Jump to content
The Wifcon Forums and Blogs

Guest

IDIQ Socioeconomic

Recommended Posts

Guest

Good Afternoon,

My team is composing an acquisition plan for our IDIQ over SAT acquisition.  We are looking to acquire as many Hubzone, SDVOSB and (ED)WOSB as possible in the IDIQ.

We just discussed using a tier phased evaluation where we would set aside 2-3 slots for each Socioeconomic group.  Our team wants to evaluate only the socioeconomic packages first.  If we are unable to meet our missions requirements then we would allow for small businesses proposals to be reviewed and possibly selected.  Is there any precedence for this practice in an IDIQ solicitation? Is this legitimate per the FAR? 

We have strictly solicited small businesses in the past and had to evaluate 50-75 submittals to only select anywhere from 6-8 vendors.  Our Region also tends to struggle with Hubzone and SDVOSB and this will increase our socioeconomic numbers significantly.

Any guidance would be greatly appreciated.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Streamline CO said:

We are looking to acquire as many Hubzone, SDVOSB and (ED)WOSB as possible in the IDIQ...

Any guidance would be greatly appreciated.

Don't conduct a competition. Just post the contract online, announce what you said you are looking to acquire, and give a contract to every eligible firm that wants one at the prices and rates that they want.

If you doubt the legality of that, then issue a solicitation and award a contract at the offered prices without discussions to every eligible firm that submits an offer that conforms to the material terms of the solicitation. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

13 CFR says something to the effect that you can't use cascading procedures unless you have statutory authority to do so. I'd have to reread it and see exactly what it says about making awards to multiple socio-economic businesses, i just know it's in there somewhere. 

 

Based on your above post i don't think this thread will be here much longer so i'm not going to put anymore effort into this answer.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 7/26/2017 at 0:36 PM, Streamline CO said:

We are looking to acquire as many Hubzone, SDVOSB and (ED)WOSB as possible in the IDIQ.

 

On 7/26/2017 at 5:12 PM, Streamline CO said:

This quote was deleted due to its violation of Forum Rules and the offending ex-member is banned for life.  I apologize Vern.

I was entirely sincere in my recommendations, and if you were clear in your expression of what you want to do, knew anything about contracting, and had any professional imagination whatsoever, then you would know that what I proposed are viable ways to achieve your stated goal--"as many... as possible."

In what way are my suggestions inappropriate, improper, or illegal? You have not thought them through. What I suggested is procedurally not much different than what GSA effectively  does under its FSS program and what agencies sometimes effectively do through broad agency announcements. You would get further capability and price competition at the task order stage. Moreover, the recommendations are virtually protest-proof, assuming that you don't screw up the determinations of eligibility and of conformity with material terms. A big assumption in your case.

So much for innovation from a "streamline" CO. Your "team" will probably waste who knows how much time and taxpayer money reading and rating "technical" proposals looking for best value, only to have to do it again when awarding task orders. Do yourself a favor: Don't try conducting a source selection. As you explained, you have already failed at that. Just tell buyers to use one of the many vehicles already in existence and set orders aside for the socio-economic groups.

Silly person, I gave you free advice that, tweaked by a thoughtful and imaginative professional, could make them a hero in their agency. You rejected it and tried to insult me simply because it has never occurred to you that such approaches could be made to work by a smart CO. Had your last post not been so foul you could have asked me to explain and elaborate. People who can't think and imagine should not attend forums for ideas. Now that I know more about you I am not surprised by your reaction.

You can lead an ass to water...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 7/26/2017 at 5:12 PM, Streamline CO said:

This quote was deleted due to its violation of Forum Rules and the offending ex-member is banned for life.  I apologize Pepe.

u mad, bro?

You might be on the wrong website...4chan is that way! ----->

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 hours ago, Vern Edwards said:

not much different than what GSA effectively  does under its FSS program

Navy SeaPort is/was the same way at least a few years ago.  If the contractor met minimum standards they got a contract.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I believe I deleted all the offending information.  I will not hide the topic at this point.  If someone sees something I missed, please let me know.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I want it on record that I did not request that any action be taken against the offending poster. I did not contact the webmaster about this.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I banned the orignal poster because I saw a clear violation of Forum Rules.  No one asked me take any action.

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

×