Jump to content
The Wifcon Forums and Blogs
Don Mansfield

Small Business Participation Plans

Small Business Participation Plans  

9 members have voted

  1. 1. Does the practice of incorporating small business participation plans into contracts (as described below) have either a 1) significant effect beyond the internal operating procedures of the agency or 2) have a significant cost or administrative impact on contractors or offerors?

    • Yes
      6
    • No
      3
  2. 2. Is the practice of incorporating small business participation plans into contracts (as described below) a FAR deviation as defined at FAR 1.401(f)?

    • Yes
      2
    • No
      7
  3. 3. Assuming the small business participation plan is incorporated into either Section H of the contract or the statement of work, is it legally enforceable?

    • Yes
      5
    • No
      4


Recommended Posts

DFARS 215.304(c)(i) requires the use of an evaluation factor for small business participation in DoD source selections meeting specified criteria. Further, DFARS 215.304(c)(i)(B) states:

Quote

Proposals addressing the extent of small business performance shall be separate from subcontracting plans submitted pursuant to the clause at FAR 52.219-9 and shall be structured to allow for consideration of offers from small businesses.

A common technique is to require the submission of a small business performance plan with offers that shows the planned participation for each of the different categories of small business in terms of the total value of the acquisition. The plan is then used to assess small business participation.

Some contracting activities go a step further and incorporate the small business performance plan into the contract as a requirement. That is, the contractor must subcontract in accordance with their small business participation plan--not just make a good faith effort to do so. This requirement is typically incorporated as a local clause in Section H of the contract, or included in the statement of work as a technical requirement.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Regarding question number 1: 

See, for instance,  Fed Register Volume 63 No. 224/Friday November 20, 1998 Pages 64427-64429, the Interim rule, which was adopted as finalized without change.  The rules under 215.314, including evaluating the extent of participation of small businesses and historically black colleges or universities and minority institutions in performance of the contract, were not expected to have a significant economic impact on substantial number of small entities within the meaning of the Regulatory Flexibility Impact Act, etc.  (https://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/FR-1998-11-20/pdf/98-31039.pdf)

Quote

B. Regulatory Flexibility Act This interim rule is not expected to have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities within the meaning of the Regulatory Flexibility Act, 5 U.S.C. 601, et seq., because most of the changes merely conform the DFARS to the FAR rule in FAC 97–07

FAC 97-07, in part (at https://www.acquisition.gov/sites/default/files/archives/loose_leaf/fac97-07.pdf) included this:

Quote

 

15.304 Evaluation factors and significant subfactors. 

(c)  The evaluation factors and significant subfactors that apply to an acquisition and their relative importance, are within the broad discretion of agency acquisition officials, subject to the following requirements: 

...(4) The extent of participation of small disadvantaged business concerns in performance of the contract shall be evaluated in unrestricted acquisitions expected to exceed $500,000 ($1,000,000 for construction) subject to certain limitations (see 19.201 and 19.1202). 

 

Regarding questions 2 and 3: 

Nothing prohibits the KO from incorporating the Small Business Participation Plan into the contract -  to make it enforceable. In fact, 215.304 discusses evaluating the extent to which a firm identifies and commits to use small businesses, etc. in the performance of the contract: 

How would you make it enforceable, when an offeror/proposer identifies and commits to use small businesses and/or specific small businesses in the performance of the contract? 

Note that the offeror isn't necessarily required to identify or commit to specific firms in its plan. For that matter,  how do you make promises of good faith efforts to utilize small businesses under the Small Business Participation Plan mandatory? 

For instance, the Subcontracting Plan is supposed to be incorporated into and made a material part of the contract (See 19.705-5 (a)(4)).

The government may evaluate proposals as stated below and may structure the contract to  make the commitment enforceable:

Quote

215.304 Evaluation factors and significant subfactors. (c)(i) 

...The contracting officer shall evaluate the extent to which offerors identify and commit to small business and historically black college or university and minority institution performance of the contract, whether as a joint venture, teaming arrangement, or subcontractor. (A) Evaluation factors may include— (1) The extent to which such firms are specifically identified in proposals; (2) The extent of commitment to use such firms (for example, enforceable commitments are to be weighted more heavily than non-enforceable ones); (3) The complexity and variety of the work small firms are to perform; (4) The realism of the proposal; (5) Past performance of the offerors in complying with requirements of the clauses at FAR 52.219–8, Utilization of Small, Small Disadvantaged and Women-Owned Small Business Concerns, and 52.219–9, Small, Small Disadvantaged and Women-Owned Small Business Subcontracting Plan; and (6) The extent of participation of such firms in terms of the value of the total acquisition.

To me, a meaningful  "commitment" involves more than flowery intentions stated in a plan.  I would evaluate mandatory commitment(s) much higher than unenforceable intentions. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Vern Edwards
Quote

Does the practice of incorporating small business participation plans into contracts (as described below) have either a 1) significant effect beyond the internal operating procedures of the agency or 2) have a significant cost or administrative impact on contractors or offerors?

That question is vague because "significant effect" and "significant cost or administrative impact" are vague. Because the question is vague, it is foolish to answer it yes or no. At most, such an answer would be merely an expression of unsupported belief in the existence of uncertain states of affairs.

Quote

Is the practice of incorporating small business participation plans into contracts (as described below) a FAR deviation as defined at FAR 1.401(f)?

If it is, then what about incorporation of any other part of an offeror's proposal?

Quote

Assuming the small business participation plan is incorporated into either Section H of the contract or the statement of work, is it legally enforceable?

Regardless of the part of the contract into which the plan is incorporated, its enforceability would depend on its content and the way in which that content is expressed.

Share this post


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

Does the practice of incorporating small business participation plans into contracts (as described below) have either a 1) significant effect beyond the internal operating procedures of the agency or 2) have a significant cost or administrative impact on contractors or offerors?

That question is vague because "significant effect" and "significant cost or administrative impact" are vague. Because the question is vague, it is foolish to answer it yes or no. At most, such an answer would be merely an expression of unsupported belief in the existence of uncertain states of affairs.

Yes, the question is vague. However, I don’t think that it is “foolish to answer” it no.

As people are probably aware, Don has repeatedly challenged instances and questioned whether various government requirements are “legal” and authorized based upon OMB clearances, whether they have significant economic and administrative impact on industry beyond internal  agency procedures, etc., etc.  

In this instance, both the FAR committee and DoD publicized the proposed rules that are described in both FAR 15.304 and DFARS 215.304 (agency implementionnof the FAR rule).  The rules extend the consideration and evaluation of small business participation in the proposed contract to small business primes as well as to those firms who have otherwise been  required to develop small business subcontracting plans. The DFARS publication of the proposed rule included a statement that it wasn’t  considered to have significant administrative or economic impact on the small businesses that were newly required to develop and submit a small business participation plan.

If so, then I would argue that it can be deduced that the rule will not have a significant economic or administrative impact on those large businesses, which already are required to make good faith efforts to plan for and provide opportunities for the various categories of small and small disadvantaged businesses to participate in the contract performance.  It’s likely less impactful on the large businesses than it is on small business proposers. The SB firms weren’t previously required to submit evidence of efforts to provide opportunities for small and small disadvantaged businesses before award nor probably after award.

Considering the above,  I answered question number 1 “no”.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

In observing my overall Army Command’s  level of implementation of the added requirement to consider small business participation for all offerors, whether large or small as well as evaluating past performance of all offerors in this area, whether large or small, it appeared  to be largely ignored. There are probably several reasons for this. 

The FAR and DFARS didn’t provide a cookbook for contracting officers and contract specialists to follow. 

It is challenging for anyone to evaluate past performance of small business primes in utilizing small and small disadvantaged business subcontractors. They haven’t been required to formally plan for or to report such information to the government. [EDIT: small business participation includes self-performance by small business primes or SB joint venture members.]

Program and project managers know even less about the subject than the 1102 community and don’t necessarily care about socioeconomic policy or procedures. 

Many in government acquisition are challenged in reading or thinking past the literal wording in the regulations. 

For instance,  years ago,   we updated the teaching material for the source selection aspects of the life cycle acquisition process for Design-Build Construction in our Proponent Based Training D-B  class to address evaluation of the separate small business participation and past performance for all offerors, large or small. In my opinion, the contracting instructors who were supposed to teach it didn’t get it. Thus, they mostly ignored it and didn’t explain it to the students. 

It would be interesting to learn to what extent the small business participation procedures are really addressed and used in the source selection process. 

In another thread in the WIFCON forum, it was evident to me that some of the regular contributors here have expressed distainment for Part 19 implementation of official government policy concerning small business contracting and subcontracting.

And, in this thread, it appears to me that Don Mansfield may be questioning whether the policy is authorized or legal and whether incorporating those aspects of an offerors proposal into the contract is enforceable. I was assuming that his was the first vote. I may be wrong. If so, I apologize. 

 

Edited by joel hoffman
[EDIT: small business participation includes self-performance by small business primes or SB joint venture members.]

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Evaluating a plan makes sense. 

Making a performance plan a performance part of a contract is redundant  due to the fact that a subcontracting plan is already required.  Requirement of the performance plan is not lawful under the DFARS as the DFARS only requires submission of a performance plan to determine the acceptability of the subcontracting plan that is required by a clause to be provided.  It is a evaluation technique demanded by the DFARS not a contractual requirement demanded by the DFARS.  

A CO demanding that the performance plan be a part of contract performance is just plain crazy.  Makes me wonder what I would be in contractual violation of if I did not accomplish my subcontracting goals, the performance plan or the subcontracting plan.    Sheesh!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 9/11/2018 at 8:23 AM, C Culham said:

Evaluating a plan makes sense. 

Making a performance plan a performance part of a contract is redundant  due to the fact that a subcontracting plan is already required.  Requirement of the performance plan is not lawful under the DFARS as the DFARS only requires submission of a performance plan to determine the acceptability of the subcontracting plan that is required by a clause to be provided.  It is a evaluation technique demanded by the DFARS not a contractual requirement demanded by the DFARS.  

A CO demanding that the performance plan be a part of contract performance is just plain crazy.  Makes me wonder what I would be in contractual violation of if I did not accomplish my subcontracting goals, the performance plan or the subcontracting plan.    Sheesh!

Carl, the plan for small business participation applies to all offerors including those not required to provide a subcontracting plan.  [EDIT: small business participation includes self-performance by small business primes or SB joint venture members. The SB prime may include its own participation in contract performance.]

It is a separate requirement and appears to go beyond the generic subcontracting plan by considering every offeror’s plan to actually identify and commit to using SB/SDB’s as well as considering their past performance (not an enforceable aspect of a proposal nor necessarily even part of a proposal, of course). The policy states that enforceable commitments should carry more weight in the evaluation.  There is a difference between “we intend to use Jo Blow as the refrigeration and air conditioning sub” and “we will use Joe Blow as...” or Joe Blow will be our R&A/C sub”. 

How do you make something “enforceable” without incorporating it into the contract?  

By the way, the separate subcontracting plan for large business primes is supposed to be incorporated into the contract, as I stated earlier.

 The use of contract requirements that require a contractor to use subs that it identified in its (negotiated) proposal isn’t a new concept.  See, for instance 52.244-4 “Subcontractors and Outside Associates and Consultants” (A-E Services)  For design-build construction contracts, we’ve used similarly worded clauses for nearly 30 years. These clauses do allow for approval of justifiable substitutions of those key personnel or key subs that it identified in its proposal..   

Edited by joel hoffman
[EDIT: small business participation includes self-performance by small business primes or SB joint venture members.]

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Joel,

Rather than incorporating the entire small business participation plan into the contract, the Government could simply incorporate those aspects of the plan that drove the selection decision -- in your example, a special contract requirement could be written in the bilateral contract to capture the commitment:  "The Contractor agrees that all refrigeration and air conditioning work will be subcontracted to Joe Blow Inc."  Or, this could be captured in a unilateral contract award if the solicitation included a statement that the Government may incorporate any aspect of the offeror's proposal into the resulting contract.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 hours ago, joel hoffman said:

See, for instance,  Fed Register Volume 63 No. 224/Friday November 20, 1998 Pages 64427-64429, the Interim rule, which was adopted as finalized without change.  The rules under 215.314, including evaluating the extent of participation of small businesses and historically black colleges or universities and minority institutions in performance of the contract, were not expected to have a significant economic impact on substantial number of small entities within the meaning of the Regulatory Flexibility Impact Act, etc.  (https://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/FR-1998-11-20/pdf/98-31039.pdf)

joel,

There are a lot of acquisition rules that meet the standards for publication and comment (41 U.S.C. 1707) but do not meet the standards for having "a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities within the meaning of the Regulatory Flexibility Act." As an avid reader of FAR/DFARS rules, I would say about half the time the entry under the "Regulatory Flexibility Act" section says that the rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities..." The fact that such rules are published for comment suggests that the FAR Councils/DAR Council believed that they meet the standards at 41 U.S.C. 1707. Why else would they publish them?

Having said that, the questions posed don't relate to the evaluation of small business participation in source selection. They have to do with incorporation of the small business participation plan in the contract. This is not covered in the FAR or DFARS.

13 hours ago, joel hoffman said:

How would you make it enforceable, when an offeror/proposer identifies and commits to use small businesses and/or specific small businesses in the performance of the contract? 

An enforceable commitment could be a subcontract with a small business that was contingent on the prime winning the award. This could have more weight than a nonbinding teaming agreement with a small business, for example.

 

13 hours ago, joel hoffman said:

Note that the offeror isn't necessarily required to identify or commit to specific firms in its plan. For that matter,  how do you make promises of good faith efforts to utilize small businesses under the Small Business Participation Plan mandatory?

What makes you think you have to?

 

11 hours ago, Vern Edwards said:

That question is vague because "significant effect" and "significant cost or administrative impact" are vague. Because the question is vague, it is foolish to answer it yes or no.

How does one apply 41 U.S.C. 1707 without answering those questions?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 9/11/2018 at 12:55 PM, Don Mansfield said:

Having said that, the questions posed don't relate to the evaluation of small business participation in source selection. They have to do with incorporation of the small business participation plan in the contract. This is not covered in the FAR or DFARS.

So,  what prohibits the government from incorporating it in the negotiated contract? FAR 1.102 (d) would seem to be applicable  and appropriate here if it isn’t covered or prohibited by FAR or DFARS or in violation of law or regulation and is in the best interest of the government. 

Are you saying that incorporating aspects of a proposal in a contract must first be publicized in compliance with 41 USC 1707 because the specific act of “incorporating” the otherwise validly required small business participation plan has a significant effect beyond the internal operating procedures of the Agencyand/or  has a significant cost or administrative impact on contractors or offerors?  

So, the poll questions here don’t pertain to the cost or administrative impacts involved for large and small business proposers to prepare and submit the small business participation plan.

It’s clear that those procedures and requirements were already publicized , comments considered and finalized years ago. 

I’m trying to understand what significant cost or administrative impact  it would have for the contractor to actually do what it said it would do in its proposal.  

Are you saying that the impact of incorporating a small business participation plan that identifies specific subs is that the contractor can propose something (and price it in its proposal) but then is not allowed to bid shop for subcontractors after award?  [EDIT: small business participation includes self-performance by small business primes or SB joint venture members. The SB prime may include its own participation in contract performance.]

Anti-bid shopping rules are not uncommon in federal, state or local public contracting.  Bid shopping is not in the public’s interest.  The buyer gains nothing from bid shopping and the subcontracting community suffers from it. 

[An example of bid shopping is where a prime obtained bids or proposals from a sub or subs during its proposal preparation. Then, after award, the prime went shopping for lower prices, and/or pressured the sub or multiple subs to lower their prices or be replaced by other firm(s) at lower prices. Primes often reveal the price-to-beat to others. It’s like reverse bidding/auctioning.  

[EDIT: small business participation includes self-performance by small business primes or SB joint venture members.]

Edited by joel hoffman
[EDIT: small business participation includes self-performance by small business primes or SB joint venture members.]

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, joel hoffman said:

So,  what prohibits the government from incorporating it in the negotiated contract? FAR 1.102 (d) would seem to be applicable  and appropriate here if it isn’t covered or prohibited by FAR or DFARS or in violation of law or regulation and is in the best interest of the government. 

Are you saying that incorporating aspects of a proposal in a contract must first be publicized in compliance with 41 USC 1707 because the specific act of “incorporating” the otherwise validly required small business participation plan has a significant effect beyond the internal operating procedures of the Agencyand/or  has a significant cost or administrative impact on contractors or offerors?  I’m trying to understand what significant cost or administrative impact that would have. 

joel,

I don't want to take a position in this thread until the poll is over. I just wanted to take a poll. You've added your logic and reasoning, which is better than just voting--thanks. I will answer your questions. 

Share this post


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

Because the question is vague, it is foolish to answer it yes or no.

You just had to go and ruin my sample. Now I will only get responses from people who don't care what you think. Thanks for that.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

One last thought.  The government may incorporate all or part of the proposal into the contract (yes, agreed, ji20874).  

How did I get sucked into justifying that?  

Don clarified today that this forum poll and initial discussion was only about incorporating part of a proposal into the contract. I had thought that it was also about the process for requiring proposers to prepare and submit the information As I have explained, that is clearly authorized.

Game over.  

Share this post


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

How does one apply 41 U.S.C. 1707 without answering those questions?

@Don Mansfield  You can't. You must define "effect" and "significant," argue for the reasonableness of your definitions and then make a claim based on evidence.

What is the effect? What caused it? In what sense is the effect significant?

That's what you would have to do if you went to court to block a regulation or to the GAO to protest a solicitation that you claim has a significant effect.

The phrase "significant effect" appears frequently in statute. Here is how one circuit court of appeals addressed the question of "significant effect" as used in the National Environmental Policy Act, 42 U.S.C. § 4321.

Quote

“Whether there may be a significant effect on the environment requires consideration of two broad factors: ‘context and intensity.’ ” Nat'l Parks & Conservation Ass'n, 241 F.3d at 731 (quoting 40 C.F.R. § 1508.27). A number of factors should be considered in evaluating intensity, including, “[t]he degree to which the proposed action affects public health or safety,” “[t]he degree to which the effects on the quality of the human environment are likely to be highly controversial,” “[t]he degree to which the possible effects on the human environment are highly uncertain or involve unique or unknown risks,” “[t]he degree to which the action may establish a precedent for future actions with significant effects or represents a decision in principle about a future consideration,” “[w]hether the action is related to other actions with individually insignificant but cumulatively significant impacts,” and “[t]he degree to which the action may adversely affect an endangered or threatened species or its habitat.” 40 C.F.R. § 1508.27(b)(2), (4), (5), (6), (7), (9). An action may be “significant” if one of these factors is met. Ocean Advocates v. U.S. Army Corps of Eng'rs, 361 F.3d 1108, 1125 (9th Cir.2004); see also Nat'l Parks & Conservation Ass'n, 241 F.3d at 731 (either degree of uncertainty or controversy “may be sufficient to require preparation of an EIS in appropriate circumstances.”).

Ctr. for Biological Diversity v. Nat'l Highway Traffic Safety Admin., 538 F.3d 1172, 1220 (9th Cir. 2008)

Moreover, to a thinking person, the question about significant effect will turn in some measure on the nature of the "plan." Such a plan might be no more than a one or two page summary of planned participation, with some company names and brief references to SOW tasks. Then again, such a plan might be ten pages or longer. Who knows. "Significant effect"? But the thread OP provides no description of the plan on which the question is based.

The first question posed in this thread can do nothing more than elicit unsupported expressions of on-the-spot belief from most people, who probably have not thought things through. That's fine, if that's all you want, but that's why, in my judgment, it would be foolish to take a yes or no stance based on the scenario. This "poll" does not call for critical thinking, just gut reaction. I understand that about person-in-the-street political polls, but why do you want that from professionals? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Vern Edwards
9 hours ago, Don Mansfield said:

You just had to go and ruin my sample. Now I will only get responses from people who don't care what you think. Thanks for that.

@Don Mansfield Statistically speaking, what random "sample" size did you expect? What sample size do you need? The pool of people who don't care what I think ought to be large enough to draw from.

However, people who answer yes or no may not do much thinking, one way or another.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This is an interesting question because PepeTheFrog has seen presentation slides and heard presentations from DOD federal frogs who say incorporating the small business participation plan is a "best practice." In other words, they evangelize the entire DOD contracting workforce to do this. They are adamant that this is a good idea and everyone should do it. These evangelizing DOD federal frogs are typically the small business or SADBU specialists (frogs that mostly deal with the DD2579 and meeting with small businesses, for instance), not contracting officers.

@Don Mansfield Have you ever confronted a small business or SADBU frog about this potential conflict with the Regulatory Flexibility Act or other statutes? If so, what do they say?

Have you ever brought this up to any frogs in Defense Pricing and Contracting (formerly DPAP)? If so, what do they say?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
21 hours ago, PepeTheFrog said:

This is an interesting question because PepeTheFrog has seen presentation slides and heard presentations from DOD federal frogs who say incorporating the small business participation plan is a "best practice." In other words, they evangelize the entire DOD contracting workforce to do this. They are adamant that this is a good idea and everyone should do it. These evangelizing DOD federal frogs are typically the small business or SADBU specialists (frogs that mostly deal with the DD2579 and meeting with small businesses, for instance), not contracting officers.

@Don Mansfield Have you ever confronted a small business or SADBU frog about this potential conflict with the Regulatory Flexibility Act or other statutes? If so, what do they say?

Have you ever brought this up to any frogs in Defense Pricing and Contracting (formerly DPAP)? If so, what do they say?

Pepe, what is the potential conflict with RFA of incorporating the Small business participation plan? Keep in mind that the requirement for the plan itself was properly publicized, comments sought, received and finalized...

[EDIT: small business participation includes self-performance by small business primes or SB joint venture members. The SB prime may include its own participation in contract performance.]

Edited by joel hoffman
[EDIT: small business participation includes self-performance by small business primes or SB joint venture members. The SB prime may include its own participation in contract performance.]

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On ‎9‎/‎11‎/‎2018 at 6:33 AM, joel hoffman said:

Carl, the plan for small business subcontracting participation applies to all offerors including those not required to provide a subcontracting plan.

Joel - Exactly why the DoD want to place a performance plan in a contract is rubbish.   I am a small business,  if 52.219-9 is in a solicitation that I am responding to its very language says the clause is not applicable to my company but the DoD wants to evaluate my use of small businesses, okay that is fine.   But then wants to go one step further and incorporate my performance plan in my contract even when the subcontracting plan is not required?

I say go back to the original clauses of the FAR make CO's stand up and enforce the whole of them ( have you read FAR 52.219-16) and utilize what is given to CO's to enforce plans for large businesses.  

The "best practice" of DoD on this issue is administrative foolishness! 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
21 hours ago, C Culham said:

Joel - Exactly why the DoD want to place a performance plan in a contract is rubbish.   I am a small business,  if 52.219-9 is in a solicitation that I am responding to its very language says the clause is not applicable to my company but the DoD wants to evaluate my use of small businesses, okay that is fine.   But then wants to go one step further and incorporate my performance plan in my contract even when the subcontracting plan is not required?

I say go back to the original clauses of the FAR make CO's stand up and enforce the whole of them ( have you read FAR 52.219-16) and utilize what is given to CO's to enforce plans for large businesses.  

The "best practice" of DoD on this issue is administrative foolishness! 

Carl, 52.219-16 and 52.219-9 are inapplicable to small business primes. 

For small businesses, DoD is only supposed to evaluate the extent of small business participation as an evaluation factor or subfactor, not a Subcontracting Plan. 

For large business that information is supposed to be incorporated into their subcontracting plan, which is supposed to be incorporated into the contract. 

Are you being required to submit a Subcontracting Plan? 

I hope not.   

Edit:  What information are they requiring you to submit for the source selection competition to evaluate the extent of planned small business participation? 

[EDIT: small business participation includes self-performance by small business primes or SB joint venture members. The SB prime may include its own participation in contract performance.]

Edited by joel hoffman
[EDIT: small business participation includes self-performance by small business primes or SB joint venture members. The SB prime may include its own participation in contract performance.]

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Vern Edwards

Is there any reason why an agency cannot comply with the DFARS requirement by evaluating the extent of participation on an acceptable/unacceptable basis? No plan would be required---just a list of proposed participants keyed to SOW tasks. Percentages of participation could be based on subcontract proposal prices. The acceptability threshold for participation could be stated as a percentage of total contract value. That amount could be based on a determination by the CO based on a recommendation by the SADBUS.

Could proposed participation could be incorporated into the contract with a special clause containing a table that lists small business participants keyed to SOW task numbers? The clause could read:

The Contractor promises to include the following small business firms as participants in its performance of this contract. Table column headings:

PARTICIPANT      SOW TASK(S) IN WHICH PARTICIPATION OCCURS     ESTIMATED SUBCONTRACT VALUE

 

The clause could go on to say that actual participation within +/- X percent of the estimated subcontract value would be acceptable.

 

Share this post


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

The first question posed in this thread can do nothing more than elicit unsupported expressions of on-the-spot belief from most people, who probably have not thought things through. That's fine, if that's all you want, but that's why, in my judgment, it would be foolish to take a yes or no stance based on the scenario.

Fine, but that's not what you wrote. You said that answering was foolish because the question contained the vague terms "significant effect" and "significant cost or administrative impact".

On 9/10/2018 at 10:34 PM, Vern Edwards said:

That question is vague because "significant effect" and "significant cost or administrative impact" are vague. Because the question is vague, it is foolish to answer it yes or no.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Vern Edwards
7 minutes ago, Don Mansfield said:

Fine, but that's not what you wrote. You said that answering was foolish because the question contained the vague terms "significant effect" and "significant cost or administrative impact".

That's not what I wrote. What I wrote was that answering the question yes or no would be foolish because the phrases "significant effect" and "significant cost or administrative impact" are vague.

On 9/11/2018 at 7:34 AM, Vern Edwards said:

That question is vague because "significant effect" and "significant cost or administrative impact" are vague. Because the question is vague, it is foolish to answer it yes or no.

You could have defined them for the purposes of the poll or provided a scenario in which you described an effect and impact.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Vern Edwards

@Don Mansfield

You mentioned "sample".

What is your population?

What did you hope to learn about that population?

What is the population size?

What sample size did you hope to get?

Do you think the sample would have been randomly selected? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, Vern Edwards said:

Is there any reason why an agency cannot comply with the DFARS requirement by evaluating the extent of participation on an acceptable/unacceptable basis? No plan would be required---just a list of proposed participants keyed to SOW tasks. Percentages of participation could be based on subcontract proposal prices.

Could proposed participation could be incorporated into the contract with a special clause listing small business participants keyed to SOW task numbers?

 

Vern, The  Notice in the Fed Register stated, for Large Businesses, the evaluated information is to be incorporated into the subcontracting plan for large businesses. I presume that is after evaluation of the subfactor.

I think that go/no rating of the extent of participation would be problematic.

The language states that the government will evaluate the extent of the planned participation, including the extent to which firms are identified, the relative extent of overall subcontracting, extent of commitment,  overall variety and complexity of the work,  overall share of total contract value, etc. it also says that enforceable commitments shall be weighted more heavily. 

These appear to be comparative evaluation criteria.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.

×
×
  • Create New...