Jump to content
The Wifcon Forums and Blogs

Search the Community

Showing results for tags 'MAS'.



More search options

  • 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
    • 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
  • Vern Edwards' Blog
  • Don Mansfield's Blog
  • Bob Antonio's Blog
  • NCMAExecutiveDirector's Blog
  • Professor Ralph Nash's Blog
  • Emptor Cautus' Blog
  • Centre Knowledge Blog
  • Leftbrainpro.com Answer Blog
  • SmallGovCon.com
  • Patterns of Procurement

Calendars

  • Community Calendar

Categories

  • Rules & Tools
  • Legal Opinions
  • News

Found 3 results

  1. FAR Part 8 Priorities

    Good day All: I am writing this question which some may think is basic. So here it goes. Lets say you are researching whether to purchase a widget on the Multiple Award Schedule. You find that this widget has only two vendors who provide it. Could you solicit non-Multiple Award Schedule vendors if you include MAS vendors? What are your thoughts on this? What are the implications of going beyond the MAS to obtain better pricing? My thoughts are that the MAS vendors should be solicited and then based on the results, then open market vendors should be solicited. My thought is that it violates the FAR Part 8 priorities.
  2. 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.
  3. 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.
×