only one contract so my warranty on the entire platform all starts at the same time.

You avoid the easily manipulated issue by saving files on the network both in their original form (word, etc) and as a .pdf file. If you don't already have that capability from within your office suite, it's pretty easy to obtain. The metadata on a file will show the creation date so it would be easy to tell if someone had "replaced" a pdf file in its entirety. Our official copy is the one attached in our ordering system (system controls prevent replacement of attached files once an order/mod has been awarded. The network files are the backups. For our network files, we've created an electronic contract file folder format. There's a sample folder with the required subfolders underneath it. When a new procurement starts, you copy the sample folder into our "Pre-award" folder and give it a new name that includes the solicitation number. All working documents are filed in appropriate subfolders as created. CS is responsible for version control. Once award is made, folder is renamed to the contract number and moved to an "Awarded" folder. When mod is done, a Mod ## folder is created and associated documents are stored there.

Took a while for folks to get used to, and there was lots of grumbling as we moved all ongoing contract folders into the new format but now everyone can find the documents without a lot of hunting so definitely worth it in the long run.

We kill lots of trees too for reviews since many of us (myself included) find it easier to the document review and reference cross-checks on a paper copy instead of on the screen. But at least we've gone to mandatory double-sided printing.

If you look at the NITAAC website you'll find master mod number 6 that extended the period of performance. It cites unusual and compelling urgency as the authority.

Thanks - I just looked again and they posted Mod 8 citing same authority for a 6 month extension and that the FAQs were updated since my original post to reflect a June 2012 date instead of the Dec 2012 date. Guess those CIO-SP3 awards must be fairly close

CIO-SP2i was originally awarded in Dec 2000 for a 10 year period and was set to expire on 20 Dec 2010. Last year, the contract was extended until 20 Dec 2011 to allow them time to get CIO-SP3 awarded. As of this morning, the NITAAC web site CIO-SP2i FAQ shows the contract extended through 20 Dec 2012.

My question is - what authority would they likely be using to do this since it cannot be FAR 52.217-8?

I agree with C Culham but that doesn't mean it won't raise eyebrows on the person reviewing the invoice - esp if the labor rates are quite different.

That sounds different all right. So the intent to exercise letter tells the vendor that you intend to order all possible BPA services and the quantities? No proposal needed and cost is always at the negotiated BPA rates?

What reason does the contractor give for the costs not being invoiced - especially if they are talking about direct costs? If the answer is that their subs haven't invoiced the prime for the sub's direct costs, the prime needs to be asking the sub the same question - why not? I know of at least one large business that is 8 years behind on getting final audited indirect rates from DCAA but that's indirects and they've got no (or very little) control over the process with DCAA. But a direct cost lagging for 4 years seems like poor business practice to me.

Additional information: this is a BPA under our GSA Schedule.

If you can find the award notice document (not the same as the award document you got as the winner), it should state how many bids were received. Additionally the original RFQ should state somewhere whether it was issued to "All Holders" of a particular schedule or just to you. Another place to look in RFQ is at evaluation scheme - does it say anything about just being rated as acceptable or unacceptable? Many times a sole-source uses acceptable/unacceptable versus a multi-tiered scheme such as excellent/good/acceptable/poor. But easiest way to get answers is to take Vern's advice and call your CO

Do Company A, B and C do similar work or are they different niche areas? If they each have the same GSA Schedule (such as 70 or MOBIS), you would need to talk to the ACO for each contract as you may have to terminate one of them (not sure which is why you need to talk to Schedule CO). If the new company is going to have multiple schedule contracts (such as MOBIS, 70 and LogWorld), you may want to think about a consolidated schedule contract - again talk to your GSA COs.

Are the companies on the same fiscal year? You could be affecting cost pools so if result is one company, it's easier on you if the merger happened at start of the corporate FY. That way you are affecting indirect rates for only one corporate FY and not 2.

Diverdave - Have them look at Alliant, AlliantSB, STARS II, CIOSP2, ITES-2S or any of the other GWACS/MAIDIQS out there for example of an IDIQ with a base period of longer than a year.

Retreadfed -

For example - the 8(a) STARS II contract. All vendors had to be 8(a) at time of contract award. Vendors must recertify to 8(a) status at time of option exercise ( believe it is a 3 year base period ) to continue on contract. Some of the vendors on the original 8(a) STARS contract also won the STARS II contract. STARS was 7 years - 3 year base plus 2 two year option periods. So they were 8(a) at least 7 years ago and have at most 2 years left in program at time of STARS II award. Vendor A is such a vendor and he actually graduates from the 8(a) program 60 days after award of STARS II. Unless the CO for a particular order asks for recertification at time of the order, Vendor A can compete and win orders up through the end of the base period with the clients getting 8(a) credit for the entire order, even though the POP of the entire order may occur after Vendor A has graduated the 8(a) program.

The order guide states "Graduation from the 8(a) program is not a triggering event for size re-representation promulgated by FAR 52.219-28, or by its associated SBA and FAR final rules, released at 71 FR 66434 and 74 FR 11821 & 14492, respectively. Such industry partners retain full use of their contract pursuant to the contract?s terms and conditions per 13 CFR 124.503(h)(1)(iii), most recently updated in a SBA Final Rule released in 2011, found in 76 FR 8222 (specifically on page 8259). This is also consistent with FAR 19.804-6( c )."

Why do you make them give you 30 days notice? That's ridiculous. Why should they have to give you any notice at all as long as they provide you with a qualified replacement? What if the employee just walks of the job without notice because he or she can't stand working under a bunch of bureaucrats?

Vern - the 30 days is mostly for intracompany moves. If the person quits and gives less notice, then the company can only give us as much notice as they get. Language developed in response to vendors moving key personnel to different contract and not telling client until last week of work or having someone give notice and not inform client at all. Language only applies to those positions designated as Key Personnel - either by Govt in solicitation or additional positions proposed by vendor as part of proposal. And although we try to limit the key designation to just the truly key people, we have had vendors propose every position as key and then we make them live up to the restriction that they imposed upon themselves.

Retreadfed - didn't mean to imply that a CO couldn't always ask. Just wanted to point out that sometimes a vendor could qualify for a set-aside/preference even if they have outgrown/graduated.

We put a Key Personnel Substitution clause in all our contracts. If company desires to change out a person designated as Key, they must give us 30 days notice (granted if person leaving company and gives less than 30 days notice, they must give us as much as they get) and the substitute must have equal or better qualifications than person being replaced. As an evaluator, if I saw both proposals at same time (or closely together) I might wonder how you were going to have the guy work 2 full-time jobs so hopefully there's an explanation in the second proposal about how it's going to work