.gif)
anonco
-
Posts
24 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Recent Profile Visitors
3,103 profile views
-
When soliciting on a brand name or equal basis, does a contractor submitting the brand name product need to provide sufficient information as required by FAR 25.212-1(b)(4), or is it automatically considered technically acceptable because the Government identified it in the solicitation? In other words, does the brand name quote need to demonstrate compliance with the salient characteristics within the four corners of the proposal? In GAO Decision B-403366.2, "It is well-settled that it is the vendor's responsibility to include sufficiently detailed information in its proposal (or quotation) to establish that the item offered will meet the solicitation requirements, and that blanket statements or certifications of full compliance are insufficient. IVI Corp., B-310766, Jan. 23, 2008, 2008 CPD para. 21 at 3. With respect to a brand name or equal solicitation, a firm offering an equal product must demonstrate that the product conforms to the salient characteristics of the brand name product listed in the solicitation. American Gov't Marketing, Inc., B‑294895, Nov. 22, 2004, 2005 CPD para. 109 at 2." Does "a firm offering an equal product must demonstrate that the product conforms to the salient characteristics of the brand name product listed in the solicitation" mean that a company offering the requested brand name shouldn't have to demonstrate conformance with the salient characteristics?
-
They can't quote above their GSA schedule pricing, and since they're quoting their exact schedule price, there's no flexibility to include shipping in with the price of the unit and call it FOB Destination.
-
My agency does not issue Government Bills of Lading. I am establishing a competitive, single FSS BPA for supplies. The FSS terms for delivery are FOB-Origin for both CONUS and OCONUS. The total amount for shipping that was quoted for the base and all option periods exceeds $25K. I realize that FAR 13 applies to open market items acquired under FSS orders. I also know that I am required to determine the price to be fair and reasonable and insert appropriate open market clauses for those items (as well mark them as such in accordance with FAR 8.402(f)). My question is, am I supposed to synopsize the open market portion since it's estimated to exceed $25K? There are no synopsis exceptions in the FAR that apply. That said, it's pointless to synopsize the OPEN MARKET shipping when it is inextricably linked to the purchase of the FFS supply items. Thoughts?
-
Acceptable - Meets evaluation standards; has good probability of satisfying the requirmeent; any weaknesses can be readily corrected.
-
I'm looking through course material from Source Selection taught by Management Concepts and they have the following definitions for "Marginal" and "Unacceptable." Marginal - Fails to meet minimum evaluation standards; low probability of satisfying the requirement; has significant deficiencies, but they are correctable. Unacceptable - Fails to meet a minimum requirement; deficiency requires a major revision to the proposal to make it correct. This goes against everything I thought I knew. Has anyone ever rated a proposal that had "significant deficiencies" anything other than unacceptable?
-
Let's say a contractor proposed a rate of $55/hr for the base and option years 1-3, but on year five (option period 4) they quoted $35/hr. The total amount of the proposal was calculated with the last option year pricing of $35/hr. It is assumed that the contractor meant to propose $55/hr for the last option period. The evaluated amount of the proposal (assuming the $55/hr across the board) is $20K higher than the proposed amount. Could it be considered a clarification to assume that they meant $55/hr across the board even if this meant that their proposal would increase (which is what I am reading above)? Would that not constitute a proposal revision and require this to be discussions instead of clarifications? If this could be a clarification, can you really just document the clarification...that it should have been $55/hr and the re-calculated price and just award on initial proposals?
-
Ahhhh <embarrassed face> Thanks!
-
Does anyone know why the "Delivery of Materials Beyond the Fiscal Year," Chapter 5, B.4 of the GAO Redbook has been removed? I cannot locate it in the 2013 update/version.
-
wvanpup - There is not a lengthy production lead time. We also do not stock pile.
-
Dug into this more. The requirement is at a Joint Base where the Army is the lead agency. The Army has a regulation (AR 420-1) that states any new construction must be offset by demolition of existing stuctures of an equal or greater square footage. Generally, the Army is required to demolish buildings with the same mission. However, the regulation describes specifically the supporting analysis and rationale that must accompany the 1391 if non-related structures are to be demolished and MILCON funding is being utilized. So it appears the simple answer for the Army is that if it is on a 1391, it is because demolition has to occur for new construction*. The link between the new and old facilities does not have to be direct and, notwithstanding FAR definitions ultimately classifying demoltion being a service or construction, may be appropriately funded using MILCON funds. Thanks for all the previous replies. * There is an exception--the Army can "bank" previous demolition. If that bank has square footage greater than or equal to new construction, no demolition has to occur for the new requirement.
-
Thank you! ...and you all agree that since we *know* we will need the supplies in FY15, it still does not constitute a bona fide need in FY14? Does the arguement make any sense that if a portion of the requirement is fulfilled in FY14, then it's okay to have it go through FY15...for supplies?
-
I need a sanity check. My management wants me to award a delivery order with FY14 funds for supply items that will go from date of award through March, 2015. We have an immediate need for *some* of the items, but some aren't required until FY15. For those items that are not required until FY15, we cannot tell the contractor the exact quantities or delivery addresses. The quantities on the order will be based on projected estimates based on historical figures. In accordance with the GAO Principles of Federal Appropriations Law (Redbook) (Chapter 5.B.4), which discusses taking receipt of deliverables after the end of the FY, the exceptions appear to be if there is a stock program or if there is a production lead time. We do not meet either of those exceptions. Legal's response: "The bona fide need rule is satisfied because the agency had a blanket and continuing need to provide these items when the IDIQ contract was executed in FY14, and that need crosses into FY15." My immediate supervisor claims that we are okay because we have an immediate need for SOME of the items this FY, so it's fine that we can't tell the KTR exaclty what we need by 9/30/14 (and wait to tell them well into FY15, as the needs arise) because "it's still within a one year period." Keep in mind, this is for supplies, not services. I believe that the delivery order should only be placed for items that we have a bonafide need for this FY. Thoughts?
-
Vern: "Technical acceptability could be based on meeting key personnel requirements for the contract manager and on company experience and past performance." Does this mean that the contractor simply needs to propose a contract manager, but we will not actually evaluate their skills, ability, resume? If we do a subjective evaluation, doesn't that more closely resemble trade offs? Am I too black and white in my view of LPTA? I have always viewed LPTA to be synonamous with pass/fail, and I didn't know to evaluate this on a pass/fail basis. I should have prefaced this thred with the fact that I don't deal with services, except on rare occasions. "Why not specify the content and mix?" The SOW outlines the approximate volume of mail and calls and also tells them what hours we need the coverage. I initially thought we should not give them the "mix" because having them propose the labor disclipine and number of hours would show that they understand the requirement. If we give them the "mix" (I assume you mean labor disclipine and number of hours by task), I suppose there is less of a need to ensure they have an understanding of the requirement. since we are spelling it out for them. Is it even possible to evaluate PP and experience when evaluating LPTA? Should it even be necessary when the contractor will have been vetted through the MAS award process and the services are so basic?
-
Vern - Yes. We are looking for a contractor to answer phones, handle mail, etc. We will evaluate past performance and experience. The COR wants to look at Key Personnel (program manager), but the COR doesn't know what to request from the contractor in order to evaluate quotes for technical acceptability. Other than evaluating the labor mix, I am also at a loss. Seriously. Do I really want them to explain to us HOW they plan to answer the phone and HOW they plan to handle the mail? What discriminating factors do I really have to work with?
-
DingoesAteMyBaby - I tried to think of any way possible to evaluate on an LPTA, but I couldn't think of a way to evaluate services on a "technically acceptable" basis. Typically, when I evaluate on LPTA basis, my criteria are pass/fail and apply moreso to commodities. With services, I have to evaluate the labor mix. This effort is for management support services, so for the technical evaluation, I'm not even sure what I want them to submit. I know I need to look at the labor mix to ensure an understanding of the requirement, but I don't know what other discriminating factor I would look at. Is it possible to evaluate LPTA when you're subjectively evaluating the labor mix, which is required by FAR 8.4? C Culham - This evaluation plan is in Part 8 of our handbook, meaning that my agency drafted this plan specifically for the use of FAR 8 acquisitions.