contractor100

Very very helpful, thanks to all!

My IOA says that the Price Reduction Clause will not be triggered if the item I sell has a different name than the item listed in the BOA. Example: I am a caterer and I have a labor catgory called "Waiter." The description of the LCAT in the contract says: "Waiter: Over 18 years old, HS graduate, two years' experience as a waiter." I sold the following items to a commercial client: "Waiter I: Over 18 years old, HS graduate, two years' experience as a waiter. " "Waiter II; Over 18 years old, HS graduate, three years' experience as a waiter " "Waiter III: Over 18 years old, four years' experience as a waiter." The IOA says that any discount for "Waiter I" would not trigger the PRC, because "Waiter I" and "Waiter" are not the same item. Because they have different names. She also states that this is the official policy of GSA. Can it be this easy? I remember GSA at one time had a posting on their website that said renaming an item that was substantially similar would not evade the PRC. Anyone else remember that or know of an official statement from GSA on the issue? Thanks to all

I am relying on the contracts clauses link on my schedule on GSA elibrary. 52.232-37 is the only payments clause listed. In times past, 52.212-4 was in GSA contracts. It is not in this contract, I am reading 52.232-37 to mean that the ordering agency must include payment provisions in the task order. There are no FAR or agency clauses on payments included in the task order. There is a general statement that invoices may be presented monthly, in arrears. My issue is whether partial payments for ODCs are permitted by the contract, or if ODCs must be delivered and accepted before being invoiced. The ODCs are bundled into one very large CLIN, with a unit of measure called "LT," which I take to mean "Lot," as it can't mean liter in the context. This would require contractor to finance all of the ODCs on the contract for one full year before invoicing, it seems? So contractor would like to request some kind of provision for partial payment, which I suppose means requesting partial payments

Yes, I see size is determined "as of the date the concern submits a written self-certification that it is small to the procuring activity as part of its initial offer or response which includes price." - So that is the date the paperwork (133 or whatever) is signed or the date of an email or portal transmission, not the date the proposal is due? It's an interesting outcome in cases where there are a lot of proposal due date extensions.

Company A was small on September 1, 2023. Company submitted a proposal for a setaside contract on September 2. Acceptance period is 180 days. September 2, proposal due date was extended to October 1, 2023. September 3, an event occurred which meant that Company A was no longer small under the relevant NAICS. Company A did not withdraw or modify its offer. November 15, the contract is awarded to Company A. May Company A accept the award?

So, no public notification is required of a decision to sole source to a large business under the SAT using a PO and Part 13. This must explain the belief here in my office that such awards can be sole sourced to any company, including large companies, without any consequences. Appreciate the response, thank you!

So the CO has to document their finding they have no "reasonable expectation of obtaining offers from two or more responsible small business concerns that are competitive in terms of fair market prices, quality, and delivery small business" before sole sourcing, but there's no requirement to publish that decision or opportunity for small firms to protest, except perhaps complain to the SADBU?

I am looking at an FPDS posting. The award is for just under the SAT. The CO issued a purchase order. The award is marked as sole source: "Other than full and open competition: SAP noncompetition" Questions: 1 The awardee is not small, per SAM, and to my knowledge has not been small for many years. There are plenty of small businesses that do the kind of work procured. What notification/justification/eview is required before not setting aside such an award for a small business per 13.003(b)(1)? Someone here is saying that Part 13 effectively allows sole source awards to any company under Part 13, regardless of the company's size. That does not seem to be what Part 13 says. 2 The FPDS record says: CO's Business Size Selection - Small Business. This is just not correct. Is FPDS autogenerating this response somehow? 3 Does FAR 19.502(b) apply to 13.5?

It does not say that. I am mistaken

Question 1. Will the SBA find the joint venture partners affiliated two years from the date of the award of the GSA schedule? Under the reg language quoted, this would require the GSA schedule award to be a "contract," which Kingdomware says it is not. Question 2. Two years after the first contract award to the JV, SBA will consider the parties to the JV affiliated, and combine their revenues. The JV will not be eligible to receive setaside awards if the combined revenues exceed the size standard for the setaside. The JV can continue to bid for setasides on its GSA contract for five years from the date of award (for the NAICa to which it certified on award) even if it outgrows that NAICs. 13 CFR § 121.404 Assume that, after the two year period, the JV's aggregated revenues exceed the size standard for those NAICs. Will SBA allow the JV to be awarded setaside contracts on the GSA schedule after the two years have elapsed? Question 3. The parties to the JV can form a new JV after the two year period has run. That new JV will be exempt from affiliation for the same period, two years from award of first contract. But that JV will not be the entity to which the GSA schedule was awarded. Is there any way the old JV could transfer to GSA schedule to the new JV, so that five year period could continue to run and the JV partners can continue small for the initial five year period. Joel, I think questions 1 and 2 are not about GSA policies, but are about SBA policies, which seem to conflict. Thanks!

A mentor protege joint venture (MPJV) has been awarded a GSA schedule, despite having been in existence for only 8 months. The MPJV certified itself s small for the schedule, under all SINs. After the JV receives a contract, it has two years before the JV parties will be deemed affiliated. The parties can then form another identical JV. 13 CFR § 121.103 (h) Questions: 1 Does the GSA award count as a contract, starting the two-year clock? (Assume not, based on Kingdomware.) 2 As readers will know, GSA schedule holders continue eligible for setasides for five years on GSA contracts, even if they have outgrown the revenues standard, unless there is a merger, novation etc, or a CO requests a recertification. So, may this JV continue to bid on such GSA setasides after the two year period is up? Here is the language from the reg cited above: "Once a joint venture receives a contract, it may submit additional offers for a period of two years from the date of that first award. An individual joint venture may be awarded one or more contracts after that two-year period as long as it submitted an offer including price prior to the end of that two-year period. SBA will find joint venture partners to be affiliated, and thus will aggregate their receipts and/or employees in determining the size of the joint venture for all small business programs, where the joint venture submits an offer after two years from the date of the first award. The same two (or more) entities may create additional joint ventures, and each new joint venture entity may submit offers for a period of two years from the date of the first contract to the joint venture without the partners to the joint venture being deemed affiliates." 3. Does it matter if the parties form another JV after the two year period has expired? Thanks for any ideas.

Each member of the CTA is technically awarded the GSA contract. You are saying it's okay to award a contract to someone that hasn't been awarded the SIN?

Perhaps. Suppose a prime shows the sub's LCATS, discounted, as labor in the prime's proposal. If GSA should claim the sub had discounted from its commercial rates to the prime, you believe that the sub would have no price reduction clause liability because the subs had sold an OMI, not its GSA schedule services?

An RFP from a Defense entity, on GSA S70 says: Since this competition is limited to FSS holders, all services and items quoted must be from a valid FSS contract. Quotations may not include off-schedule items or services. The sole exception is for items or services falling within the micro-purchase threshold. Subcontractors may provide services under their own FSS contract or under the FSS contract of the prime contractor. Similarly, on quotations using Contractor Team Arrangements (CTAs), subcontractors to CTA members may either use their own FSS schedule or the FSS schedule of the CTA Team Member employing them. Surely it is settled that the government cannot buy anything on GSA schedule unless that thing is on the GSA schedule of the party it has contracted with. That is why CTAs were invented, was it not? Because subcontractors CANNOT sell off their own GSA schedules, the subcontractors do not have a contract with the government? Is this a new teaching?????

Thanks so much for the help! It's good to know that evaluating COs don't have any expectation that their evaluations are confidential.