napolik

You can disable the smileys, which are called "emoticons." Just click on "Enable Emoticons?" below the text box to remove the checkmark.

Merci! Voila!

If the ANC firm is still a certified eligible 8(a), you should be able to award a sole source contract to it. See 19.805 ( (2). I suggest you have your Small Business Specialist contact SBA to assure there will be no problems.

Quote

19.805 -- Competitive 8(a).

19.805-1 -- General.

(a) Except as provided in paragraph ( of this subsection, an acquisition offered to the SBA under the 8(a) Program shall be awarded on the basis of competition limited to eligible 8(a)firms if --

(1) There is a reasonable expectation that at least two eligible and responsible 8(a) firms will submit offers and that award can be made at a fair market price; and

(2) The anticipated total value of the contract, including options, will exceed $5.5 million for acquisitions assigned manufacturing North American Industry Classification System (NAICS) codes and $3.5 million for all other acquisitions.

( Where an acquisition exceeds the competitive threshold, the SBA may accept the requirement for a sole source 8(a) award if --

(1) There is not a reasonable expectation that at least two eligible and responsible 8(a) firms will submit offers at a fair market price; or

(2) SBA accepts the requirement on behalf of a concern owned by an Indian tribe or an Alaska Native Corporation.

? A proposed 8(a) requirement with an estimated value exceeding the applicable competitive threshold amount shall not be divided into several requirements for lesser amounts in order to use 8(a) sole source procedures for award to a single firm.

Unquote

The smiley face displaced a "b".

If anyone has experience on renewing a contract that was previously awarded to an Alaska Native Corporation (ANC) under 8(a), please share your experience with me. My office currently has a contract with an ANC for base operations including O&M support and logistics. The contract is getting ready to expire and my office is in the process preparing a follow-on requirement that is currently performing by an ANC. I wasn?t sure if we can go back to the ANC as a sole source or do we have to process as a full and open competition. It appears to be we could go back to the incumbent contractor who is an ANC, but wasn?t sure. Does 8(a) program time limits of 9 years applicable to this scenario?

Please enlighten me.

Thank you.

If the ANC firm is still a certified eligible 8(a), you should be able to award a sole source contract to it. See 19.805 ( (2). I suggest you have your Small Business Specialist contact SBA to assure there will be no problems.

Quote

19.805 -- Competitive 8(a).

19.805-1 -- General.

(a) Except as provided in paragraph ( of this subsection, an acquisition offered to the SBA under the 8(a) Program shall be awarded on the basis of competition limited to eligible 8(a)firms if --

(1) There is a reasonable expectation that at least two eligible and responsible 8(a) firms will submit offers and that award can be made at a fair market price; and

(2) The anticipated total value of the contract, including options, will exceed $5.5 million for acquisitions assigned manufacturing North American Industry Classification System (NAICS) codes and $3.5 million for all other acquisitions.

( Where an acquisition exceeds the competitive threshold, the SBA may accept the requirement for a sole source 8(a) award if --

(1) There is not a reasonable expectation that at least two eligible and responsible 8(a) firms will submit offers at a fair market price; or

(2) SBA accepts the requirement on behalf of a concern owned by an Indian tribe or an Alaska Native Corporation.

? A proposed 8(a) requirement with an estimated value exceeding the applicable competitive threshold amount shall not be divided into several requirements for lesser amounts in order to use 8(a) sole source procedures for award to a single firm.

Unquote

My company is a subcontractor providing services to a prime under a contract with Government. The prime is considerably overdue in settlement of its invoices (by a period of months not days) and has given no reason for its failure to do so. My company is concerned that the prime has failed to invoice Government and may be insolvent. Is there any means of compelling the prime to make payment to its subs (other than normal debt collection procedures)? Alternatively, is there any means of approaching Government for payment to be made direct to the subs? Any and all advice welcomed. Thank you in advance.

Is the prime contract for a commercial or noncommercial product or service? If the answer is "noncommercial", take a look at FAR 32.112. Also, see the definition of "Commerial Item" at FAR 2.101.

If you do not know, the answer, I suggest you call the contracting officer and ask the question.

Thanks for the opinions. Keep them coming.

The procurement is negotiated under FAR Part 15 using LPTA as the evaluation scheme.

Contracting is an art, and every contracting officer is an artist. In your case, I don't know why the contracting officer used those brush strokes to create that provision. My guess is that he or she prefers to award a single contract.

BTW, here is the standard FAR Part 15 provision:

Quote

52.215-1 -- Instructions to Offerors -- Competitive Acquisition

(f) Contract award.

(6) The Government reserves the right to make multiple awards if, after considering the additional administrative costs, it is in the Government?s best interest to do so.

Unquote

What are the factors used to determine acceptability?

Looking for opinions here.

As a result of a solicitation containing the following language, does the Government have to make a single award?

"Due to the interrelationship of supplies and/or services to be provided hereunder, the Government reserves the right to make a single award to the offeror whose offer is considered in the best interest of the Government, price and other factors considered. Therefore, offerors proposing less than the entire effort specified herein may be determined to be unacceptable. "

Thanks!

No. The Gov't reserves the right to make an award. It is not obligated to make an award.

This is a peculiar provision. This reminds me of some of the small business "cascading" provisions that were in vogue a few years back. In this case, it appears the Gov't will award multiple contracts only if it does not receive an offer covering all items.

Is this being conducted under FAR 8, 12, 13, 15 or 16? What are the evaluation factors other than price?

I spoke with the GAO rep who understands well the significance of the issue. He said that the GAO attorneys are still looking at the issue and that he expects an answer in another day or two.

Not yet.

I will call again later today.

k

Both will be competitive procurements and that's clearly written into the Acquisition Strategy and in the approval document. ITES-2S is an Army ID/IQ that we can order off of and the office giving Client A the interpretation is the PCO for the vehicle so one would think they know it's a multiple award IDIQ. Alliant was also multiple award (59 primes)

Let me suggest that you point out in writing that the placement of the order complies with FAR 16.504 becuase the basic contract and the task orders were, or are to be, competed. Also, I suggest you make it easy for the Army to comply with the following DFARS provision:

Quote

217.7802 Policy.

(a) A DoD acquisition official may place an order, make a purchase, or otherwise acquire supplies or services for DoD in excess of the simplified acquisition threshold through a non-DoD agency in any fiscal year only if the head of the non-DoD agency has certified that the non-DoD agency will comply with defense procurement requirements for the fiscal year.

(1) This limitation shall not apply to the acquisition of supplies and services during any fiscal year for which there is in effect a written determination of the Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition, Technology, and Logistics, that it is necessary in the interest of DoD to acquire supplies and services through the non-DoD agency during the fiscal year. A written determination with respect to a non-DoD agency shall apply to any category of acquisitions through the non-DoD agency that is specified in the determination.

(2) Non-DoD agency certifications and additional information are available at http://www.acq.osd.mil/dpap/cpic/cp/intera...cquisition.html

Unquote

If your agency has made the certification, send copies to the Army POCs. This may help them overcome any resistance to the use of an Interagency Agreement.

napolik - New task order under existing multiple award IDIQ. Both are DoD clients, specifically Army but are dealing with different Army contracting shops for purposes of getting approval to use non-DoD shop. Not pertinent but both shops have told respective clients they don't have capacity to support the procurement so that's not part of the equation.

Client A - order value is $30M annually and they want 5 years but are considering 3 because of this interpretation.

Client B - order value is $45M annually and they only want 3 years because work is in Afghanistan and hopefully we'll be out of there in 3 years.

Both targeted IDIQs have ceiling value over $1B and were multiple award (Client A = ITES-2S, client B = Alliant)

WhyNot - Both procurements would be done under FAR Part 16, not 15. I'll look at the FAC - thanks

Have you told the Army folks that your contract is a multiple award, not a single award?

Are you competing the Client A and B orders among the multiple contract holders?

I called GAO. After explaining the circumstances to the GAO rep and asking how I could obtain an advance opinion on the matter, I was told that GAO reps will caucus on the subject. The GAO rep will contact me in a day or two.

Monsieur, on ne badine pas avec le GAO. Il faudra que j'y r?fl?chisse.

Woops,

Are you planning to place orders exceeding $100 million under one of your existing contracts that exceeds $100 million? If so, did you award your contract to a single or to multiple contractors?

A minimum of plus or minus 10%.

When changing contract SOWs from LOE to FFP, I expect to introduce performance measures that do not exist in the current SOW. These measures could drive the prices up or down.

Would you change your mind if the negotiated FFP varies from the T&M maximum price or from the price of the FFP LOE?

I am attempting to convert contract types from T&M and FFP LOE to FFP or cost reimbursement. My client offers the opinion that a change of contract type is within the scope of the original competition. Thus, the shift in contract type can be accomplished without a new competition. After re-reading this post -http://www.wifcon.com/discussion/index.php?showtopic=65 - and the GAO decisions in DOR Biodefense Inc. and Emergent BioSolutions - B-296358.3 and B-296358.4, I believe that the shift in contract type is outside the scope of the competition, but I am not certain.

Does anyone have any case law to support or refute my belief?

I assume you have the following clause in your contract: 52.216-7 Allowable Cost and Payment (Dec. 2002).

Note this sentence in (a) (1): "The Contractor may submit to an authorized representative of the Contracting Officer, in such form and reasonable detail as the representative may require, an invoice or voucher supported by a statement of the claimed allowable cost for performing this contract."

Note the phrase in the middle of the sentence: "...in such form and reasonable detail as the representative may require, ...".

I think you are entitled to ask for details on the contents of the direct labor.

Quote

(a) Invoicing.

(1) The Government will make payments to the Contractor when requested as work progresses, but (except for small business concerns) not more often than once every 2 weeks, in amounts determined to be allowable by the Contracting Officer in accordance with Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) Subpart 31.2 in effect on the date of this contract and the terms of this contract. The Contractor may submit to an authorized representative of the Contracting Officer, in such form and reasonable detail as the representative may require, an invoice or voucher supported by a statement of the claimed allowable cost for performing this contract.

Unquote

In my youth, perhaps I had too many Sisters Mary Knuckles drilling grammar and sentence structure into me. It is very clear to me that the words ?that were incomplete, inaccurate, or noncurrent? represent a relative clause modifying the word ?data?.

If the clause does not modify the word "data", what does it modify?

There is not a single, clear definition. I suggest you read the discussion entitled "Meaning of 'Within the General Scope"' starting on page 382 of The Administration of Government Contracts, Fourth Edition.

There is no prohibition, or even discouragement, from using direct acquisition (i.e. placing orders under GSA FSS or GWACS) to meet DOD needs. See the below FAQ from http://www.acq.osd.mil/dpap/cpic/cp/faq.html.

What are the circumstances in which it is appropriate to use direct acquisitions?

DoD contracting officers are encouraged to utilize existing contracts of non-DoD agencies when supplies or services under contract meet or exceed DoD schedule and performance requirements. DoD contracting officers must ensure that the prices obtained for such goods and services are fair and reasonable and that all statutory, regulatory, and policy requirements of the Department are met. As is the case with any procurement this business decision must be sufficiently documented in the contract file. Examples of a direct acquisition include the placement of an order against a General Services Administration Schedule contract or the National Aeronautics and Space Administration?s (NASA) Scientific and Engineering Workstation Procurement (SEWP) contract by a DoD contracting officer.

What are the circumstances in which it is appropriate to use assisted acquisitions?

DoD requirements may be met utilizing the assisted services of non-DoD agencies. Utilizing an assisted acquisition may be appropriate when requirements are well defined, the bona fide need standard is met, when the fees paid are considered fair and reasonable, when there is a complete understanding between the parties of roles and responsibilities, especially with regard to contract oversight and administration, and when it is determined to be in the best interest of the Department. Sufficient and appropriate funds must be utilized for the tasks to be accomplished for the time period of performance. All Interagency Acquisitions should have an Interagency Agreement (IA) regardless of dollar value. See the Director of Defense Procurements memo of October 31, 2008. However, the memo notes that an abbreviated IA may be appropriate for acquisitions less than $500,000.

f fed,

Are you saying that it is OK to issue an Indefinite Delivery contract against a GSA Schedule? If so, what about FAR 8.403 -- Applicability? Under what part of the FAR do you conduct the competition?

The GSA Schedule is an indefinite delivery contract. You do not issue an indefinite delivery contract under a GSA Schedule. You issue an order or create a BPA against the Schedule.

Quote

8.403 -- Applicability.

(a) Procedures in this subpart apply to--

(1) Individual orders placed for supplies or services placed against Federal Supply Schedules contracts; and

(2) BPAs established against Federal Supply Schedule contracts.

Unquote

Take a look at 8.405-3. I suspect you want to establish a BPA.

Are you asking if you should insert the provisions now, or if you should insert them after receipt of proposals? If you agree with the contractor?s request to include the ?provisions?, put them in now. This is particularly true as you are dealing with overseas contractors who miss the subtleties of the FAR vocabulary. If not, wait with your fingers crossed until the due date for submission of proposals. If you receive multiple proposals, you can negotiate with a stronger hand. If he submits the sole proposal and attaches a letter of exceptions, then include or delete the ?provisions? in the PO and send it to him for signature. If you receive no proposals, modify the solicitation to accommodate the contractor?s wish and send it back to him for signature.

Are you sure you are dealing with solicitation provisions and not contract clauses, or elements of the SOW?

BTW, I once dealt with an overseas contractor who refused to sign a contract because various clauses said the ?Secretary? was empowered to take certain actions. The Secretary was the Secretary of Defense or Navy, not a clerk.

Assuming there is no clause in your contract with Uncle limiting your discretion in selecting subs (e.g. subcontract approval or subcontracting plan requirements), you are not bound by the FAR source selection policies and procedures. As a good business practice, I think you should be consistent with any source selection procedures listed in your solicitation. Assuming there are no detailed procedures, negotiate in a way that makes sense and gets you the best deal.

You can do either one.

The DOD used to have an initiative designed to match performance against available monies - Cost As an Independent Variable (CAIV). Tell the contractor how much you are willing to pay and invite them to suggest changes to your SOW, Ts and Cs, or whatever, to meet the cost (or price) target. It worked for me in a FFP competition.