Jump to content

Search the Community

Showing results for tags 'Small Business'.

  • Search By Tags

    Type tags separated by commas.
  • Search By Author

Content Type


Forums

  • Instructions and Terms of Use
    • Terms Of Use
    • Before You Register, Before You Post, Instructions for Writing Your Question
  • Contracting Forum
    • What Happened?
    • Polls
    • For Beginners Only
    • About The Regulations
    • COVID-19 And Its Effect on Contracting
    • Contracting Workforce
    • Recommended Reading
    • Contract Award Process
    • Contract Pricing Including CAS & Allowable Costs
    • Contract Administration
    • Schedules, GWACS, MACs, IDIQs
    • Subcontracts & Subcontract Management
    • Small Business, Socioeconomic Programs
    • Proposed Law & Regulations; Legal Decisions

Blogs

  • The Wifcon Blog
  • Don Mansfield's Blog
  • Government Contracts Blog
  • Government Contracts Insights
  • Emptor Cautus' Blog
  • SmallGovCon.com
  • The Contractor's Perspective
  • Government Contracts Legal Forum
  • NIH NITAAC Blog
  • NIH NITAAC Blog

Calendars

  • Community Calendar

Product Groups

There are no results to display.

Categories

  • Rules & Tools
  • Legal Opinions
  • News

Find results in...

Find results that contain...


Date Created

  • Start

    End


Last Updated

  • Start

    End


Filter by number of...

Joined

  • Start

    End


Group


AIM


MSN


Website URL


ICQ


Yahoo


Jabber


Skype


Location


Interests

  1. We are issuing $5 million subcontract award for a project we're working on as the prime. We included 52.219-8 and 52.219-9 in the terms and conditions. The subcontractor took exception as the current effort is for NRE. I don't know if it really makes a difference at this point but thinking that they shouldn't take exception but provide a response that as this is an NRE effort the current goals are at zero. The next phase of the effort is an option for production which is why I feel we should leave the clauses. Any thoughts?
  2. Our SBA just notified us that: "If the contract is modified and the dollar value goes up or down the subcontracting plan goals need to be renegotiate to reflect the dollar change and the percentages that may be effected do the change. This will also be reflected in the eSRS reports." This doesn't make sense to me. My interpretation of FAR 19.705-2 and 19.702 leads me to believe that it must meet a certain dollar threshold and subcontract opportunites must exist. That means we would be negotiating the SB goal dollars on a $3k mod. Background on our contract, $232M CPIF. Am I missing something or is the SBA right?
  3. I work for an 8(a) certified small business, primarily doing business with DoD, which is quickly growing and will soon exceed the size standards for remaining Small under the applicable NAICS codes in our industry. Many of our current contracts are 8(a) sole-source awards. The 8(a) sole source route will not be an option for us in the near future, however our existing customers are would still like us to have the opportunity to compete for the work on a full and open basis. I am researching the process for removing a contract from the 8(a) Business Development, and would appreciate any insights on the following: 1. I've reviewed 13 CFR 124.504, which provides a process for releasing a requirement from the 8(a) program; however, it seems to require that the incumbent nevertheless be eligible as a small business, and that the follow-on contract be procured as a small business set-aside, WOSB, HubZone, etc. but not Full and Open. 2. I came across a 2010 Court of Federal Claims case, K-LAK Corporation v. United States, that involved an Air Force contract which was an 8(a) sole-source. The Air Force declined to exercise the option on the 8(a) sole-source award, and subsequently procured the items through a Federal Supply Schedule (FSS). The SBA provided notice to the Air Force that the requirement could not be withdrawn from the 8(a) program, but Air Force did so anyway. The court held that the small business set-aside requirements under FAR part 19 do not apply to orders made through Federal Supply Schedules, and consequently, the Air Force was not required to comply with "the rule of Two or any of the other regulations applicable to small businesses that the plaintiff relies upon..." https://interact.gsa.gov/sites/default/files/cofc_-_ok_to_use_fss_when_procurement_is_currently_set_aside.pdf This case was recently (November 27, 2012) cited and reaffirmed in Kingdomware Technologies, Inc. v. United States, where the court stated that it is "well-settled that when placing an order against the FSS, the agency is exempt from the small business set-aside programs under FAR Part 19." http://www.uscfc.uscourts.gov/sites/default/files/FIRESTONE.KINGDOMWARE112712.pdf This is fascinating, as it seems to suggest that a contract may be removed freely from the 8(a) program as long as the Government procures the follow-on contract through an FSS. I'd like to make sure that I'm interpreting this correctly, and is there anything I'm missing here? 3. If a DOD agency wishes to procure a follow-on contract to an 8(a) sole-source through an FSS using Full and Open competition, is there a process in terms of notifying the SBA, completing a J&A or anything else? Are there any special forms that need to be completed? I appreciate your assistance very much! Thanks.
  4. My office has a major acquisition for a cyber-security center with an estimated value of $25M/year for a 5-year period, $125M total, and we would like to place the order with a SB by January, 2013. We have had success utilizing the Alliant SB GWAC on past IT requirements, however, I am concerned with utilizing the Alliant SB this time around because of the potential loss of the Small Business credit in the out-years of the resulting task order. Right now, less than two years remain on the Alliant 5-year base period. According to FAR 52.219-28, re-representation is required after the end of the base period and, under Alliant SB, most of the small businesses will probably only be considered “Small” during the first year of performance on new task orders. After the first year of performance on our task order, they would be considered “Large” and we will lose our SB credit for potentially $100M of the $125M effort. In accordance with the Alliant SB manual, the following section addresses the FAR clause: “In accordance with FAR 52.219-28, Post-Award Small Business Program Re-representation, contractors shall re-represent their size status upon any change in ownership. In addition to change in ownership events, contractors are also required to re-represent their size status 60 to 120 days prior to the end of the fifth year of the basic contract. Should an Alliant SB prime contractor become other than a small business concern as a result of a merger or acquisition, with or without novation, it is a policy of the Small Business GWAC Center to remove the contract holder from the GWAC. Please refer to Appendix XII, Industry Partner Advisory for additional guidance regarding this policy”. With the new SBA re-certification process, how can I ensure that we obtain small business credit for the entire five year period, whether its using GSA Schedule or any GWAC? Due to the size of our order, the resulting small business who receives the award would become a large business within the first year of performance. According to the regulation, the re-representation requirement under FAR 52.219-28 would result in the selected contractor becoming a large business within the second year of performance under the Alliant task order. The Alliant CO basically agreed with my concern. Are there any good ideas out there for ensuring the small business credit for then entire effort? Thanks.
  5. TOPIC: Purchase Order under GSA FSS Contract: Open Market Items BACKGROUND: The primary item (camera) which has a cost of roughly $94,000 is exclusive to a particular manufacturer, and this is justified using a limited source justification. However, there are several items for this requirement not on the GSA FSS of the company which offers the camera. The total cost of these incidental items (lenses) is roughly $14,900.00. Initially it was thought that all the required items were on the GSA Schedule, which would have allowed for a sole GSA Contract Buy. However, after conducting additional research, it was determined that the required lenses for this camera (CANON) are not on the GSA Schedule, however the company is working on getting the lenses on the schedule at some point in the future. I am aware of FAR 8.402(f). As a fairly new contract specialist, I am still somewhat confused as to what additional administrative procedures are required for the addition of these open market items under the current GSA Contract. As I mentioned previously, the projected amount indicated through a previous quotation is $14,900.00 for the lenses. I am planning to provide additional justification which warrants the inclusion of these lenses, as incidental items critical to achieving the SOW in the required timeframe without additional costs. I need to know of any additional contracting procedures and references that should be relied upon for this specific procurement situation? Being that these open market items are quite low in value, I'm unsure of what additional contracting requirements apply in order to effectively place them under the GSA Contract with the exclusive camera. Any information you can provide in regard to this issue is greatly appreciated and will be researched further. NOTE: The open market items will be clearly marked on the contract and quotation as open market items. All responses welcomed in regard to this topic. Thanks, -Pete-
×
×
  • Create New...