C Culham

Hopefully you do get a response and it will be of interest for a post here. To the concern of a protest talk to the contractor. Find out why they think their offer is appropriate pursuant to their GSA FSS. Could be they are on solid ground and give you a sound reason as to why or just quoting to keep themselves in the running.

Thanks. So @formerfed has offered a response that I do not disagree with. My additional thoughts are these. Why is the contractor in the running IF you have responses from contractors whose pricing is verified through 2030? Does your RFQ allow you to do so? GSA FSS is a IDIQ is it not. Reference 52.216-22 most likely in the parent GSA FSS. So wouldn't offering pricing beyond priced options be like open market prices? Overall like you I would be nervous on selecting the contractor and awarding the order based on hoped for prices in the two out years that the contractor does not have confirmed pricing. Have you posed your concern to the GSA CO for the parent contract?

So you only have one quote to evaluate?

Sometimes I wonder? Sorry for being so blunt but as the FAR rewrite winds along no wonder folks get dazed and confused. While WIFCON is full of lots of discussion about interpretation and what should and should not be I think the most glaring lost art is READ! FAR 19.704 - Note the difference between a "ISR" and "SSR" and I quote........... "The SSR shall be submitted annually by October 30 for the twelve-month period ending September 30. When an SSR is rejected, the contractor is required to submit a revised SSR within 30 days of receiving the notice of SSR rejection;" RFO - FAR 19.302-3 and I quote - As part of monitoring compliance with the subcontracting reporting requirements, review Individual Subcontract Reports (ISRs), and where applicable, Summary Subcontract Reports (SSRs), in eSRS within 60 days of the report ending date (e.g., by November 30th for a report submitted for the fiscal year ended September 30th). Not to mention FAR Clause 52.219-9. (My rant for the day!)

Makes me wonder how long the idea when used would fall prey to cut and paste itself?

Me too I guess if I think hard. I am not going back to research why PoP is used versus award. My guess is because of where PoP is definitive in a specific procurement like construction. This said the OP has disappeared it seems so to their specific instance we are left guessing. I will leave it here until and if the OP reappears.

I am having trouble digesting this. The FAR does not give a specific definition of period of performance. With regard to the OP's example one would think that "award" begins the period of performance in that the contractor would be expected to begin the effort of providing the hardware as it seems award would be the beginning of the time the contractor is responsible for performing the work. I guess one could wiggle it anyway they could, say like a construction contract - notice to proceed etc - to make the effort fit the limitation. Outside of the possiblity of commercial and/or under the SAT where different statuory policy applies with regard to single source/sole source I do wonder - If that compelling why not HCA approval? After re-reading the OP I am wondering why the need does not fit one respnsible source?

From FAR provision 52.215-1 that is included in the solicitation - The first page of the proposal must show (emphasis added)– (i) The solicitation number; (ii) The name, address, and telephone and facsimile numbers of the offeror (and electronic address if available); (iii) A statement specifying the extent of agreement with all terms, conditions, and provisions included in the solicitation and agreement to furnish any or all items upon which prices are offered at the price set opposite each item;

Edited response.... My first thought is you have not said whether the buy is over the SAT and whether the buy is considered to be acquisition of commercial product or services? If so doesn't FAR 13.106 and/or FAR 13.5 come into play? Or posed another way why are you applying FAR 6.302-2?

My first reaction is I would ask the IOA for a specific reference of the "official policy" as I would expect if it was official it would be a policy that is in writing.

No.

We anticipate. I buy a can of beans at the market and anticipate what the beans will be like when I get it home. And I used some kind of metrics to buy the can - brand name, past experience, and even if the choices are so limited that I take what I anticipate will be good beans anyways. My thinking when the choice is limited might be a can of beans with so and so brand on it might actually come from the same manufacturing plant that not so and so's bean come from. Not much different in government contracting in my view. So the question is by another example is what do I need to anticipate how a contractor will perform. I am quite possibly the outlier as I think I would want to know a contractors approach to building my house and their understanding of building houses to anticipate said contractors success in performing the effort of building my house. The problem is that bureaucratic BS of FAR Part 15 is so intertwined with making a decision of anticipation it has clogged has the decision process.

Thank you (I am sorry about the typos however)

Sorry I may have confused the issue with regard to rollover. This said I do have to point out the definition at FAR 16.001 and in the RFO FAR at 16.001. I am doing so because I am still confused about "rallocation" versus "rollover"as it seems inyour specific instance you might be using the former when you mean the latter. This said does this help? Here is a dated reference (second link below) noting that the FAR language about rollover was added to the FAR in 2009. Here is reference noting when the language was added to the FAR and I note it remains pretty much the same in the RFO. https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2009/10/14/E9-24579/federal-acquisition-regulation-far-case-2008-008-award-fee-language-revision https://www.gao.gov/assets/gao-09-630.pdf See Page 10 of this GAO document. https://www.gao.gov/assets/gao-09-630.pdf It states this - "The portion of the award fee that may be paid depending on the evaluation of contractor performance is generally tied to a period of time. As shown in figure 4, award fee that is not awarded is referred to as unearned fee and can either be returned to the program for use within the scope of the contract, returned to the Treasury to be appropriated elsewhere, rolled over to be used as award fee in a subsequent period, or used by the agency if it is still available for obligation. Before an award fee period, fees can be reallocated or moved from one evaluation period to another for reasons such as government-caused delays. The key difference between reallocation and rollover is that the contractor has not had a chance at earning reallocated dollars while the contractor has a second chance to earn rollover dollars after having failed to perform well enough to earn them initially." All said your question in part enters into considerations of bona fide needs rule. I am not saying yes or no but hope what I have offered helps you determine for your specific contract if you are in a position of reallocate or if you are in the world of rollover.

In FAR 16.401(e)(4) and the RFO (Overhaul) at 16.402-2(d) I see no distinction regarding the limitation regarding what I will call purpose of use of rollover.

I am struggling with the "you". My thought may seem like a cop-out but isn't it how value is defined by the mission/program folks and the role of me as CO is to insure that they have adequately defined what value they are looking for whether it be monetary, or otherwise?

Thank you. My initial comment was a quick thought based on the dialog of the podcast regarding offer versus proposal. To be sure I understand the difference being portrayed in the podcast discussion. Likewise in the now reference case. Both of which has caused me further research and continued thinking. First in the light of 41 USC 4702(a) (see below) the FAR has complicated definition and intent when it comes to FAR Part 15 procurements. FAR part 15 takes the "or" from the statute and makes it an "and" by requiring cost or price information be in a proposal. As exhibited by the case reference one agency attempted to separate and found themselves in a dilemma and rightly so. In another example of the confusion is this. The FAR wants to call it a Request for Proposals (RFP) but in truth shouldn't it be either a RFP "OR" a Request for Offers. This example is best demonstrated by FAR Clause 52.215-1(f)(4) where in its unaltered state a proposal submitted government’s acceptance of it would create a binding contract. Actually an "offer". Yet as allowed by the alternates to the clause it is stated that discussions will occur ergo a "proposal". Come on which one is it! So turning back to the podcast and the referenced case law no wonder there is confusion. Especially by my read of the case provided that is interestingly void of any reference to the conditions of the solicitation such as a clause like 52.215-1 and leans on references of the FAR itself. And the same goes to the absence of any reference to 41 USC 4702, along with 41 USC 3703 and/or 2101. All said I will circle back to my initial post. Forget it! Now I would echo a thought posed in the podcast. The FAR should be written like this. A Request for Proposals should be handled like that of what occurs for an A-E need currently and it would seem doing so is supported by statute. A Request for Offers (RFO) should be handled exactly as stated by FAR 52.215-1 (along with FAR 15.304?) in its unaltered form. I might even add here that it would seem many, many procurements today would fall into the RFO process. All in all it would seem that the dilemma between offer and proposal is like pounding the square peg into the round hole when there are to really two pegs, a round one and a square one. "41 USC 4702(a) In this section, the term “proposal” means a proposal, including a technical, management, or cost proposal, submitted by a contractor in response to the requirements of a solicitation for a competitive proposal."

I made the comment as it seems like the rewrite definition of offer at FAR Part 2 does not make such a distinction. Throwing in "proposal" confuses what government really gets.

Why have both proposal and offer? Isn't it an offer that is being requested via a solicitation? "Offer" A definitive promise to enter into a legally binding contract with specific terms. An offer implies an immediate willingness to be bound upon acceptance. "Clarification" is the act of making an offer clearer or easier to understand by providing additional explanation, details, or interpretation, without changing the terms of the offer. "Negotiation" is a consensual bargaining process of an offer in which the parties attempt to reach agreement on the terms of a final contract. This includes deliberation, discussion, or conference upon the terms of a offer submitted that will result in a revision to an original offer.

So does this quote from the GSA Schedule Ordering Guide help you solve the dilemma? "Assign a NAICS Code to Each Order The OCO must assign a North American Industry Classification System (NAICS) code to each task order solicitation. The NAICS code assigned should reflect the principal nature of the work required under the task order and must come from the available NAICS codes awarded on the GSA Schedule contract. NAICS codes not represented on the Schedule contract may not be used at the order level. GSA’s MAS Program uses special item numbers (SINs) to delineate discrete categories under the 83 subcategories that make up the Schedule. These SINs are NAICS based and assist the ordering activity in applying the proper NAICS code for the order. e.g. The SIN for general engineering services is 541330ENG and the NAICS is 541330. Caution: In accordance with regulations, contracting professionals must select the NAICS code for the order based upon the preponderance of work to be performed."

Yes and of sorts the reason multiple award IDIQs became the standard. People lamenting about being locked out of single award IDIQs. Now another way to lock them out.

@Vern Edwards @General.Zhukov @formerfed Interesting yes but this thread has become a little confused as it has departed from the question of agency awarded BPAs via existing agency awarded IDIQs and of sorts argues their need as compared to GSA MAS awarded BPAs. My view is it is comparing two different animals with different arguments as to their beneficial creation and use. In the end I would agree GSA MAS is underutilized by agencies and as such agencies going their own way to set up agency awarded IDIQs where they can then set up BPA's under the IDIQs is a duplication of work. Most probably a duplication of what GSA has already done for them, and a duplication where agency could just compete BPAs with out going through the whole IDIQ stuff.

Ok but here are some questions. Is your view with regard to services, supplies or both? I understand negotiate down and "all" customers (the entire executive branch, state and local governments and even sometime individual contractors) under GSA MAS so what you are saying agency awarded BPA's (AABPA) via their own multiple award IDIQ contracts give the ability to negotiate more favorable pricing? If so could not that more favorable pricing be negotiated with regard to standalone BPA's in the first place? In other words why go through two steps to get better pricing just do it in one step? If negotiate down is allowed by a AABPA does it not fly in the face of the rewrite FAR part 12 of a standing price quotation where AABPA's are intended to allow calls by any individual (FAR 12.201-1)? My thoughts - GSA MAS BPA's are a way to set up a conduit for CO's to avoid the hassle of synopsis with a tool where they can set up the tool they can use to to acquire stuff. I view the AABPA in the same vein which in my view is where the bastardization of AABPA's has occurred. They are no longer a "charge account" for individuals to use but a tool created to make a CO's life easier. What they have become is a conduit for a contractor to get in good with a particular agency and have a multitude of needs sent their way (they hope). I am not saying this is bad. What I am saying is as already noted a AABPA is an unnecessary step. Just go out a compete the BPA(s) up front as I believe one could do so and meet the intent of FAR 12.201-1.

Maybe they just do a 360 and make all MAS mandatory use? It just seems there is a lot of duplication.

Your questions created further research on my part with the admission that I have not studied rewrite parts in detail, BUT..... Rewrite. I now see that BPA is now in FAR Part 12 and not 13. Part 12 has little info. FAR Part 8 has an interesting twist and the inclusion FSS procedures now takes you to GSAs FAR supplement. Yes I know we are not talking about FSS BPA's. Yet what is interesting is the GSA supplement that discusses FSS BPA's. At GSA 538.7204-1(4) allows for competing orders against those that BPA's are set up with not all GSA FSS holders for the particular need . Seems like reinforcement that the process I provided for Agency awarded IDIQ BPA could work. Of note in my reading an agency that sets up IDIQ's that are available ( approved at a higher level) for government wide use is wading into some interesting waters pursuant to the GSA's instruction regarding use of FSS. See by example FAR 8.104 and FAR 12.200. A take way is also that BPA's can not be for non-commercial items. I agree. While I understand that BPA's are allowed for FSS procurements it makes sense since GSA is doing all the work to award to set up FSS multiple award contracts. Seems less time consuming to get to a BPA and utilizing as well. An agency that goes through the effort to establish multiple award IDIQ's and do BPA's begs the question why not do competitive BPA's in the first place. And always the head scratcher of why not just use GSA FSS especially with the intent of commercial product and services can only be purchased via a BPA. Agencies think BPA's are great because they do not have to obligate monies until a BPA order is issued. For IDIQ's agencies did not like the idea of having to obligate the minimum and then administratively manage the obligation of the minimum as TO/DOs are placed. Plus there is the whole matter of publicizing needs. They think they found a work around that is a better wheel all the way around. In truth the intent of IDIQ'S has been bastardized for non-thinkers. I can just use a BPA any BPA it is so much easier but that easier has forgotten about the upfront. All this is a quick view based on a couple of hours of thinking and reading except for the matter of IDIQs in general as I believe there are WIFCON posts of the past where I have lamented about the topic of IDIQs.