C Culham

Generally speaking Block 28 when a Request for Proposal is used to solicit pricing and Block 29 when a Invitation for Bids is used. See Block 2 of the form. But as it goes it gets complicated from this general view. Possibly do some futher research on your own such as reviewing FAR subparts 14.408-1 and 15.504 and think about how the SF-1442, while not referenced in these two subparts, would be used rather than the forms noted. I say this noting that FAR subpart 36.701 provides the imperative to use the 1442 for construction. Beyond my thoughts here is a GAO decision that I hope will help refine your reserach and help with undertanding the use of the SF 1442. https://www.gao.gov/products/b-235261

It is an interesting dance of discretion by CO's yet I think you are on the right track on literal application of "for Government use". https://nib.org/supply/ https://www.abilityone.gov/laws,_regulations_and_policy/documents/Policy 51.542 (final version).pdf https://acc.army.mil/contractingcenters/acc-nj/CreditCard/PolicyAndSOP/Contractor Use of Mandatory Sources of Supply or Services.pdf https://www.abilityone.gov/abilityone_program/faqs.html (Search 52.208-9 on this one)

BOA as in basic ordering agreement? If so I am having a little trouble understanding the intended approach as "Application" as stated in the FAR doesnot seem to fit. Otherwise intriguing approach for a BPA. As it goes neither are a "contract" so I wonder what will happen when the ordering begins as the price(s)are not contractually binding. You say "per hour". Service Contract Labor Standards, if applicable, would seem to cause some issues with setting pricing consistently across the country. "Per Action" would seem somewhat easier sort of like the comments already offered regarding funiture and burgers.

Does this help https://www.dcma.mil/Portals/31/Documents/Policy/DCMA-MAN-2501-07.pdf See Section 8

My thoughts in support of those already provided - Yes a justification (I have used lower case on purpose) in as much as you need to "justify" certain elements of the option being solicited per the reference you have already cited - FAR 17.205 - but not a D&F. I have always remembered this quote by Vern Edwards - "All determinations and findings include determinations, but not all determinations are determinations and findings." Maybe this is a twist on the quote - All justifications and approvals include approvals but not all justifcations include approvals.

While it can be done this reasoning for selection of contract type, inclusive of combining contract types, is flawed. The best I can do is point to FAR subpart 16.104.

Categorize it as you may. My response is based on the fact that the "customer" wants something that binds by my read. Seems that leaves out credit card as its pay now. Also it is not a "recurring" need so requirements does not quite fit. By my personal experience in the commercial marketplace I get a commitment, yes even in writing, that a service vendor will do something on a specific date...aka letter of commitment for lack of a better term on my part. So through market research (experience) it can be done and if the bus company will do it then it is a commercial acquisition based on commercial terms and conditions. Exactly why FAR part 12 was invented. Do it like I do it everyday with the commercial market place. And it's simple...aka simplified acquisition... using FAR part 12.

Sounds complicated. In my mind I dummied it down. I would have canvassed the marketplace asking if as a commercial service they would sign a binding letter of commitment with government to provide the service if and when it occurred. Now mind you I made the term up but so what. When I found a willing company I would have done single source to that company with a SF1449 using single source authority of FAR part 13. Attached the letter and got the contractor to formally accept it. And then if timed rolled on I would of simply cancelled the order and rewrote until the untimely passing. As to the BPA just renew it you are in too deep now. Or if you think that's too risky do as I suggest above, yet get competition with the vendors of which you speak and go with price only and agreement to sign the letter of commitment as your selection criteria. Good luck!

Does your customer understand that the BPA holder can reject the call against the BPA?

I understand. Yet committees equals staffers by my experience.

Combined they are in my view the biggest problem by my experience so I am not sure "committes" will be the fix. Why not let the career field itself guide the fix? Executive Orders. Usually not significat but all the same in the mix too.

And really a one time event?

Vern has done a great job of supporting a dumb statement by DoDIG. And in my view a DFARS definition that seems inconsistent with a full read of the FAR and DFARS as well. Example per DFARS 217.7401 a UCA can not be a change order. Yet a UCA can be a letter contract? The definition of UCA should be be changed to Undefinitized Action.

From the Congressional Research document he referenced.

I crafted that response myself, aka my thought. Ok not good. I would argue not a "essentially" even. I could, could I not in negotiating the UCA come to agreement that something is reasonable, allowable and allowable reach agreement with the contractor that the something will not be in the definitized contract or modification. Following Vern's references I will use agreement I guess.

Geez everyone is not the language of the FAR and its supplements specific? A UCA is not essentially anything it has specific definition in the DFARS. My thought DoDIG and GAO erred in their language. A UCA is an arrangement that provides for payment of allowable incurred costs and profit/fee to the extent negotiated and agreed to by the parties in the definitized action. The definitized action is either a type of contract allowed by the FAR or a modification to a contract. That's it!

I direct your attention to FAR part 53 and especially FAR subpart 53.1 in total. The imperative, with exceptions, of the entirety of subpart 53.1 speaks for itself by my read.

Now I could be wrong but that sounds like a joint venture? And if not then can not the entity that would hold the contract as a prime figure out how their rates are created inclusive of any subcontract agreement they have and that I will call is exclusive for the GSA FSS MAS work? Bottomline it would seem that creating rates for the parent GSA FSS MAS is no different that creating rates for any contract. I did find this ...................https://www.gsa.gov/system/files/Final JV Industry FAQs 071923.pdf

Agreed.

With a possible discount, correct?

I am to a degree but the question posed by the OP did raise my eyebrows for the very reasons you have pointed out. I followed as expecting a response by someone who is currently handling GSA FSS orders. With your response let me add my thoughts. 1. I do not think there would be any mapping of rates. I would offer instead that either the prime for the effort rates would apply if no CTA or if they did a Contracting Teaming Arrangement (CTA) then either might apply but not a mapped rate. The CTA would be in the GSA sense not that of FAR part 9. 2. The prime rates apply and that is what would be billed to the government if no CTA. How a prime and sub work it out below the prime level that is their business. 3. Yes (see number 1). My responses are based on this document. See the section regarding CTA's. https://www.gsa.gov/system/files/MAS Desk Reference Guide - Winter 19.pdf Here is a excerpt from the section regarding CTA's regarding CTAs and a subcontract. It does not come out in matrix form as in the Guide but I think it will peak interest to read the reference. "Contractor Team Arrangement (CTA) Prime/Sub Arrangement Each team member must have a Schedule contract. Only the prime contractor must have a Schedule contract. Each team member is responsible for duties addressed in the CTA document. These duties fall within the scope of their individual Schedule contracts. The prime contractor cannot delegate responsibility for performance to subcontractors. The prime contractor can provide only what is on its Schedule contract; it cannot subcontract to offer items/services for which it does not hold a Schedule contract. Each team member has privity of contract with the government and can interact directly with the government. Only the prime contractor has privity of contract with the government and can interact with the government. The prime contractor is responsible for its subcontracting activities. (Ordering activities are permitted to specify in the RFQ that the use of subcontractors requires prior approval by the ordering activities.) The ordering activity is invoiced at each team member’s unit prices or hourly rates as agreed in the task or delivery order or Schedule BPA. The ordering activity is invoiced in accordance with the prime contractor’s Schedule contract"

Well dopey me. Should have asked if this was a GSA FSS procurement. That said the agency language does intrige me in that FAR 8.404(d) says this (emphasis added)...... (d) Pricing. Supplies offered on the schedule are listed at fixed prices. Services offered on the schedule are priced either at hourly rates, or at a fixed price for performance of a specific task (e.g., installation, maintenance, and repair). GSA has already determined the prices of supplies and fixed-price services, and rates for services offered at hourly rates, under schedule contracts to be fair and reasonable. Therefore, ordering activities are not required to make a separate determination of fair and reasonable pricing, except for a price evaluation as required by 8.405-2(d). By placing an order against a schedule contract using the procedures in 8.405, the ordering activity has concluded that the order represents the best value (as defined in FAR 2.101) and results in the lowest overall cost alternative (considering price, special features, administrative costs, etc.) to meet the Government’s needs. Although GSA has already negotiated fair and reasonable pricing, ordering activities may seek additional discounts before placing an order (see 8.405-4).

I am concerned that studies like this will swing the pendullum even further to promoting the essay contests. And I wonder what company involved in any type of contracting method does not do this same thing. Think about it! I am ever vigilant in my personal business for such buy in. And with regard to Federal contract I will point to most recent discussions (and even older ones) about key personnel and the shell game involved. Isn't proposing rates on supposed key personnel that will not be existent at contract performance a form buying in. The issue is not Sealed Bid, LPTA and/or Tradeoff. It is an issue of an organization supporting good faith and fair dealing by their memebership and the organizations support of improving the acquisition workforce of the Federal government. In truth a sealed bid, LPTA, Tradeoff, and even selection of contractors pursuant to the Brooks Act can yield effective and prudent prices for contracts done right. Price realism analysis is just a portion of the game. And game it is!

You are welcome. Joel's idea of proposed question for the debrief is a good one. I will say I have seen agencies use unique ways to try and guide offerors on hoped for pricing. As you say it might or might not help the agency get competitive BAFO's.

Different possibly the same conclusion. Never seen it but that does not mean it isnot done (obviously). Would be interesting to view RFQ's by same agency to see if the wording is used in other solicitations. Might be their thing! Going off the basic info provided agency set a range and asked for BAFO's. I do not see wording in your posts that BAFO's have to be in the range. So one might concluded something to the effect of - Agency - Here is our range. Offerors - Here is our BAFO's. Agency - Views the BAFOs and makes the final award decision. Wording that you have provided so far does not indicate that to be considered the BAFO must be within the competitve price range. My response provided above suggests why but more to the point LPTA means they will take the lowest price of the techincally acceptable proposals not that they will take the lowest price in the competitive price range. And while you may have a view of what is reasonable price the agency would support why they believe it is reasonable. My mind wanders to this - FAR 15.404-1(b)(2)(i) - "Comparison of proposed prices received in response to the solicitation. Normally, adequate price competition establishes a fair and reasonable price (see 15.403-1(c)(1))." Hope these thoughts help with your debrief strategy.