Jump to content
The Wifcon Forums and Blogs

Search the Community

Showing results for tags 'small business'.



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 20 results

  1. Hello all, Senario: The requirement is an 8(a) sole source for construction and a FFP type contract is contemplated. the estimated value is 3-5million. The ktr has an OH rate of 14.95%. We normally see overhead in the range of 6-10%. The ktr has a 10% fee on top of all the subcontractor's markup. All of the proposal backup for subcontracted work only has the lump some numbers on the quotes provided. Question: 1. Is the 14.95% allowable can this be negotiated? 2. Can a prime (8(a)) get profit on profit? Im looking for a dumb down answer on this one. I have seen that some say this is allowable however I need a FAR reference to validate. I have seen some post on this topic but none are plainly clear or easily spelled out with a clear yes/no and have a direct reference provided. Also, I have seen some site the excessive pass-through clause, this only applies to cost reimbursement type contracts for civilian agencies. 3. Can the Excessive pass-though rationale be used for an FFP construction contract in a civilian agency? Would this be a deviation since far only says it can be used for cost reimbursement?
  2. Department of Defense uses form DD2579, Small Business Coordination Record, in accordance with DFARS 219.201 and DFARS PGI 253.219-70. (1) What other forms do civilian, non-DoD agencies use to document the contracting officer's decision re: small business set-asides and coordination with the Office of Small and Disadvantaged Business Utilization? DHS? VA? NASA? Energy? GSA? (2) Do any frogs have Internet links to see these documents in PDF or Word? From this thread, PepeTheFrog sees that GSA uses the "2689."
  3. Hello, I am having trouble justifying a response with a cited intelligible answer to the following situation: What limits a small business from subcontracting out a majority of the work to a large business for an acquisition under $150K? If I received a quote that outlines that the large business will do 99% of the work do I have anything to cite to throw them out? Procurement information: Under FAR Part 13 Dollar value is estimated below $150k Total set aside for small business FAR 52.219-14 was not included in the solicitation as the acquisition is estimated below $150k. FAR 52.219-6 was checked in the solicitation.
  4. How would you recommend working with government to hold the prime accountable on a full and open/unrestricted IDIQ contract, that has a goal, but not a requirement for the prime to include small business/sub-contractors in work share? Do you know of any previous contracts where this situation occurred? Without the government requiring the prime to include work share for sub-contractors, and only goals, it is going to be very difficult to find any prime that is willing to split their work share. Any advice, or examples of previous contracts that held prime's accountable for small business/sub-contractor participation goals would be highly appreciated!
  5. As someone new to USAID contracting and running a small business, I am curious to ask anyone their thoughts on this new FAR clause (Basic Safeguarding of Covered Contractor Information Systems (Jun 2016)) Based on the blogs I have read, this clause will likely be included in most future contracts. As a small business, we use google apps, dropbox, sales applications, and other 3rd party applications that are cloud based because of their affordability and practicality (we don't need an IT team). Provided we win future contracts with this clause, we will surely have "Federal Contract information" as defined in this clause on all of these cloud-based systems and applications. The clause does not specifically mention cloud computing or prescribe any controls or requirements that directly address the use of cloud solutions. But the way I read the clause, my company does not have control over the employees at Amazon, for example (where many of 3rd party apps store their data), so we can not really know who has access to the data. It is unclear to me whether this clause will eventually make cloud computing and communication unallowable for contractors unless all servers are in-house. Furthermore, I am concerned that this has the potential of placing a large financial burden on small businesses to finance and restructure how information is stored and communicated. Does anyone have any thoughts, or am I worrying about this too much?
  6. Under FAR Clause 52.222-11 - Subcontracts (Labor Standards) , does the actual reporting requirements stop at the Prime, or at the contracting officer? Fixed Price Construction IDIQ. All contractors/subcontractors are SB. As an example: Prime uses one subcontractor. The subcontractor (acts like a prime and) subcontracts all of the actual work. The Prime does not interpret 52.222-11 to mean that all of the document generation requirements under this clause get sent to the CO; rather, submittals like Payroll, Form 1413, Apprentice Certifications and such stop at the Prime. Prime believes they only need to submit said documents on the first tier subcontractor. Initially I read the clause and disagreed; it seemed an easy way around Federal labor laws if this were the case. After reading through para (d)(1) and (d)(2) of the clause a few more times, what seemed clear at first no longer seems so. Para (d)(2) states that the Contractor shall deliver an updated 1413 for additional subcontracts, which seems to imply that additional lower tier subcontractors do not generate a new 1413 -they just get added onto the current one. After thinking about this some more, I think it's a poorly worded and confusing clause. I think the intent may be that a subcontractor should read (d)(1) as if he were the Contractor being referred to in the clause, and therefore the requirements apply to himself/herself as well. I want to say that in (d)(2), any subsequently awarded lower tier subcontracts get updated on the 1413 for that subcontractor. In turn, the lower tier subcontractors have to repeat this process until no more subcontracts occur. Can anyone weigh in?
  7. Question for any experts out there in the SEWP Contract arena. If a small business acquires a company that IS a Prime Contractor on the SEWP Contract Full and Open category can the small business be grandfathered into the appropriate SEWP Small Business Category? In this example the company acquiring the SEWP Full and Open Prime company is a SDVO/Hubzone certified company. Can they be added to the Hubzone Group? Or do they remain Full and Open category regardless of surviving Business socioeconomic status?
  8. So I stumbled across this delightful sounding concept while looking at FAR updates and thought, Oh boy, someone is trying to really help out small businesses figure out what they need to do to comply with the regs. Then I started looking around and I must say I couldn't see any difference between the "Small Entity Compliance Guide" and what I have always seen in a DAC. Is the Small Entity Compliance Guide just a way, as we would have said pre-internet, a way to kill more trees? What am I missing here?
  9. Hello everyone, I have followed WIFCON.com for a while now, but never had the need to post anything until just recently. There is discussion going on within my office, and I wanted to get different opinions on the topic. Scenario: An RFQ, using FAR Part 13 procedures, was issued for an LPTA supply requirement that totals less than $15,000. In the RFQ it was stated the appropriate NAICS and size standard. The RFQ closed, and 4 responses were received. The vendor who is the lowest priced technically acceptable is a Small Business but does not have the stated NAICS resident on their SAM profile. The vendor is also not the manufacturer of the item they are offering, and their offered item is not manufactured by a Small Business. According to 13 CFR §121.406(d) a Small Business is exempt from providing a product manufactured by a Small Business when using Part 13 procedures, and when the acquisition is less than $25,000 as long as they meet the following requirements: (i) Does not exceed 500 employees; (ii) Is primarily engaged in the retail or wholesale trade and normally sells the type of item being supplied; (iii) Takes ownership or possession of the item(s) with its personnel, equipment or facilities in a manner consistent with industry practice; and (iv) Will supply the end item of a small business manufacturer, processor or producer made in the United States, or obtains a waiver of such requirement pursuant to paragraph (b(5) of this section. The prospective awardee meets all of these requirements, but again does not have the solicitation’s NAICS resident on their SAM profile. The CO is stating that the award cannot be made to that vendor because the NAICS is not resident in SAM. Is this in fact the case? On the SBA's website (https://www.sba.gov/content/guide-size-standards-0) it states: To bid on Federal contracts, the concern must self-certify in SAM that it is a small business under the appropriate size standard set forth in the solicitation. This question was also posed to DAU’s Ask a Professor, and their response was that the NAICS did not have to resident in SAM as long as the vendor would still qualify as a Small Business under that NAICS. Our Small Business specialist is not co-located with our office, and the question has been asked to that individual but no response has been received as of yet.
  10. Government has released an RFP with a 100% SDVOSB set-aside. The Government has stipulated they anticipate awarding the contract strictly on a FFP basis where all Offerors will be responsible for including all costs associated with travel and ODCs into each of the specific CLINs. Does the 50 percent that is required to be performed by the SDVOSB Prime consists of only labor or is it inclusive of all costs (labor, travel, and ODCs) as a result of how the Government is anticipating on awarding the contract?
  11. I was informed by an SBA rep that we would not be able to use individuals we subcontract with in our small business plan goals...does anyone know what hoops we could jump through to allow independent contractors to be included? The definition of "small business concern" includes sole proprietors so I guess I'm just not sure how an individual who was a woman couldn't be counted toward our WOSB goal. Any clarification would be great. Thanks.
  12. We are considering doing a SATOC small business set-aside for construction rather than MATOC. The Defense consolidation memo of October 28, 1996 would indicate this is a consolidation even though it is for construction. Value overf $25M. Though it would be "new" work because it is construction, it is work that could be performed by smalls. Should this be subject to a consolidation analysis and if so, would this a quantitative justification to show the benefits. The Jobs Act refers to this but does not seem clear. Thanks.
  13. Good Day All: I have two questions both of which are related to subcontracting. I am inquiring about when a subcontracting plan is required. Is it necessary for a subcontracting plan to be included if Offeror is taking credit for other entity's projects (ie. relevant experience project) or will meaningful relationship letters will suffice? Also for a small business set aside where the small business is the prime contractor what are the requirement for the subcontracting plan?
  14. I am currently doing USG contracting overseas. I know that according to FAR 19.000(B ), small business requirements do not apply to me, however, I believe that it is good for my agency to receive credit for small business contracting we do engage in overseas. Therefore, I often have trouble filling out the SF-1449 for solicitations in this regard. I think these are questions that people contracting in the states might have as well. 1. If we do a J&A for a small business (unrelated to the fact that it is a small business), should I/can I still be checking the Small Business Set-Aside (100%) Box? 2. If we end up contracting with a small business and it wasn't originally set aside for that, can we still call it a set-aside to receive credit for the fact that we hired a small business? 3. Given that SBA is mainly interested in supporting American small businesses (though the SBA definition of a small business does not specify where the small businesses are based), would you check the box for small businesses that are not American small businesses? I was just interested in whether you had any thoughts or opinions that could help me shape how I fill out these boxes, which is a question I think about everytime I use the SF-1449. Thanks, Andrea
  15. I am under the impression that most Dept. of Defense RFPs include a requirement for a Small Business Subcontracting Plan (SBSP) from Large Businesses (LBs) when the FAR 19.7 criteria are triggered. In addition, most also require a Small Business Participation Plan (SBPP) from both Large and Small Business Offerors which is different from the SBSP. From what I have seen, the SBPP usually requires the Offeror to calculate the percentage of participation on total contract value (sometimes the offeror's price and sometimes the contract's ceiling value), while the SBSP usually requires the SB percentage of participation to be calculated using the value of the "total subcontracted dollars." (I say "usually" because of the Court of Federal Claims decision in FIrstLine Transportation Security, Inc, v. US, No. 12-601C, November 27, 2012.) Can anyone tell me if any other Agencies use these 2 separate plans? From what I have seen, other Agencies seem to use the terms "subcontracting" and "participation" interchangeably. Thanks (I am new to this, so any insights or references are welcome.)
  16. 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?
  17. 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?
  18. 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.
  19. 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.
  20. 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-
×