Jump to content
The Wifcon Forums and Blogs

Recommended Posts

Can anyone recommend one over the other? The pros, cons of both. I have a requirement for IT advisory services, which is available through both vehicles. I have experience with GSA not NITAAC.

Thanks in advance.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

From the contractor side---

NITAAC is typically easier to work with, GSA can be difficult. Pricing should be similar, and the fee from NITAAC is less. Cant speak to the customer side.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Depends on whether FAR 8 or FAR 16 makes is easier to execute for you.  FAR 8 is typically easier and gives wide berth to the CO so long as you understand what is and is not required.  Pricing is likely to be comparable.  Agencies pay a fee to use NITAAC but they don't under Schedules.  That comes from industry.  Same structure under SEWP.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, jonmjohnson said:

Depends on whether FAR 8 or FAR 16 makes is easier to execute for you.  FAR 8 is typically easier and gives wide berth to the CO so long as you understand what is and is not required.  Pricing is likely to be comparable.  Agencies pay a fee to use NITAAC but they don't under Schedules.  That comes from industry.  Same structure under SEWP.

Neither 8.4 nor 16.5 impose the procedural burdens seen in 15.3. Both give one the chance to focus on getting the best deal for the customer vice on competitive ranges, the content of exchanges and final proposal revisions.

I believe that NITAAC's fee is .65% with a max of $150,000 and that the contractors' schedule prices are increased by an Industrial Funding Fee of .75%. The contractors pay the fee quarterly to GSA.

  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

NASA SEWP is where the majority of the COs in my agency go for anything IT related. We are just not that familiar with NITAAC.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
19 hours ago, napolik said:

Neither 8.4 nor 16.5 impose the procedural burdens seen in 15.3. Both give one the chance to focus on getting the best deal for the customer vice on competitive ranges, the content of exchanges and final proposal revisions.

I believe that NITAAC's fee is .65% with a max of $150,000 and that the contractors' schedule prices are increased by an Industrial Funding Fee of .75%. The contractors pay the fee quarterly to GSA.

  

NITAAC has a few GWACS but all 3 have fees paid by the government. CIO-CS is .35%, SEWP in .39% GSA is .75%. None are paid directly by the government, but industry includes that cost. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Schedule orders of any size may be protested at GAO.

Schedules 70, 84, others, allow for the purchase of solutions including both product and services; GWACs tend to be for one or the other. Schedule CTAs provide additional flexibility.

The universe of MAS contract holders is much larger than any other contract.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×