contractor100 Posted June 21, 2021 Report Share Posted June 21, 2021 Agency has released an RFP requiring bidders to have been awarded a specific SIN on a specific MAS schedule. Two companies want to form a CTA to respond. Company 1 has been awarded the MAS schedule in question, but has NOT been awarded that SIN. Company 2 has not. Some say that's okay, because GSA wants to increase "total solutions" on schedule by allowing CTAs to cross SINs. Others (me included) say that each company must be capable of receiving an award, and if a condition of the award is that awardee have been awarded the specific SIN, Company 2 is not eligible for award. What does anyone think? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
formerfed Posted June 22, 2021 Report Share Posted June 22, 2021 It doesn’t matter what anyone here says. It’s the agency CO that matters. Ask them. I agree it doesn’t make sense to restrict competition to a specific SIN. But if that’s what the agency CO says, you are fighting an uphill battle. Also see this https://www.gao.gov/products/b-409888 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ji20874 Posted June 22, 2021 Report Share Posted June 22, 2021 1 hour ago, formerfed said: It doesn’t matter what anyone here says. It’s the agency CO that matters. Ask them. That's right! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vern Edwards Posted June 22, 2021 Report Share Posted June 22, 2021 6 hours ago, contractor100 said: Company 1 has been awarded the MAS schedule in question, but has NOT been awarded that SIN. Company 2 has not. Are you saying that neither company has been awarded the SIN? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
joel hoffman Posted June 22, 2021 Report Share Posted June 22, 2021 11 hours ago, formerfed said: I agree it doesn’t make sense to restrict competition to a specific SIN. Why do you say that? If the agency is purchasing a specific product under a SIN, would you say that firms that don’t have a GSA contract for that SIN should be able to compete? The link that you provided is an example of why not. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
contractor100 Posted June 22, 2021 Author Report Share Posted June 22, 2021 sorry for the typo, Vern, Company 1 has the SIN. Company 2 does not. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
formerfed Posted June 22, 2021 Report Share Posted June 22, 2021 12 hours ago, joel hoffman said: Why do you say that? If the agency is purchasing a specific product under a SIN, would you say that firms that don’t have a GSA contract for that SIN should be able to compete? The link that you provided is an example of why not. Why restrict the range of possible approach’s? What’s the benefit? You conceivably exclude a better or lowered priced offer. What I said is there’s no requirement to specify a SIN. But if you do, offerors must be compliant. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vern Edwards Posted June 22, 2021 Report Share Posted June 22, 2021 1 hour ago, contractor100 said: sorry for the typo, Vern, Company 1 has the SIN. Company 2 does not. Roger. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
.gif)
Recommended Posts