flitzer

9 minutes ago, jewettr said:

A possible consideration that may or may not be applicable:  Was the funding obligated on contract during this or a previous fiscal year?  If not obligated this year, and you're considering to pay using funds from this FY on the purchase card, you may create a bona fide needs violation.

Yes, funding was obligated on this contract last year. 

10 hours ago, ji20874 said:

Really?  I’m not so sure.  Are you thinking unilaterally, or bilaterally?

Bilaterally

I have a program manager that has requested to change the method of payment on a T&M CLIN up to $2500.00 from payment by electronic funds transfer to payment by third party (GPC) in an effort to de-obligate the funds for the contract.  It seems to me I can change the payment method, but in no way can I de-obligate the contract as this is a violation of the Antideficiency Act.  Can a third party credit card company be considered obligated if there are no funds on the contract to fund these services?  I feel like this is really dumb question:)

Never split the difference...

2 hours ago, apsofacto said:

Pepe and flitzer, I find it useful to blink a lot with an blank, innocent expression on my face.  Actual example:

"I couldn't find the prohibition in our purchase card policy against buying that particular item, but I'm probably looking in the wrong place.  Can you point me in the right direction?" (blinks innocently)

If you try to hear church choir music in your head while doing this it really helps you carry It off.  Since I hit my 40s I feel I'm really coming into my own as a performer.

That's brilliant idea, but I would turn the last sentence into a no oriented question, like, "Is it crazy idea if you can point out where I can find this regulation?" The "point out" is a good unspecific colloquialism (it means nothing really), and who is going to call you crazy?

Thanks for the feedback everyone.  I've only had one situation where a quote came in very low.  I asked the contractor to provide me with similar sales data to show me if had done the work for other people at his price.  He did, and I awarded the contract.. 

Roger that. 

Pepe, I have had large spreads in the past for solicitations I have posted, but for this one, I though I really nailed it with regard to the PWS.  I had site visits and the contractors that visited asked questions, which I answered.  I guess I'll try harder next time. 

I am looking for a different place to work at.  That might be the ultimate solution. 

My office feels that when quotes have a significant spread that those quotes are not valid and cannot be used as a means of price reasonableness; additionally, my office considers the acquisition as a sole source procurement.  For example, consider a contract was solicited and the quotes that came in were:

$300,000.00

$425,000.00

$1,200,000.00 

If I were to attempt to justify the award on competition per FAR 13.106-3(a)(1) my CO would reject this proposition, and ask me to use another method.  I understand with that with such a large spread, I would have to compare the lowest price with past prices paid or ask the contractor for sales data, but I can't find a reason to justify considering this as a sole source procurement because the significant price spread.  Consider all of the quotes responsive in my example.   And consider this as a commercial item and LPTA is being used as the evaluation method. 

Two quotes were way over-priced.

4

I did not include any FAR 15 language in the solicitation.

This is in reference to a RFQ using FAR 13 Simplified Acquisition over the SAT I posted on FBO.  One of the contractor's quotes does not meet the technical requirements specified in the solicitation and the solicitation has closed; the solicitation contains the clause 52.212-1(f).  Can I establish technical capability from the contractor's website which would be sufficient to meet the technical requirements outlined in the solicitation, or can I ask the contractor to revise his quote even thought the solicitation has closed?

3 hours ago, joel hoffman said:

 napolik is describing is what I would call a “technical analysis” (see 15.404-1 (e) Technical Analysis) as part of a cost analysis.  Why not have the customer’s technical personnel who provided the estimate perform the analysis and justify their basis of estimate or otherwise advise you? 

This what I was looking for.  Thanks.  

ICG is a mistake.  I meant to write ICGE.  

I'm completely lost.  I have administer a T&M contract and the unit I am administering this contract has requested repair for an item.  The unit has submitted an estimate and a SOW for the services and the contractor has submitted a proposal.  So, my first question is regarding the labor hours: What cost evaluation method should I use?  Can I use the labor hours from the ICG only?  What justification do I have if I only use the ICG?  

8 hours ago, Vern Edwards said:

I wonder if "incrementally funded" is the right term.

If a contract is funded only to the end of a CR, is that considered fully funded or is that considered incrementally funded?  And let's say this same contract has a POP of one year, yet the CR period is three months.

This is in regard to FFP service contracts.  I have some contracts that are being incrementally funded from one CR to another and am confused about how to avoid being in violation of the ADA, an act I really don't understand well.  Say a program manager provides 1/4 of funds for half a year for a contract that does not cross fiscal years because the CR (or so they say). Let us say I don't receive more funds until two weeks after three months into the year to cover the fourth month of the contract.  Is that a violation of the ADA if the services were being performed during those two weeks without funding even though the services were paid for on time ar the end of the month?  

     Now say a contract is funded right up to the end of a CR and funds can not be provided until a new CR is passed.  Must services be stopped at the end of the CR if the program manager can't provide a purchase request a week after the PR is funded?  

    These contracts have the subject to availablity clauses in them.  

1 hour ago, Todd Davis said:

It is not a matter of being honor-bound.  There is a statutory requirement for a CO to set-aside certain procurements, which is implemented at FAR Subpart 19.5.

If the acquisition exceeds the micropurchase threshold, but not the SAT it "is automatically reserved exclusively for small business concerns and shall be set aside for small business unless the contracting officer determines there is not a reasonable expectation of obtaining offers from two or more responsible small business concerns that are competitive in terms of market prices, quality, and delivery. If the contracting officer does not proceed with the small business set-aside and purchases on an unrestricted basis, the contracting officer shall include in the contract file the reason for this unrestricted purchase."  See FAR 19.502-2(b) for actions over the SAT.

Also, by making a decision not to set-aside a procurement for small business, it does not exclude small business from participating or receiving award.  It simply means they must compete with entities that are other than small businesses.

As you may already be aware of, FAR 19.202-2 provides some guidance on locating small business sources.

If your concerned about the adequacy or reasonableness of a decision not to set-aside an acquisition for small business, I'd recommend reviewing some of the protests decisions and opinions that are listed here on Wifcon at the link below.  A new opinion by the Court of Federal Claims regarding the "rule of two" was just posted yesterday.

http://www.wifcon.com/pd19_502.htm

Thank you, I had no idea what the "rule-of-two" is. 

51 minutes ago, Vern Edwards said:

Are you saying that the contractor's location relative to the site of performance is a crucial consideration?

No, I'm asking.  I don't mean to be glib.  I'm not really sure when it would be a consideration or not.  The solicitation will not have any type of geographical limitations except if must be situated in the USA.

     I hope I'm stating this correctly.  From how I interpret FAR part 19.2, generally, I am honor-bound to seek out and utilize small businesses to the maximum extent possible.  But, at what point can I say that it is not beneficial to limit a solicitation to small businesses?  For example, say I use the SBA Dynamic Small Business Search Engine and find only three small business concerns 2000 miles away that meet the requirement, is that justification for full and open competition?  As far as distance is concerned, what is reasonable to exclude small businesses?  Statewide searches?  Congressional district searches? 

      And to what extent would I need to utilize the SBA office?  If I ask the SBA office for assistance and they can not find any small businesses that can meet the requirement, is that sufficient to exclude small businesses from the solicitation?

     Is it my responsibility to find small businesses in the area and document my attempts to persuade them to register for SAM and the SBA? 

     If I post a RFI and no one shows interest, how much weight is this given?  If the only business concern that shows interest is not a small business, how does that weight in my consideration?