joel hoffman

Agree

There is no congressional identification of the vendor or authorization or direction to specifically use this vendor, correct? If so, then the 6.302-5 exemption isn’t applicable. More info is required. Based on the lack of any other information, I’d think that you need to find out if the program is such that no other vendor could take over. Determine status of program and perform market research if it isn’t limited to current provider or isn’t impractical to allow others to compete…

You are only discussing prices, not why B is a better value than A or C, considering both price and non-price factors.

I think that this has been discussed earlier in the WIFCON Forum that the prices for non conforming (thus unacceptable) offers should be excluded from comparisons in a price analysis. But I don’t have time to do the search and still dont know if the Search feature has been fixed. I’m pretty sure that Vern Edwards explained it at least once. But it makes sense that the price may be affected by the proposal weaknesses, non-conformance or other deficiencies **or undesirable aspects, thus exclude it from comparisons of prices for conformance with the solicitation requirements. It may depend upon the basis for the unacceptably of the offer, whether or not the unacceptable **or undesirable aspect or aspects of the proposal or quote are material to the basis of the price. Does that make sense to you ? P.S., in reading the Protest cited above, the basis for the marginal rating very likely would have affected the protestors price. **Edit: added “or undesirable”

I don’t understand your questions. One must not make broad assumptions without understanding and considering the specific context of the referenced protest. Here is a link to the protest: https://www.gao.gov/products/b-405942.4%2Cb-405942.8 Note that the agency stated that the non-price factors were significantly more important than the price, that it intended to award without discussions and that marginal ratings in the evaluation would not be considered for award. There would no need to evaluate price reasonableness in the instant example because award was to be made without discussions, price was least important factor and the marginal rating was clearly unacceptable for award. If the scenario were different and discussions were contemplated, the answers to your questions might be “yes”.

Set it up ahead of time so you can make the call when it occurs. Is it’s matter of on-call availability of a bus? If there is a possibility of non-availability from any one company, how about prearrange with a couple companies for a rental and whoever is available gets the call. Or something like that… it just doesn’t seem to be that complicated. If they are both available for the same price, the tiebreaker would be flipping a coin. Fair enough… Well, good luck.

Don’t know the basis of the initial selection or a protest or the basis of the protest decision. But if it is a one time event can you simply issue a new BPA? Does it need to be a BPA for a single event? Does it necessarily need to be with the existing vendor?

I’ve had to deal with a several Federal contracting initiatives as a member of a Design-Build Institute of America Committee that deals with Federal laws and Regulations as part of its subject matter jurisdiction. As an Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) active employee and and rehired annuitant, I also was involved with those issues, general construction and Architect Engineering contracting legislation, FAR/DFARS/Agency regulations and Policy and Procedures. From those experiences. I can tell you that the Congress members and their staffers know very little about the implications or impacts to contracting or the technical subject matters that they propose legislation for. There are many single issue advocacy groups constantly raising issues (often rightly so) that proposed solutions to them often add complications, additional cost, complexities or other impacts to contracting.

Enjoy your time there. My Pastor has a River barge house boat in Auxerre on the River Yonne. Least it will be in May, it’s in a shed at the moment. They have invited us to visit before the Olympics.

Thank you for your responses here, Vern!.🌹❤️ My phone broke earlier this week - just got it back plus we had company all week. Just catching up now on WICON Forum…

My response is Holy Sh…! …Because you are NEGOTIATING the definitized price of a contract. You aren’t “adjusting the contractor’s profit”, as though it is an entitlement.

Please clarify: Did you receive multiple responses to your “solicitation”? Is the purpose of the BPA for a one time charter or for multiple bus charters? It appears to be below the simplified acquisition threshold and perhaps commercial services. How thorny can that be to simply agree to extend the BPA?

Do you want an attorney or contracting specialist job with the government?

That would have been exceedingly nice to know in the OP!

Sorry folks I completely overlooked that this is CPFF price type arrangement

Deleted . I overlooked the statement that this is a CPFF cost arrangement.

Hey, it was a lowest priced technically acceptable award scenario. The government apparently didn’t want a higher performing contractor if it cost more than that.

Not sure that either Schedule holder can use higher than the schedule rates, assuming that the average rates are higher than one or the other’s individual rates.

Deleted. I overlooked that this is CPFF pricing arrangement.

You’re welcome. I’d ask what they intended the competitive price range to signify. But mainly focus on the “lowest priced technically acceptable” basis of a competitive award, next time. Edit: I just thought of this. You said that your base Quote was about $1 above the lower end of the range. What if the winner had quoted $1 lower…? I also think it could have been quite convoluted if several competitors thought the number was a lower limit but had determined that they could provide the services for less, so just quoted the low end of the “range”.

So a subsequent amendment reduced the required labor after they revised the competitive price range in Amendment 5. Was the term “competitive price range” defined anywhere in the RFQ? Unless the term signifies a mandatory requirement, I doubt that a protest over award of a lower quote would be successful.

Please quote the wording of the notice of competitive price range amendment. Thanks. In other words is this an absolute requirement or a recommendation?

Sorry but your scenario and questions are ambiguous… The prime should have some system and a subcontract requirement to get daily(or weekly?) timekeeping data from a T&M sub for monitoring and verification purposes. This is equally important whether or not the work is priced as T&M in the prime contract with the customer.

1. Does the subcontract require this? If not, then no. If it does require use of the primes system, then yes. 2. Why and what does the prime intend to do with the timekeeping system (e.g., personally maintain the timekeeping data for invoicing the customer, if the prime contract includes T&M line items)? If the T&M work is strictly between the prime and sub but not the prime contract with the customer, then I assume that the prime wants if for its own subcontract management purposes. Since the employees work for the subcontractor , the subcontractor will need to maintain and use a timekeeping system, which should be integral to its financial and management systems. In my opinion, the subcontractor would have to maintain duplicate data or copy the prime’s timekeeping data. 3. Why? What “basis” are you referring to? You asked above if the sub MUST use the prime’s timekeeping system? Are you now asking this question, as though the sub wants to initiate the use or voluntarily use the primes system? You said that the sub has an approved accounting system. Or did you mean “What basis would allow the Subcontractor to maintain the timekeeping system? Even if the contract requires using the prime’s timekeeping system, the sub can still also use its own timekeeping system. Are you asking what assurances the subcontractor must provide the prime in order for the SUB to use its own timekeeping system, not the prime’s system? I would assume that the sub would have to certify to the prime that the data is accurate and correct. If I were the prime, I’d also require the sub to provide copies of the timekeeping data and audit access to the data.

Acquiring the services of an expert under the conditions in FAR 6.302 (a) (ii) and (b)(3) doesn't seem to be the same as engaging a speaker for a conference. We’ve hired experts, including Prof. Ralph Nash as a neutral for arbitration. We’ve engaged University professors to write reports refuting the technical bases for various claims or REAs or for impact claims. We hired an architectural concrete expert during construction of King Abdulaziz Military Academy in Saudi Arabia to solve a massive scale of surface finish problems and to guide contractors in rehabilitating the surfaces. Then hired him to advise and assist me in resolving and negotiating claims by two contractors totaling more than 80 million (1985) dollars. We’ve engaged expert witnesses to evaluate, present and defend against contractor claims before courts or Boards of Contract Appeals. Those are all quite different than simply hiring a conference speaker. However, this is something that has been commonly done for conferences in my experience. I doubt that the organization seeks competition to engage subject matter experts or prominent people as conference speakers. I seriously doubt whether anyone is going to protest the selection of a conference speaker. Some of our conferences included attendees from industry and academia. They enjoyed the speakers as much as we did.