Freyr

In what way? If I understand the topic here (which I may not, I frequently misunderstand things), it's about adding the ability to issue BPAs under IDIQs. The link talks to them adding the ability to have BPAs under OASIS+ by the end of January. GWAC Updates Coming in January Beyond the MAS refresh, Stanton said similar updates are coming to GSA’s GWACs and other multiple award contracts in the coming weeks. Those updates will incorporate the same FAR deviations and policy changes now appearing in the schedule program. “We’re also looking at our GWACs and our other multiple award contracts, such as Oasis+,” Stanton said. “All of those, you’re going to be seeing similar refreshes by the end of January.” “I know that Alliant 2 already moved out on being able to add [blanket purchase agreements], so you’re already seeing some of the changes of FAR,” she added. Stanton said other contracts, including Oasis+, will also have blanket purchase agreements by the end of January, telling stakeholders to “hang on for six more weeks.”

Sounds like they're pushing forward for this in January: https://www.meritalk.com/articles/gsa-plans-refresh-of-major-gwacs-by-end-of-january/

Wouldn't exactly say I've moved on, still mulling over options but I'm likely going to lean towards what @formerfed has suggested. I'd like my order to be as self-contained as possible considering the potential unknowns of the future of their schedule. That link for exercising options is one of the bases for my skepticism on keeping them in the running and my past (less than fantastic) experience with GSA COs giving advice on order issues makes me pause even longer. Ultimately, I'm probably going to go with the solution that gives us what I and my team feel to be the greatest benefit, covers me the most, and just makes sense to me (in a way that I am comfortable putting into writing and including in a file). I might not be able to square the circle but a rectangle might be my next best option. A former CO of mine used to close their eyes when they signed certain awards, I think I'm in a better position than that...

The contractor responded over the weekend, GSA told them they can propose whatever they want but once their new option is exercised they'll have to ensure those rates are higher than what they've been awarded in their orders or else the orders will need to be modified to reduce the price. They provided a copy of the GSA email for verification. This seems like a pretty wild approach for GSA to take, I guess if this contractor is chosen for award then we'd be potentially reducing the prices at each order option exercise?

Like formerfed mentioned, the mas ordering guide led me to think they need to not exceed the rates in schedule, similar to if their schedule didn't have any future ordering period available. I'm keeping them in the running because I'm not entirely sure I'm right in my thinking. What if I kick them out and they protest and say they based their pricing on their schedule pricing that's not exercised yet but was evaluated and agreed to by GSA when the schedule was awarded? Our RFQ said we would verify their rates don't exceed their schedule rates. What's giving me pause for kicking them out is that in a practical sense it doesn't really make sense to me. If a contractor is in the final year of their current schedule period then every order they get is locked in at the final year pricing? Even though they potentially have new rates coming up with a new option period on schedule. Really removes the incentive for them to bid. Do companies really just bid those final year rates for multiple order option years? I did reach out to the CO on Monday but haven't gotten a response.

No I have a few quotes but this one has the highest technical ratings.

I'm evaluating a quote under GSA Schedule and their schedule option period ends in 2028 while my requirement goes through 2030. They have an ultimate contract end date for their schedule in 2038 though. They said they've including pricing for 2029 and 2030 based on their anticipated pricing if their schedule option is exercised. I thought they couldn't propose rates that exceed their current awarded rates. What if GSA exercises their schedule and they renegotiated the rates to below what I awarded on my order? How could I even verify that the rates they're proposing are consistent with their (unexercised) schedule rates? Normally, I go to elibrary and review what's there but I can't do that for the unexercised periods.

My CO isn't really sure which SIN she wants to solicit under and is insisting on only choosing one. Would we be able to just submit the RFQ under like 3 to 4 different SINs that all seem to cover the work?

I keep seeing this terms "umbrella contract" and "subsumable contract" popping up lately and they all seem to reference this Raytheon contract with DLA. The link below describes it a little but I'm confused about what this "umbrella" is and what the "subsumable" contracts are. What's most weird to me is how it appears to be an IDIQ but they're issuing other IDIQs and definitive ("C") contracts under this. Does anyone have any info on how this contract came about and how they're able to issue IDIQs and C types under this IDIQ? RTX Lands Historic $50B Defense Contract to Support Army, DLA, and DoD Worldwide - ClearanceJobs ClearanceJobsRTX Lands Historic $50B Defense Contract to Support Army,...RTX Corp. wins a $50 billion, 20-year DLA contract to provide a spectrum of systems, parts, and services across global defense operations.

I've been looking for examples of oral presentations and have started to wonder why is it that Oral Presentations are always a standalone factor? The FAR states, "Oral presentations by offerors as requested by the Government may substitute for, or augment, written information." Couldn't you just make it part of another factor like past performance so offerors could provide a more detailed explanation of a written past performance submission, then give their past performance a more holistic rating without separately rating their oral presentation? or am I missing something that requires or makes it a better idea to have the oral presentation as a separate factor?

A Part 8 BPA, the hours would be used just to develop a total evaluated price to ensure the total price is fair and reasonable and compare the proposals on price for any tradeoffs we do.

I have an upcoming requirement for a BPA and was thinking of using the "ROPE" technique for pricing. Has anyone used this technique as described on the PTIA? https://acquisitiongateway.gov/periodic-table/resources/4934 Their description talks to not providing the estimated number of hours with vendors but every example they show has worksheets with estimates. I'm curious what everyone's experience is with asking for just the rates and not providing estimated numbers of hours. Does this really make anything easier or better?

If I have a Multiple Award IDIQ where only one vendor has rights to provide a certain brand name product, determined to be vital to the requirement, but in the open market there's several other vendors who have rights to provide the same product would this be subject to just 16.505(a)(4) or also subject to 16.505(b)(2)? My concern is that if it's subject to 16.505(b)(2) I'd consider it under the exception "(B) Only one awardee is capable of providing the supplies or services required at the level of quality required because the supplies or services ordered are unique or highly specialized." However, I'm not sure the bolded part applies if there's other open market vendors who can provide this.

Came across the attached article today regarding fixed unit price contracts, it seems that the experts at VAO contend that FUP isn't a thing in federal acquisition and suggests using T&M/LH instead. I've seen the various articles on here that say otherwise and I know Vern has written an article though I don't have access to it. Curious what this forum thinks of the article and if their thought process is compelling at all... VAO-Fixed-Unit-Price-Ceiling.pdf

I feel like I'm missing something very basic here but FAR 13.500(a) only allows us to go up to $15M however FAR 13.501(a)(2)(iii) and (iv) prescribe how to get approvals up to $75M or $100M for DoD/CG/NASA. If we're only allowed to use FAR 13.5 for up to $15M, why would we there be language on how to get approvals above that amount?