Jump to content
The Wifcon Forums and Blogs

Recommended Posts

@FrankJon   I sometimes forget myself but when researching a need a search of the WIFCON archives can be very useful.   One of the suggestions of the Forum is look first and ask questions later.  On this note I am providing this post blast from the past to add to your research effort.

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 69
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Don, I don't know if the DEA contracting officer cited an exception to synopsizing the purchases under the BPAs -- but the contracting officer apparently did synopsize the BPAs, even though synopsis is not required for establishing BPAs -- and the GAO seemed to think that that synopsis was adequate to cover the purchases under it.  That was a great decision, don't you think?

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

 Yes, we think so, but our contract type may not be appropriate (we'll likely need FP-EPA or FP-PPR). And the same ordering difficulties would exist as mentioned above.

 

Ok, based on the information so far I would go GSA if market research showed a good pool of vendors on Schedule.  Pick some vendors, prepare an RFQ describing your approach, and use a simple selection process.  Describe your goals in the RFQ and let offerors propose the need pricing.  The Schedule contracts allow for EPA as do orders.

https://interact.gsa.gov/wiki/can-order-prices-be-escalated-task-order

Develop an easy method of ordering.  You can ask vendors as part of market research for their ideas as well.  Or you can say about half of the work goes to each company.

GSA is quick, easy, no synopsis, and you pick the sources solicited.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I assume you're talking about establishing a BPA, although it wasn't stated. I don't see how the following could work:

3 minutes ago, formerfed said:

Or you can say about half of the work goes to each company.

Since orders are over the SAT I'll need to comply with the competitive procedures at 8.405(c)(2)(iii).

Otherwise, yes, there appears to be some potential.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
40 minutes ago, FrankJon said:

I think I’d be limited to the SAT unfortunately. I have no supplementary regulation beyond the DFARS. That doesn’t offer a higher threshold in this case. 

DoD contracting activities can also go up to $7.5 million (I said $7 million earlier, but that threshold was raised).

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, FrankJon said:

I think I’d be limited to the SAT unfortunately. I have no supplementary regulation beyond the DFARS. That doesn’t offer a higher threshold in this case. 

 

1 hour ago, ji20874 said:

DoD contracting activities can also go up to $7.5 million (I said $7 million earlier, but that threshold was raised).

FrankJon,

You are wearing everyone’s patience thin here.  Apparently you are more interested in finding reasons why you can’t do something than how you can.  Ji20874 offered you a very feasible approach citing the FAR authority concerning BPAs and a sufficiently high call limit. You countered that the DFARS doesn’t provide that higher threshold.  In case you didn’t know, FAR rules.  DFARS supplements the FAR.  If the FAR says it’s okay, do it.

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

 

FrankJon,

You are wearing everyone’s patience thin here.  Apparently you are more interested in finding reasons why you can’t do something than how you can.  Ji20874 offered you a very feasible approach citing the FAR authority using BPAs and a sufficiently high call limit. You countered that the DFARS doesn’t provide that higher threshold.  In case you didn’t know, FAR rules.  DFARS supplements the FAR.  If the FAR says it’s okay, do it.

Wow formerfed! That came out of left field! My interpretation of FAR 13.305(b) is apparently different than yours. It’s a shame you’re so irked by that. I started this topic in a much different place and thought it was over more than once until other approaches were brought up. I enjoyed the open flow of alternate ideas but I didn’t come here asking for them. And I remain optimistic about the possibility of employing the multiple award requirements approach, which I learned a lot about. 
 

1 hour ago, formerfed said:

If the FAR says it’s okay, do it.

This is an utterly absurd statement by the way. I wonder how much thought you gave it before typing it. 
 

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

FrankJon,

I apologize for the way I came across.  Wifcon is a place to learn and share ideas and I posted against that concept.  But some of your thoughts reflect  inexperience and a lack of understanding.  You need to digest and analyze the suggestions of experts like Don and ji20874 rather than just doubting what they say.  They are coming from positions of successful experience.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Formerfed: Apology accepted, but I would respectfully disagree with your characterization of how I consider the information shared on here. For instance the idea of a pre-competed BPA raised by Don and Carl is new and very interesting to me. I don’t merely disagree to be contrarian; rather I try to provide reasonable interpretations of often ambiguously-written text (in this case, 13.305(b)). If that shows inexperience then I have a hard time imagining what experience in this business looks like. If that annoys you then perhaps another hobby is in order. All due respect to ji, but s/he takes a famously flexible view of FAR language (to the envy of many) and is not infallible. 

I recall earlier in this discussion revealing scholarly information about multiple award requirements contracts that was not known to many and that supported my initial ideas.

I also found a former post by one of the “Old Guard” at Wifcon supporting my view that DOD may lack the authority to issue calls above the SAT. 

So it seems at least possible that my individual findings and interpretations bring some value to this forum, despite the views of more seasoned professionals. I think one should and can do both things at Wifcon: critically question ideas while recognizing the enhanced value of the “Old Guard’s” input. 

I do hope that your counterparts haven’t also found my posts to be dismissive. It certainly is never my intent here. 

Edited by FrankJon
“Old Guard” = Those who have been around Wifcon for a decade or more...certainly not a reference to anyone’s age!
Link to post
Share on other sites

FrankJon,

I am surprised that the DFARS does not give you the flexibility that the FAR is willing to allow.  All the talk within DoD about streamlining and 809 panel recommendations and so forth are just hot air if they haven't already tended to business such as doing what FAR 13.303-5(b) already allows.

Maybe you can make that recommendation and get an award for it?  All those generals and SES's say they want ideas, so here is a simple one of just doing what the FAR already allows!   

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

BPA raised by Don and Carl

Just an example.   At the US Forest Service they had a vehicle, an EERA (Emergency Equipment Rental Agreement) that was challenged as it did not fit FAR principles nor its use allowed for competition.  Simply write a EERA with contractor then use them on an incident when you pleased.  The Forest Service then studied and through the GAO decisions posted  the with links in this thread came up with an Incident Blanket Purchase Agreement (IBPA).  They solicit annually the establishment of IBPA's then established hundreds of IBPA's and then use an allocation system called VIPR to award calls against the IBPAs.  In VIPR even though they call it "solicit" the system queries availability of those holding an IBPA as one of the allocation systems tick points to then chose a contractor for an order.  VIPR uses other things like geographic location, price, etc.   VIPR was developed as an allocation system to avoid the simple alternating of orders.   All circling back to my concern voiced early on in this thread in structuring a a multiple award requirements contract with definitive process of placing orders rather than just an alternating process.  

Here is a link about IBPA's and VIPR.

https://www.fs.fed.us/business/incident/vipr.php?tab=tab_d

The link to the referenced OIG Audit findings in the above link does not work......but this one does.

https://www.fs.usda.gov/sites/default/files/2019-05/08601-40.fd_.fs__0.pdf

Link to post
Share on other sites
37 minutes ago, ji20874 said:

Maybe you can make that recommendation and get an award for it?  All those generals and SES's say they want ideas, so here is a simple one of just doing what the FAR already allows!   

PS - Exactly what USDA-FS did with regard to IBPA's.  Did not change the whole of the AGAR but did get approval for the specific IBPA vehicle.   Maybe @FrankJon takes a small bite of the apple for the specific need as an innovative idea to help prove that a wholesale change be implemented in the DFARS that takes the limitation to the commercial item threshold of $7.5 million when the need is determined to be a commercial item.

Link to post
Share on other sites

FrankJon, looking back through the replies, your initial thoughts may work. You haven’t mentioned what are the differentiators among offerors doing this work bu I assume price is important.  You might be concerned about criticism giving a big share of the work to a higher priced offeror.  That’s assuming the other factors aren’t a big consideration.

If it were me, I might structure an award process where a lower priced offeror might get a larger share.  For example, one company gets 60% or 70% of the work.  Just something more to think about.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


×
×
  • Create New...