C Culham

Yes after re-reading this thread I think you are missing what the parent IDIQ contract says or does not say. It is the rule book so to speak not the FAR. You say cost proposals required by contract. Okay, but does the parent contract say CDRL's will be, or may be required on TO's? As noted in a previous response the contractor may be right, you are asking for something not required by contract language.

@formerfed had the same suggestion. I countered of sorts. To further my thought how about this? If one is going to use another's IDIQ type contract how about grabbing that parent contract and reading it before using? PS - The continued discussion drove me to GSA eLibrary for a read of contract clauses placed in GSA FSS contracts. No reference to eBuy that I could find. Still sticking with discretion and the rules stated in the RFQ.

My comments in this thread are in part based on this quote from the linked document I provided. "Since eBuy is a paperless electronic quote system, suggest that when posting RFQs that you do not also require vendors to submit hardcopy quotes (via mail or e-mail)." I admittedly didnot research GSA FSS contract clauses for an absolute regarding eBuy, I took the GSA document at face value that there is discretion, vis a vis "suggest".

I might understand GSA to an extent but it seems that the FAR wording along with the linked GSA document I provided suggests some discretion by the buying agency. I then concluded that it is what the EBuy solicitation states. Only EBuy responses will be considered then so be it. But, if not so stated then it seems allowing the quote to be considered is appropriate. Kind of follows the general premise applied to any solicitation, what is responsive to the rules established by the solicitation.

Why? As others have stated the Firm Fixed Price is the Firm Fixed Price!

A different view. I would seek legal counsel via your agency. Take a look at FAR 8.405-1. In concert with the FAR see the reference below which is a link to a document that may assist in answering your own question. Based on the thin information provided and my read of FAR 8.405-1 and the link provided I do wonder what the harm would be in considering the quote if the contractor submitting the quote is in fact holder of a GSA FSS contract for the specific item or service that you are seeking? The basis for my thought is that your question suggests the value of your need is above the Simplified Acquisition Threshold and FAR 8.405-1(d)(4) and the fact that the whole of FAR 8.405-1(d) only discusses posting not submission and most importantly in my view you suggest that you did not state that only quotes via E-Buy would be considered. It seems the "fairly" standard of FAR 8.405-1(d)(4) comes into play. https://www.gsaadvantage.gov/images/products/elib/pdf_files/bguide.pdf

Prayers!

Thanks Joel. I do not know how I would ask the millions of workers to verify my thought, while noting that some of their voices are supposedly heard through various constituencies, but maybe, just maybe it is the whatever millions of individual workers that like the idea of a very low threshold so those that speak for them of sorts regarding establishment of law, the politicians, have it right, leave the threshold low and let it live forever at a low dollar amount. A threshold that is low and looks immortal in my life time, after that I will never know.

@joel hoffman @formerfed I have followed. In my research I found the following article, interesting read. Makes me wonder if if there is hidden group (like 60 million workers that would like to be unionized) that help drives keeping DB and SCA alive. The article not only generated the foregoing thought but the fact that if not all but most DB wage determinations carry both union rate and survey unit (SU) indicators. For South Carolina that is supposedly the least unionized for construction most catagories are SU, for Hawaii the supposedly most unionized for construction most are union rate identifiers. My point maybe DB supports both unionized and non-unionized workers. And, I always found the discussion of DB (SCA too) around the watercooler before I retired to be interesting. Program folks always concerned about "wage rates" without considering they themselves might be a part of the AFGE or an equal. All in all a very complicated topic with lots of considerations. The article - https://www.epi.org/publication/union-membership-data/#:~:text=the public sector-,In 2023%2C 16.2 million workers in the United States were,from 11.3% to 11.2%.

Okay I get it not pursuant to the FAR and its narrow definitions. But still it is a contract (common law) and if I wanted I could include FAR clauses verbatium but just drop the FAR reference.

I wonder? Can not an acquisition made pursuant to the FAR have "consideration" whereby obligation of appropriated funds are not obligated? Example - For the value of this marketable timber on a military base the contractor will build a new simple pole building on the location from where the timber is being removed. A no cost contract but something of value (property (timber) owned by the Federal government) is being exchanged for something of value (new building).

My thought that may lay in between. Commercial product/service, right? So why not fashion your procurement based on market research of how the industry provides meters to cusotmers. And, if they do it as you want to proceed, then use the market research to convince your team lead.

Bolstered by this definition from FAR 2.101.... "Should means an expected course of action or policy that is to be followed unless inappropriate for a particular circumstance."

And all the while I wonder what advice @lawyergirl provided to her client?

@Atlas STS As this is the Beginners Forum I may be going above and beyond but in light of the continued discussion and your subsequent posts I will offer what I am going to call my candid view. Understanding that you have read your entire contract and are trying to align it with what you have said is explicit or even exact language of the letter, I believe, based on my experience as a CO, that the letter is not necessarily wrong worded. Remember a CO (and now DCMA) have a responsibility to ensure that not only the contractor is performing and quite honestly not cheating the government nor say the taxpayer. In this light it would seem a CO does have "full access to your facilities at any time". Yet there is a reasonablness context to the statement as well that in my view applies to both sides. By example if I as DCMA show up during work hours unannounced are you going to bar the door and tell me to go away? What if I show up after your work hours and request access what then? In the end my thought is this and dovetails off of some comments made. If the government does attempt to flex their muscle with unreasonable discreation you as the contractor are left with a choice, bar the door or allow the access and then exercise your rights under the contract in filing a claim for the governments breach of contract (unduly delayed the work and/or unreasonably requested access). As has been implied by some of the posts one would hope you never experience such a situation and reason, good communication, and a appropriate contract relationship is forged where DCMA can do their thing, and everyone's expectations under the contract are achieved. All said I too think the wording is a little strong and does not reflect the four corners of the contract per say but in the end I would jump past them and work towards the best contractural relatiionship possible.