Jump to content
The Wifcon Forums and Blogs

Search the Community

Showing results for tags 'FSS'.

  • 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
  • Contracting Forum
    • Section 809 Panel
    • Polls
    • For Beginners Only
    • 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
  • Federal Contracting: A New Beginning
    • The Competition in Contracting Act

Blogs

  • The Wifcon Blog
  • Don Mansfield's Blog
  • Bob Antonio's Blog
  • NCMA HQ Blog
  • Professor Ralph Nash's Blog
  • Emptor Cautus' Blog
  • Centre Knowledge Blog
  • Leftbrainpro.com Answer Blog
  • SmallGovCon.com
  • Patterns of Procurement

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

Found 7 results

  1. Wifcon Community - I am seeking critical feedback for my planned evaluation approach. I want to ensure that I have my ducks in a row before approaching Legal with this. This method is based upon a mix of Vern's past posts and the Sevatec holding. Thank you in advance for your assistance. OBJECTIVE: To utilize an evaluation scheme that is more streamlined, intuitive, and flexible than trade-offs, without increasing protest risk. If this works as intended, I would apply it (or some variation) to most of my future service procurements competed under FAR 8.4, 13, or 16.5. CONTEXT: Competitive BPA call pursuant to 8.4. Four FTEs to provide consulting and management support services. Utilizes PWS and exceeds SAT. EVALUATION METHOD: Factor 1: Quote acceptability (compliance w/ T&Cs, in-scope, etc.). (Pass/Fail) Factor 2: Personnel qualifications. (Pass/Fail) Factor 3: Risk - Combination of personnel experience and contractor past performance. (I advised against including PP being that this is a BPA call, but my customer insisted.) Factor three will be evaluated through direct comparisons of quotes. Quotes will be ordered from lowest to highest performance risk. Price will not be a factor, since the Government is willing to pay up to the ceiling rates. Award will be made to the contractor that passes Factors 1 and 2, presents the least amount of performance risk, and quotes a F&R price.
  2. Good Afternoon, We are five months away from the end of the final period of performance of a task order issued under FAR Subpart 8.4 and the requesting activity requested that we extend the services for an additional six months while the new procurement is completed (solicitation should be posted in a few weeks). The solicitation this task order was awarded against did not contain clause 52.217-8, however, it was bilaterally added to the task order during the first period of performance. I have argued that extending the services for an additional six months constitutes a sole source procurement and requires a J&A in accordance with FAR Section 8.405-6 and FAR Subpart 6.3 (for open market items) as the clause was not included in the solicitation and considered as a part of the offers or resultant award. I am getting push back from management that a J&A is not necessary and we have the right to extend the services without synopsizing because the clause was bilaterally included in the task order, but I disagree. I would appreciate any feedback. Thanks.
  3. My agency uses special funds to provide supplies to various U.S. States. I've been tasked with investigating the possibility of pursuing an approach similar to the MAS/FSS contracts against which various State agencies could order product. My first thought was to just ask GSA if they could set up some new schedules, but my agency (just like any other agency) doesn't want to give up control. I believe that when GSA sets up a schedule, they invite contractors to propose products and prices and GSA puts those on the schedule, and then when agencies order from the schedules, they do a limited competition and ask for discounts from the schedule prices. This is a different process than the IDIQ contracts I usually award. I am just starting to research this issue and I'm trying to identify some of the important issues that my agency would have to address. I'm reviewing FAR Parts 8.4 and 38 and will probably call GSA to get more detailed information. I would appreciate any insight or recommendation concerning issues I might have to consider. So far, I'm reviewing the following issues, but I'm sure there are a lot I haven't thought of: 1) My agency believes that, if there are any barriers to setting up these types of contracts, they will pursue an exception to the FAR or other regulations - can anyone think of any regulatory hurdles that might have to be overcome (for example, I don't know if GSA and the VA are the only agencies allowed to award FSS type contracts)? 2) I've see that the GSA FSS site mentions that these type of contracts can be used by State and Local Governments for ordering purposes - is there a FAR reference that specifically allows this? 3) Would this type of contract require an interagency agreement between the State and Federal Governments? Is the Economy Act a consideration? 4) I'd appreciate the identification/discussion of these or any additional issues I should consider. I need to advise my management of the feasibility of pursuing this method of contracting.
  4. A single-award FSS BPA solicitation asks for both labor categories at the BPA level, discounted from offeror’s GSA FSS, and pricing for certain initial and sample BPA orders based on further discounts from the BPA level labor category rates. There are both fixed price and labor hour BPA orders. While some labor categories for the BPA level are suggested, offerors are free to add their own labor categories at the BPA level for their offers. So different offerors may have different BPA labor categories. The evaluation critera and award basis states that source selection will be conducted using best value trade-off of both price and non-price factors, and that price is less important than all technical factors combined excluding past performance. The methodology for price evaluation states that there will be an evaluation of the offeror’s ability to meet the requirements at a fair and reasonable price, and that as part of this evaluation the “overall BPA pricing” will be evaluated, including the initial and sample BPA orders. Further, the overall evaluated price of the BPA includes the combined total of the total evaluated price for each of the initial and sample BPA orders. Nothing else is explicitly stated regarding the price evaluation. If, as above, it is not explicitly stated in such a FSS BPA solicitation, can cost realism analysis still be performed as a form of cost analysis to eliminate risky offers? One can imagine a hypothetical offeror that prices BPA labor categories with a high price and provides very steep discounts for the initial and sample BPA orders in the solicitation. Then after the BPA contract is awarded to them, the contractor could offer lesser discounts for future BPA orders, making future BPA orders expensive. The fact that, as stated, overall BPA pricing will be evaluated, should discourage this. However, from a practical source selection perspective, it is unclear how this can be done. If, as above, the evaluation methodology only specifically calls out the construction of an “overall evaluated price” made up of the total evaluated prices of all the initial and sample BPA orders, then this does not address evaluation of BPA labor category pricing in a way that would single out the high BPA labor category pricing in such a particular hypothetical offer. Since offerors can add their own labor categories at the BPA level, a sum of all labor category rates wouldn't be comparable. Perhaps an average labor category rate at the BPA level could be comparable, but even that would not be useful as such a hypothetical offeror could add many of their own labor categories and many of these could be low, which would result in a low average rate, even though the most important and useful labor categories would have a high price. And this is perhaps irrelevant anyways since the evaluation methodology doesn’t discuss adding rates or averaging them at the BPA level, or how an evaluation of the "overall BPA pricing" would be weighed in consideration relative to the "overall evaluated price" that is composed of the BPA orders. In the case above, what other ways might there be to evaluate the “overall BPA pricing” and how could that be fit in to the overall price evaluation which includes the evaluation of an "overall evaluated price"?
  5. Does FAR 19.1307 (HUBZone price evaluation preference) apply to task orders / delivery orders competed under a GSA Federal Supply Schedule? It appears not, since the list of contract clauses for an FSS contract omit FAR clause 52.219-4. So if this is the case, my follow-on question is that while it is clear why the price preference doesn't apply to the award of the FSS contract itself, what is the reason that FSSes are exempt from having to apply 19.1307 for task/delivery order competed under them?
  6. I have researched this topic and would like to confirm that the protest limitation of $10M on orders issued on an IDIQ still does not apply to contract vehicles covered by FAR subpart 8.4. The case law I am seeing is dated and current case law is not forthcoming with regard to the value of the orders. Thank you.
  7. 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-
×