Jump to content
The Wifcon Forums and Blogs

Search the Community

Showing results for tags 'sole source'.

  • 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
    • What Happened?
    • 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
    • Section 809 Panel
  • 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 12 results

  1. I am exploring the possibility on changing the ceiling capacity of our single award IDIQ 8A sole source contract. The current contractor is actually an approved NAC 8A and we awarded with the SBA under the $4m threshold even with their designation. Now two years in, the programs estimate for capacity has been significantly increased. Can an agency, with SBA approval increase the single award IDIQ sole source 8A contract capacity without an J&A based upon the sole source and 8A NAC designation to say $5m? Looking for any thoughts on this.
  2. I'm a Contracting Officer tasked with soliciting for a construction project that involves a brand name specification under the CICA waiver authority under FAR 6.302-1 Only One Responsible Source. The item is a major component of the construction project, but the value of the item is expected NOT to exceed $700k (the total construction project will be much larger). My read of the regs has always been that a 6.302-1 CICA waiver justification must include evidence that a notice of intent was posted to the GPE and interested sources responding to that notice were considered in accordance with FAR 6.302-1(d)(2), FAR 5.201, and FAR 5.207. HOWEVER, we are planning to solicit the project as a task order RFP under a multiple award IDC, and so the question was raised, does CICA and FAR Part 6 even apply? FAR 5.202(a)(6) provides an exception to the FAR 5.201 synopsis requirement for IDC orders and refers to FAR 16.505(a)(4). FAR 16.505(a)(4) states that items peculiar to one manufacturer must be justified in accordance with FAR 16.505( b)(2) (aka Fair Opportunity Exception). BOTTOM LINE: I've nearly concluded that FAR Subpart 16.5 may be the applicable regulation and not FAR Subpart 6.3, and so a FAR 16.505(b )(2) Fair Opportunity Exception would be required instead of a FAR 6.303 Justification. But I have a nagging suspicion that that's not quite right. My hesitations with a FAR 16.505(b )(2) Fair Opportunity Exception are that #1 I can't quite see how this is would restrict competition among the IDC contractors, so I can't really see how the concept of "fair opportunity" is at play. And, #2 I'm surprised to find that there is no requirement at FAR 16.505( b)(2) to post a notice of intent to the GPE--since in our situation for a brand name component, it seems to me that would be compelling information to include in the justification if we get no acceptable response from industry. And I'm also surprised because FAR 16.505 ( b)(2)(d) DOES require that the final approved Fair Opportunity Exception be posted to the GPE within 14 days (for orders >SAT). Whereas under FAR Subpart 6.3, for brand name justifications, all that is required is to attach the final approved J&A with the solicitation. I suppose that's because Fair Opportunity Exceptions under 16.505( b)(2) would never be publicized if only distributed with the solicitation because the solicitation isn't made public--it's only sent the multiple IDC contractors. Anyone have any thoughts on this? Appreciate the feedback.
  3. We were issued a sole source RFP and the box on the SF-33 for Type of Solicitation is checked Negotiated. Is there any possible way for the PCO to make an award unilaterally without negotiations? There is no language in the RFP about discussions (FAR 15.306).
  4. Does Competition Exist if there is a single manufacturer of a product; but you receive quotes for the product from two or more distributors? I have gotten into some heated arguments about this issue. I don't consider buying from multiple distributors a competitive purchase since there is only a single manufacturer. I would appreciate hearing your view.
  5. All, Would anyone have a presentation on the need and purpose of competition that morphs into the exceptions for sole source? I am the Competition Advocate and was asked to train a group on how to best write sole source letters. I told them that they should not be writing a lot of sole source letters in the first place but I would present on obtaining competition, why we have to do it, why we should do it, etc. Then go into a "but if you must sole source, here are the rules. I can put it together myself but would love to save a bunch of manhours if someone has one already that I can edit.
  6. My office intends to award a contract on a limited sources basis using FAR 6.302 2 Unusual and Compelling Urgency. There is no question as to whether the requirement meets the Unusual and Compelling Urgency standard, which will allow us to limit sources. However, I am unsure as to how much latitude FAR 6.302 2 affords contracting officers in how we actually go about restricting sources and precluding firms from participating in acquisitions. We currently have a shortlist of ten companies that were identified as viable sources. Each of these sources was selected to compete based on our initial assessments of their capabilities and expertise. However, these assessments were anecdotal in their nature and based more on conjecture rather than substantive evidence. The assessments also presume that the ten firms possess the capabilities and expertise that are superior to that of the other precluded firms, which may or may not be true. We advertised a request for information, but we didn’t notify industry that we would potentially use the findings of that request to restrict competition based on capabilities. One could almost argue that we conducted a pseudo-technical evaluation that unfairly prejudiced contractors that did not respond to the request and or were unaware of the Government’s intentions. However, we are also considering an alternative approach focused more on practicality with consideration to the urgent need for these services. In our market research, we have identified one firm that is uniquely situated to provide the services. However, that is questionable also. One could make a reasonable argument that other firms may also be uniquely suited to address the requirement in their own way. However, under this approach, we wouldn’t have actually precluded other sources under the presumption of not being qualified. Instead, this approach is based more on promoting the reasonable economy and efficiency warranted by the unusual and compelling urgency of the requirement. The need is of such compelling urgency that we could not justify competing the effort when we have a proven source that is postured to immediately engage the requirement. In this situation, one could also make the argument that our determination appears to be arbitrary or capricious in its nature. (Bear in mind that there is minimal performance risk for the requirement and the price reasonableness/best value standard can easily be met for either approach.) Question: How much latitude does the Government have in choosing either of these approaches? One perspective assumes that we are protected by the 6.302-2 standard and the manner in which we restrict competition is irrelevant as long as we promote competition to the maximum extent practicable (very subjective standard). This implies that either approach is viable. Is there any GAO case law or standard beyond those discussed in the FAR that might help bring some clarity to this situation?
  7. I am pretty involved with several Alpha Contracting efforts here at Department of Army. Anyone else out there ever involved in Alpha Contracting? Thoughts? Observations? Good experiences? Bad Experiences? Would love to have anyone's 2 cents on the topic.
  8. An offeror for a sole source non-commercial supply contract has taken the position that adequate price competition is applicable and the Government should only require price analysis for evlauation of their proposal and Cost or Pricing Data should not be required. The offeror has referenced FAR 15.403-1(c )(1)(iii) indicating that the supplies sold to other Government entities represents adequate price competition. The offeror goes on to state FAR 15.403-1(c ) includes the term "or" and therefore not all three subparts are required to determine adequate price competition. The question is whether this position has validity or not. It is currently the Government's position that Cost or Pricing Data is required and the exception does not apply. Reference: FAR 15.403-1(c )(1)(iii) states, "Price analysis clearly demonstrates that the proposed price is reasonable in comparison with current or recent prices for the same or similar items, adjusted to reflect changes in market conditions, economic conditions, quantities, or terms and conditions under contracts that resulted from adequate price competition."
  9. 1. Have a Purchase Request for an Open Market, Fixed Price, On-Line Legal Subscription Service over the SAT (approx $2.5M); Base Year with 4 Option Years. Period of Performance to start end of September, 2013 2. Program Office wants to Sole Source (we have a previous contract with the present vendor which is due to expire and the Program Office wants to keep them). 3. There is another potential vendor that knows about this pending requirement, but the Program Office said they had a few bad past experiences with them on other procurments and do not want to use them. I have checked the FAR over and over again trying to site some clauses for the sole source justification, posting requirements (publicizing as a Notice of Intent), JOFOC and other than full and open competition. Some parts of the FAR I have been reading are: FAR 5.401 FAR 6.303-1 FAR 6.302 FAR 15.603 What do I actually need as far as documentation and posting requirements? Thank you in advance!
  10. I work for a contractor and we received a solicitation from our Government Customer. We're the incumbent contractor and we're trying to determine if the solicitation is competitive or sole source. I've read FAR Subpart 6.3 Other Than Full and Open Competition to see if there's a requirement by the Government to notify the contractor within the RFP, but this section explains the procedure the Contracting Officer needs to take in order to award a Sole Source contract. Is there an acquisition requirement that for Government Contracting Officers need to mention in the RFP if its competitive or sole source? Thanks. Thanks SNATSMC
  11. Does the multiple award preference at FAR 16.504 apply to sole source awards pursuant to FAR Subpart 19.8? My contracting office has been requested to issue a solicitation sole source to an 8(a) firm for a single award IDIQ services contract. I know that authority for sole source contracts is found at FAR 6.302-5(b )(4) and FAR Subpart 19.8. However, my reading is that for IDIQ contracts, FAR 16.504 still applies. Hence the multiple award preference described FAR 16.504( c) would still apply and as such, in order to pursue a single award IDIQ, the Contracting Officer would have to document the file with a determination that a single award is most appropriate, giving consideration to the content provided at FAR 16.504( c)(1)(ii). The requirements are not for manufacturing, will not exceed $4M total, and are not for advisory and assistance services. My inclination is to push for a competitive procurement, perhaps an 8(a) or other small business set-aside if the market research supports it.
  12. 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...