Search the Community
Showing results for tags 'subcontracting plan'.
Found 4 results
I am looking for someone's interpretation of the difference between a socio-economic plan and Small Business subcontracting plan? I understand that the small business subcontracting plan follows FAR 19.7 and after it is submitted with a proposal, it will be incorporated as part of the contract. The Socio-Economic Plan is submitted as part of a technical proposal but it is not added as an attachment to the awarded contract. "The Offer shall provide a socio-economic plan and provide targets, expressed as percentages of total contract value, for small businesses, small disadvantaged businesses, women-owned small businesses, veteran-owned small businesses, service-disabled veteran-owned small businesses, and HUBZone small businesses in any of the North American Industry Classification System (NAICS) Major Groups as determined by the Department of Commerce. The targets may provide for participation by a prime contractor, joint venture partner, teaming arrangement member, or subcontractor. Targets will be incorporated into and become part of any resultant contract." Is the SE plan simply a regurgitation of the SB Subcontracting Plan since the SB Subcontracting Plan is simply not part of the evaluation criteria? Or is the SE Plan a deeper dive into the SB Subk Plan - meaning the methodology/approach etc to select the subs?
FAR 19.702(a) says "(a) Except as stated in paragraph (b)of this section, Section 8(d) of the Small Business Act (15 U.S.C. 637(d)) imposes the following requirements regarding subcontracting with small businesses and small business subcontracting plans: (1) In negotiated acquisitions, each solicitation of offers to perform a contract or contract modification, that individually is expected to exceed $650,000 ($1.5 million for construction) and that has subcontracting possibilities, shall require the apparently successful offeror to submit an acceptable subcontracting plan. If the apparently successful offeror fails to negotiate a subcontracting plan acceptable to the contracting officer within the time limit prescribed by the contracting officer, the offeror will be ineligible for award. 15USC637(d)(4) states "(b)Before the award of any contract to be let, or any amendment or modification to any contract let, by any Federal agency which— (i) is to be awarded, or was let, pursuant to the negotiated method of procurement, (ii) is required to include the clause stated in paragraph (3), (iii) may exceed $1,000,000 in the case of a contract for the construction of any public facility, or $500,000 [NOTE: FDS does not have latest threshold version] in the case of all other contracts, and (iv) which offers subcontracting possibilities, the apparent successful offeror shall negotiate with the procurement authority a subcontracting plan which incorporates the information prescribed in paragraph (6). The subcontractingplan shall be included in and made a material part of the contract." In the case of a representation of a firm from small to large/"other than small" when exercising an option for a GSA schedule contract exceeding $650K in value, it would seem clear, at least to me, that feds would be responsible for requiring a subk plan in order to execute the modification. However, this does not appear to be the case according to GSA's policy office and the FPDS FAQ and answer below: "If I have a rerepresentation that means I should ask the vendor to submit a new subcontracting plan and should be able to change my answer to subcontracting plan in FPDS correct?No. The terms and conditions of the contract have not changed as a result of the rerepresentation." I'm not surprised that FPDS mirrors GSA policy since GSA administers the FPDS website. But, in my opinion, GSA's policy is contrary to FAR and the statutory requirements. Any thoughts? [Note: The contracts do include the FAR 52.219-8 clause, are negotiated, and are to be performed in U.S.]
babs2523 posted a topic in Small Business, Socioeconomic ProgramsI 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.)
nebraska posted a topic in Subcontracts & Subcontract ManagementHey guys: My company has prepared a Master Subcontracting Plan (our first), but we want to get it approved before any contracts require a plan so that we can focus strictly on the goal aspect at that time rather than the entire plan (sort of the point of the Master as far as I can tell). Anyone have any idea who or where we are to send this to for approval? If on a specific contract I would assume we would work toward approval with the CO, but being a blanket Master plan, I do not really know if this should be going to the SBA, or to CMS (our main customer), or someplace else. Any contact information would be helpful. I was under the impression we could get a Master Plan approved for 3 years rather than doing individual plans on each contract.....and once again, my local PCR was not very helpful and I am not sure who represents us here in Nebraska as a CMR, so I have attempted to reach out to the SBA itself. Thanks again for taking the time to assist!