ashleyh

Thankyou for your response Vern. Question, after reading the GAO Dec, it states that as the extension was not evaluated as part of the initial competition, a "sole source" justification was required. However the clause itself states that rates cannot be adjusted except for prevailing labor rates. So if you evaluated the base year and any subsequent options (meaning the -9 clause) havent you in essence evaluated the -8 rates? I hope that question makes sense.

Hello, I recently began working for a new agency that requires an approved J&A for exercising the extension clause. My previous Agency did not require this and when I asked why (for my own personal knowledge base), I was just told it is always required unless the pricing was evaluated at time of award. However, per the clause, the 6 month pricing remains the same unless adjusted for prevailing labor rates. Can anyone point me in the right direction on why a J&A is required....

Vern, Thanks for your input. In regards to the inflating of prices, for funding purposes, most KO's just utilize the 3 quotes as market research, and then competitively solicit for quotes (which results in a cheaper price). KOs do have the ability to call/email for quotes via a standard solicitation (wither 1449 or paper combined synopsis/solicitation). The argument here is to skip the step of preparing the solicitation, and just utilize the quotes we already have in order to save time. It just took me be surprise as I have never not solicited (as in provided provisions/clauses, etc), and to me, confirming the low quote isn?t even orally soliciting. But if nothing prohibits from not soliciting then I guess I can argue against the practice. Thanks for your thoughts.

All, As I have stated earlier, I am in a contingency operation (Afghanistan). I would like your thoughts on a common practice that is done here. Our requirement pacakges come in with 3 local quotes (Resource Management mandates the 3 quotes for IGE purposes). Some KOs look at the 3 quotes, have each contract confirm their price, and then award to the low offeror (C3 mandates LPTA). They do not provide a CLIN structure, PWS, etc.The KO states this is an acceptable process under 13.106-1© as an oral solicitation (as long as it is under the SAT which is 1M here). I have grave reservations on awarding in this matter, as the customer who obtains these 3 quotes regualarly go to high contractors (in order to obtain more funds), etc. However, with that said, I have never used this process and am unfamiliar with the process. Based on the scenario I have described, is this an authorized way to solicit (I realize oral solicitations are authorized but is the process in which they orally solicited correct)?

Vern thank you so much for your help. I told the KO that I did not believe it was necessary to state upfront how the competitive range was to be established. However she stated that it had to be included. When I asked why, I was told various GAO decisions? I didnt have a response to that, so I dropped the issue. Anyways, I appreciate your help in this matter.

Thanks all for the reply. My next question would be what if the evaluation instructions do not state how the competitive range would be determined (as we didn?t not anticipate establishing a competitive range)? Is it still appropriate to establish the competitive range? Or must the solicitation be cancelled and re-issued to include that information? i apologize if I am asking rather basic questions. I tend to operate under Part 13 procedures.

I guess my question is it is appropriate to just make a determination when exercising an option rather than utilizing a D&F? Or another example, FAR 5.202 states that a KO may not submit a notice when the KO determines, etc. So does that mean a simple MFR with your determination is sufficient, or a D&F is needed?

I agree in regards to your assessment of discussion vs. clarification. And I wish I would have brought my Cibinic and Nash books, but when I was already toting 5 duffels, I had to limit what I was taking!

This is for a construction contract so would fall under FAR Part 15. I told the KO that I would establish a competitve range. However she feels that competive rangs is only for best value source selections and not appropriate for LPTA. I have never heard that competitive ranges were only for best value/trade off. In regards to the translation, the propsals are in english. The Tech Board feels the error occured when the contractor internally translated the solicitation and then drafted their proposal in english.

Im going to start out by saying im in a contingency environment. Tech evaluations just occured and the source selection is LPTA. All offerors are technically unacceptable except 2 (well, they are the "most" acceptable). However the 2 technically acceptable proposals have statements within their proposals that are confusing that may be a result of the solicitation being translated. 15.101-2((4) states exchanges may occur. Can the Government ask the 2 most acceptable proposals to clarify their proposals without going to the other unacceptable offerors?

I recently sent a modification package to exercise an option to our contract attorney. When I received my legal review of the package our lawyer noted that findings were not needed on my D&F. That 17.207© states that ?the contracting officer may exercise options only after determining? anf that the "findings" are not required. I have never seen this done, and as our lawyer has been our lawyer for the past 10 years and never mentioned this in his previous reviews, I found it somewhat confusing. Any thoughts?

It's just a FFP service contract. I will double check what payment clause is in included.

Ok, so I am adminstering a contract where the contractor (a small business) wants to be able to invoive and be paid bimonthly. We have not problem doing this, but we cant dtermine what clause to use. I have asked 2 KO's and looked in the FAR and cannont determine the clause. I thought prompt payment, but that is for 30 days. Can anyone point me in the right direction? TIA

I wish we could, but legal already has the documents for review. And trust me, I will never make the mistake I made. Lesson learned.

Information as in letter of intent from their PM, proof of insurance, etc.