311 Open, Withdrawn, and Closed Protests Under NIH Solicitation 75N98121R00001

[C Culham]

13 hours ago, Vern Edwards said:

Has the advent of MATOCs/MADOCs improved the quality and prices of the goods and services received?

Pure factual evidence would be as hard to compile as finding evidence with regard to the success or not of performance based acquisition.

Here is my minimalist attempt.   

I visited this website https://www.fws.gov/program/contracting/matoc-information  which contains an Excel spreadsheet of awards.  Catagorzied by contractors and states the tabs on the spreadsheet has a combined 4201 lines.  I randomly picked two contractors and searched on their names at the USAspending.com website.  In both cases I found no task order awards (using a "F" per FAR subpart 4.16) against either contractors parent IDIQ.  In both cases I did find that each contractor had DoD IDIQ parent awards where task order awards were made against the parent IDIQ.

So what!   I agree!  What I found does nothing to provide any information what so ever regarding quality or price of services.   However it did show me that the time and effort to award a least the two parent contracts has yielded no actual procurement for an instant need.   Based on this simple fact the effort to award the parent IDIQs was a waste of time.

Next up the new in vogue mulitple issuance (dare I say award) BPA's both within the GSA FSS program and independent efforts of some agencies ( I can point to two quick examples - USDOL and USDA-FS).   I would suggest that evolution to the BPA and away from MATOCs would suggest that the MATOCs were for some reason felt not to be successful.  But I will never prove that either.

[Vern Edwards]

35 minutes ago, C Culham said:

Next up the new in vogue mulitple issuance (dare I say award) BPA's both within the GSA FSS program and independent efforts of some agencies ( I can point to two quick examples - USDOL and USDA-FS). 

The madness of 'innovation'!

Sounds like the title of an H.P. Lovecraft story.

It seems to have worked out well for some of the bid protest law firms.

U.S. Court of Federal Claims, 7 march 2024, 

EKAGRA PARTNERS, LLC, et. al., Plaintiff,  v. THE UNITED STATES, * Nos. 23-1610, * 23-1667, 23-1668 Defendant,

Plaintiffs Ekagra Partners, LLC (Ekagra), Unissant, Inc. (Unissant), AttainX, Inc. (AttainX), Logistics Systems, Inc. (LSI), Arch Systems, LLC (Arch), Alpha Omega Integration, LLC (AOI), Garud Technology Services, Inc. (GTS), Constellation, Inc. (Constellation), and Chakrabarti Management Consultancy, Inc. (CMCI) filed separate post-award bid protests challenging the award of two Blanket Purchase Agreements (BPAs) with U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP), each worth approximately $450 million over five years. The Solicitation was a General Services Administration (GSA) Multiple Award Schedule (MAS).

Seeking a permanent injunction, among other things.

108-page decision.

Lawyers:

Jon D. Levin, Maynard Nexsen PC, with whom were W. Brad English, Emily J. Chancey, Joshua B. Duvall, and Nicholas P. Greer, all of Huntsville, AL, for plaintiff Ekagra Partners, LLC. Jeffery M. Chiow, of Greenberg Traurig, LLP, with whom were Eleanor M. Ross, Cassidy Kim, and Jordan N. Malone, all of Washington, DC, for plaintiff Unissant, Inc. Daniel J. Strouse, of Cordatis LLP, of Arlington, VA, for plaintiff AttainX, Inc. John R. Tolle, of Barton, Baker, Thomas & Tolle, LLP, of McLean, VA, for plaintiff Logistics Systems Incorporated. Mark F. Rosenow, with whom were Matthew E. Feinberg, Lauren R. Brier, Mansitan Sow, and Annie B. Hudgins, of PilieroMazza PLLC, of Washington, DC, for plaintiff Arch Systems, LLC. Noah B. Bleicher, with whom were Moshe B. Broder, Andrew L. Balland, and Lauren A. Watson, of Jenner & Block, LLP, of Washington, DC, for plaintiff Alpha Omega Integration, LLC. John E. Jenson, with whom were Robert C. Starling, Whitney N. Alston, of Pillsbury Winthrop Shaw Pittman, LLP, of McLean, VA, for plaintiff Garud Technology Services, Inc. William E. Weisburg, of Law Offices of William Weisberg PLLC, of McLean, VA, for plaintiff Constellation, Inc. Beth V. McMahon, of ReavesGovCon Group, of Chesapeake, VA, for plaintiff Chakrabarti Management Consultancy, Inc. Igor Helman, Senior Trial Counsel, with whom were Andrew Hunter, Trial Attorney, Gisela A. Westwater, Trial Attorney, Steven J. Gillingham, Assistant Director, Patricia M. McCarthy, Director, and Brian M. Boynton, Principal Deputy Assistant Attorney General, Civil Division, Department of Justice, all of Washington, DC, for defendant. William A. Shook, of The Law Offices of William A. Shook PLLC, of Washington, DC, and Steven Barentzen, of The Law Office of Steven Barentzen, of Washington, DC, for defendant-intervenor Novilo Technology Solutions, LLC. James C. Fontana, of Fontana Law Group, PLLC, of Tysons, VA, and David R. Warner, with whom was Heather Mims, of Warner, PLLC, of Reston, VA, for defendant-intervenor CAN Softtech, Inc. James C. Fontana, of Fontana Law Group, PLLC, of Tysons, VA, and David R. Warner, with whom was Heather Mims, of Warner, PLLC, of Reston, VA, for defendant-intervenor NiyamIT, Inc. Nicholas T. Solosky, with whom was Reginald M. Jones, of Fox Rothschild LLP, of Washington, DC, for defendant-intervenor Catalina Solutions. Matthew T. Schoonover, with whom was Matthew P. Moriarty, John M. Mattox, Ian P. Patterson, and Timothy J. Laughlin, of Schoonover & Moriarty LLC, of Olathe, KS, for defendant-intervenor Chevo Consulting, LLC.

Outcome:

For the foregoing reasons, the Court now (1) DENIES Ekagra’s Motion for Judgment on the Administrative Record, ECF No. 74; (2) FINDS AS MOOT Ekagra’s Motion for Preliminary Injunction, see supra FN 1, ECF No. 2; (3) DENIES plaintiff Unissant’s Motion for Judgment on the Administrative Record, ECF No. 77; (4) DENIES AttainX’s Motion for Judgment on the Administrative Record, ECF No. 68; (5) DENIES LSI’s Motion for Judgment on the Administrative Record, ECF No. 80; (6) DENIES Arch’s Motion for Judgment on the Administrative Record, ECF No. 84; (7) DENIES AOI’s Motion for Judgment on the Administrative Record, ECF No. 81; (8) FINDS AS MOOT AOI’s Motion to Strike, ECF No. 112, see supra Section VI.A.5.; (9) DENIES GTS’ Motion for Judgment on the Administrative Record, ECF No. 82; (10) DENIES Constellation’s Motion for Judgment on the Administrative Record, ECF No. 83; (11) DENIES CMCI’s Motion for Judgment on the Administrative Record, ECF No. 75; (12) GRANTS the government’s Cross-Motions for Judgment on the Administrative Record, ECF Nos. 93 & 106; (13) GRANTS Novilo’s Cross-Motions for Judgment on the Administrative Record, ECF Nos. 92 & 104; (14) GRANTS CAN Softtech’s Cross-Motion for Judgment on the Administrative Record, ECF No. 91; (15) GRANTS NiyamIT’s Cross-Motions for Judgment on the Administrative Record, ECF Nos. 90 & 101; (16) GRANTS Catalina’s Cross-motion for Judgment on the Administrative Record, ECF No. 105; (17) GRANTS Chevo’s Cross-Motion for Judgment on the Administrative Record, ECF No. 103; (18) FINDS AS MOOT Chevo’s Motion to Dismiss, ECF No. 103, supra n.6; and (19) DENIES Catalina’s Motion for Leave to File Supplemental Briefing, ECF No. 165, supra n.14. The Clerk is directed to enter judgment accordingly.

I wonder how much was spent on that puppy, all told. I wonder what the cost was to us taxpayers.

Madness.

[C Culham]

1 hour ago, Vern Edwards said:

Madness.

Yes!

No intent to one up you.  It is just interesting to me when one starts looking.   Here - https://www.gao.gov/products/b-421221%2Cb-421221.3   One year six months to evaluate and award with 6 amendments to the GSA FSS RFQ.   And then one year and three months after award the protest decision!   So much for a simplified acquisition strategy by the Administrative Office of the United States Courts.

[formerfed]

5 hours ago, C Culham said:

Pure factual evidence would be as hard to compile as finding evidence with regard to the success or not of performance based acquisition.

There was an attempt several years ago to create a government database of prices paid.  It failed for multiple reasons.

GSA picked it up but their information is just limited to their own contracts and doesn’t show discounted amounts from task orders awarded.  GWAC prices are only available to government employees and contractors with a gov address. Prices

To do a comparison requires a very large effort.  One needs to examine GWAC rates and labor category descriptions with contractor rates and labor categories using their GSA schedule contracts and task orders issued under the contracts.  In order to be reasonably fair for comparison, one would need to look at a large sample of GWAC contractors and associated labor categories.

As a point of reference, NIH plans to award approximately 450 contracts to large and small businesses.

All this just would show differences in prices paid and not include relative times and resources needed to conduct actions using GWACs compared to other contracting methods. 
 

[C Culham]

17 hours ago, formerfed said:

All this just would show differences in prices paid and not include relative times and resources needed to conduct actions using GWACs compared to other contracting methods. 

Waxing philosophical or simple anecdotal my thoughts are these. 

I agree every procurment is different and would be a block to determining quality and price of parent MATOCs, GWACs, even BPAs.  I would further agree each are useful tools.  Yet to the points on which I responded, quality and price, I beleive the pendulm has swung to far due to legislative action and, borrowing from Vern, supposed innovation.  Simplified acquisiton has been turned upside down when it comes to multiple award BPA's as they are now being used.   IDIQs as instruments of GWACS and MATOCs, specifcially for services, combined with the mulitple award preference now require at least two competitions and I would bet that within the Federal government and their use maybe at least three in some cases.    Time and resources compared to other actions might be less but even trying to demonstrate this supposed "saving" would be extremely challenging.   And I would futher offer that quality and prices has suffered.  The monster tools foster wham bam procurements to just get the job done.   People are less concened about quality and more about just getting a contractor.   Fair and reasonable price therefore becomes a ghost as well as the competition after the initial establishment of a pool for whatever instrument becomes much smaller, by example the NIH effort 450 or some number less than that.  Same with GSA FSS per FAR subpart 8.4.  The ideal of multiple award has become an accordian.   A grand tune could be played with simple and short expansions of the bellows, the bellows are now put to a fractured limit by trying to get all the air one can into a GWAC, MATOC, BPA instument.   

Anecodotal yes but I believe quality has suffered and at what price and extended cost will never be known and that is a problem.   

[Vern Edwards]

18 hours ago, formerfed said:

There was an attempt several years ago to create a government database of prices paid.  It failed for multiple reasons.

The most  basic reason is that most of those contracts seem to be for services, and in order to measure and compare the prices of a given type of service you need a unit of measure. Now see Hill, On Goods and Services, the very first paragraph:

Quote

The search for appropriate units of quantity in which to measure services is not an idle metaphysical pursuit. Without quantity units there can be no prices, and most economic theory becomes irrelevant. Indeed, large parts of economic theory may be irrelevant to the analysis of services anyway, precisely because they are not goods which can be exchanged among economic units.

I question whether the concept of a unit even applies to services, since services are heterogenous. Each instance of performance is unique to some extent, dependent upon recipient and circumstances. "Hour", "day", and "month", are convenient, but not real, since each hour, day, and month of service is unique to a greater or lesser extent.

[Vern Edwards]

15 minutes ago, C Culham said:

Simplified acquisition has been turned upside down when it comes to multiple award BPA's as they are now being used.

Simplified acquisition does not exist!

Consider the RFQ that I posted about at Wifcon Forum and maybe the worst in history, the one for grounds maintenance services, W15QKN24Q5086, which is still posted to SAM.gov. That procurement is being conducted pursuant to FAR Parts 12 and 13 and is set aside for small businesses. The grounds to be maintained measure only 1.6 acres, less than the size of my home. The tasks are mowing, edging, trimming, weeding, and spring/fall cleanup. One should expect it to be very simple. Yet the RFQ is 90 pages long and contain 84 FAR and DFARS provisions and clauses, including the Service Contract Act clauses.

I buy the same services and more for the maintenance of my home property and another property I own in a nearby town, and I have no written contract at all!

If we had an OFPP administrator worthy of the title they would show RFQ W15QKN24Q5086 to their OMB supervisor and to Congress, page-by-page, as evidence that the procurement system we now have is costly lunacy and insist on reform from the top as a matter of national security. I can imagine such an administrator testifying before House and Senate committees and showing them the facts about that RFQ on a large screen and explaining their significance the politicians and the public and telling them that it is the product of excessive legislation and executive ordering, lax congressional and executive oversight, and agency managerial indifference and incompetence.

That RFQ is, in and of itself, a very small matter. But once you realize that it reflects a big, costly, systemic hindrance to government effectiveness, it looms very large indeed.

[RJ_Walther]

1 hour ago, C Culham said:

And I would futher offer that quality and prices has suffered.  The monster tools foster wham bam procurements to just get the job done.   People are less concened about quality and more about just getting a contractor. 

I would counter that most of the issues described in this thread (and the protest thread, and many others) are not that contracts are being awarded too quickly and quality and prices are suffering, I think the issue is contracts are taking too long to award, or never being awarded at all, resulting in all sorts of administrative waste (rather than just spending too much directly on the contract) on top of the government not getting what it needs (the ultimate quality issue).

[Vern Edwards]

Withdrawn.

[RJ_Walther]

 

33 minutes ago, Vern Edwards said:

Emphasis added.

@RJ_Walther I don't understand what you wrote. Did you mean "are" instead of "are not" in your first phrase? In the second phrase you seem to be taking issue with what has thus far been said here and elsewhere. Please explain. Provide quotes.

Ah, it made sense in my head... I don't take issue with most of what has been said here and elsewhere, I just wanted to point out in response to the following that it doesn't seem like the problem is necessarily that a lot of contracts are getting awarded too quickly resulting in low quality and high prices, i.e. these FAR 16.505 or 8.405-3 actions are not actually "wham bam procurements to just get the job done", they are in fact still very slow and cumbersome (in part due to protests, but also likely due to agencies' failure to actually streamline their non-Part 15 processes):

2 hours ago, C Culham said:

Time and resources compared to other actions might be less but even trying to demonstrate this supposed "saving" would be extremely challenging.   And I would futher offer that quality and prices has suffered.  The monster tools foster wham bam procurements to just get the job done.   People are less concened about quality and more about just getting a contractor. 

So I'm not sure we're trading quality/price for more speed (or even that it would necessarily be a bad thing to trade some quality/price for more speed), but rather none of the supposed speed or efficiency benefits of GWACs and MACs are materializing. From the second post in this thread:

On 5/20/2023 at 11:37 AM, formerfed said:

A huge amount of both government and industry time and effort goes into just getting to contract award which takes literally years after all protests are resolved.  Then ordering agencies go through similar efforts at the task order levels beginning with providing “fair opportunity” to “approximately 305 to 510 IDIQ contracts” holders.  Where is the “streamlining,” “efficiency,” and “economy” of the process?

[Vern Edwards]

@RJ_Walther I misread your comment. I'm sorry. I understand now.

I think that people are seeking to speed up awards and, as Carl has pointed out, have developed devices designed to do that, e.g., the MATOC/MADOCs and the GSA schedule BPAs.

Just now, RJ_Walther said:

... none of the supposed speed or efficiency benefits of GWACs and MACs are materializing.

Bingo.

At least, I don't see any indication they are, especially given the methods being used to issue orders. In fact, they have made acquisition more complex, which, in turn, may have actually further slowed the acquisition process.

[formerfed]

2 hours ago, Vern Edwards said:

I think that people are seeking to speed up awards and, as Carl has pointed out, have developed devices designed to do that, e.g., the MATOC/MADOCs and the GSA schedule BPAs.

If I were doing a IT service procurement now, I would use a GSA Schedule.  Depending upon size and complexity of my action, I would conduct research to identify a small group of viable competitors (maybe 3-5).  Then I would issue an RFQ, evaluate responses, and select one for award.   I would skip any large multiple award IDIQ contracts such as GWACS.

If I knew I would have multiple similar requirements for services, awarding BPAs off GSA Schedule makes sense.  Alternatively I’ve seen successful use of MATOCs where the number of awards are relatively small and easily manageable for competing task orders.  Two that come to mind are DoE and VA where they awarded 5 and 7 contracts respectively.  Each had three technical subject areas (line items) which offerors could propose against and the solicitations stated the number of resulting awards would be based upon anticipating competition for ensuing task orders.  The RFPs used some language implying at least three contractors for each line item is the objective.  

[General.Zhukov]

3 hours ago, formerfed said:

If I were doing a IT service procurement now, I would use a GSA Schedule.

This is happening now.  >90% of HHS's IT spend is done via an acquisition vehicle*

Of that 90% of IT spend, half of it is spent on GSA Schedules and HHS's own IT GWACs. 

For IT, you have to deal with many complicated issues where just figuring out the terms and conditions is a challenge for GVT, and compliance cost the contractor mountains of money.  This isn't feasible to do per contract, unless it's a really big contract.

 

*Orders, not FAR 15, not an 'open market' FAR 13 purchase order.  

[C Culham]

22 hours ago, RJ_Walther said:

but rather none of the supposed speed or efficiency benefits of GWACs and MACs are materializing.

Yes.  If I were to re-write my comment I would change it to "intention is to create wham bam procurements" through the MATOCs, BPAs, etc.  As an aside there are such vehicles that have been created that did not generate massive protests, if protested at all.   

 

21 hours ago, formerfed said:

If I were doing a IT service procurement now

Why not this?   I will just guess that the market place does it for IT as I know it is done otherwise (I buy hay this way).   Standing Quotation (FAR 13.103).   IT commercial item, allowance to use SAP up to $7.5 million per instant need.  Forget a MATOC, or even a BPA veiled as a "contract", just give me a "standing quote", per my solicitation make it last for XX time period, now I need some IT what further discount will you give me and here is your award.  

 

[Vern Edwards]

Everyone should remember that the MATOCs and MADOCs that are the building blocks of GWACs and MACs were authorized by the Federal Acquisition Streamlining Act of 1994. The idea was to make buying commercial items easier and faster and to get better prices. After 30 years, what is the verdict?

Any facts? Any fact-based consensus?

[formerfed]

3 hours ago, C Culham said:

Why not this?   I will just guess that the market place does it for IT as I know it is done otherwise (I buy hay this way).   Standing Quotation (FAR 13.103).   IT commercial item, allowance to use SAP up to $7.5 million per instant need.  Forget a MATOC, or even a BPA veiled as a "contract", just give me a "standing quote", per my solicitation make it last for XX time period, now I need some IT what further discount will you give me and here is your award.  

I don’t see it as practical for many situations such as when you want a solution rather than just looking at standing quotes presumably for defined labor categories.  Another problem is the need to publicize per FAR 13.105 at some point. That may attract a large number of potentially interested firms to deal with.  In addition, one would generally have to restrict consideration to only small businesses.  That may be fine in many instances but perhaps not on large value and/or complex needs.

[Voyager]

2 hours ago, Vern Edwards said:

Everyone should remember that the MATOCs and MADOCs that are the building blocks of GWACs and MACs were authorized by the Federal Acquisition Streamlining Act of 1994. The idea was to make buying commercial items easier and faster and to get better prices. After 30 years, what is the verdict?

Any facts? Any fact-based consensus?

For facts, we can compare the same version of the commercial contract clause over time.  Here is FAR 52.212-5 from 61 FR 41471, Aug. 8, 1996 vs. FAR 52.212-5 from 89 FR 30246-47, Apr. 22, 2024:

Quote

52.212–5 CONTRACT TERMS AND CONDITIONS REQUIRED TO IMPLEMENT STATUTES OR EXECUTIVE ORDERS—COMMERCIAL ITEMS (AUG 1996)

(a) The Contractor agrees to comply with the following FAR clauses, which are incorporated in this contract by reference, to implement provisions of law or Executive orders applicable to acquisitions of commercial items:

(1) 52.222–3, Convict Labor (E.O. 11755); and

(2) 52.233–3, Protest After Award (31 U.S.C 3553).

(b) The Contractor agrees to comply with the FAR clauses in this paragraph (b) which the contracting officer has indicated as being incorporated in this contract by reference to implement provisions of law or executive orders applicable to acquisitions of commercial items or components:

(Contracting Officer shall check as appropriate.)

__ (1) 52.203–6, Restrictions on Sub[1]contractor Sales to the Government, with Alternate I (41 U.S.C. 253g and 10 U.S.C. 2402).

__ (2) 52.203–10, Price or Fee Adjustment for Illegal or Improper Activity (41 U.S.C. 423).

__ (3) 52.219–8, Utilization of Small Business Concerns and Small Disadvantaged Business Concerns (15 U.S.C. 637 (d) (2) and (3));

__ (4) 52.219–9, Small, Small Disadvantaged and Women-Owned Small Business Subcontracting Plan (15 U.S.C. 637 (d)(4));

__ (5) 52.219–14, Limitation on Subcontracting (15 U.S.C. 637(a)(14)).

__ (6) 52.222–26, Equal Opportunity (E.O. 11246).

__ (7) 52.222–35, Affirmative Action for Special Disabled and Vietnam Era Veterans (38 U.S.C. 4212).

__ (8) 52.222–36, Affirmative Action for Handicapped Workers (29 U.S.C. 793).

__ (9) 52.222–37, Employment Reports on Special Disabled Veterans and Veterans of the Vietnam Era (38 U.S.C. 4212).

__ (10) 52.225–3, Buy American Act— Supplies (41 U.S.C. 10).

__ (11) 52.225–9, Buy American Act— Trade Agreements Act—Balance of Payments Program (41 U.S.C. 10, 19 U.S.C. 2501– 2582).

__ (12) [Reserved]

__ (13) 52.225–18, European Union Sanctions for End Products (E.O. 12849).

__ (14) 52.225–19, European Union Sanctions for Services (E.O. 12849).

__ (15)(i) 52.225–21, Buy American Act—North American Free Trade Agreement Implementation Act—Balance of Payments Program (41 U.S.C 10, Pub. L. 103–187).

__ (15)(ii) Alternate I of 52.225–21.

__ (16) 52.239–1, Privacy or Security Safeguards (5 U.S.C. 552a).

__ (17) 52.247–64, Preference for Privately Owned U.S.-Flag Commercial Vessels (46 U.S.C. 1241).

(This acquisition is being conducted under __ delegation of GSA’s exclusive procurement authority for FIP resources. The specific GSA DPA case number is __).

(c) The Contractor agrees to comply with the FAR clauses in this paragraph (c), applicable to commercial services, which the Contracting Officer has indicated as being incorporated in this contract by reference to implement provisions of law or executive orders applicable to acquisitions of commercial items or components:

(Contracting Officer check as appropriate.)

__ (1) 52.222–41, Service Contract Act of 1965, As amended (41 U.S.C. 351, et seq.).

__ (2) 52.222–42, Statement of Equivalent Rates for Federal Hires (29 U.S.C. 206 and 41 U.S.C. 351, et seq.).

__ (3) 52.222–43, Fair Labor Standards Act and Service Contract Act—Price Adjustment (Multiple Year and Option Contracts) (29 U.S.C. 206 and 41 U.S.C. 351, et seq.).

__ (4) 52.222–44, Fair Labor Standards Act and Service Contract Act—Price Adjustment (29 U.S.C. 206 and 41 U.S.C. 351, et seq.).

__ (5) 52.222–47, SCA Minimum Wages and Fringe Benefits Applicable to Successor Contract Pursuant to Predecessor Contractor Collective Bargaining Agreement (CBA) (41 U.S.C. 351, et seq.).

(d) Comptroller General Examination of Record. The Contractor agrees to comply with the provisions of this paragraph (d) if this contract was awarded using other than sealed bid, is in excess of the simplified acquisition threshold, and does not contain the clause at 52.215–2, Audit and Records—Negotiation.

(1) The Comptroller General of the United States, or an authorized representative of the Comptroller General, shall have access to and right to examine any of the Contractor’s directly pertinent records involving transactions related to this contract.

(2) The Contractor shall make available at its offices at all reasonable times the records, materials, and other evidence for examination, audit, or reproduction, until 3 years after final payment under this contract or for any shorter period specified in FAR Subpart 4.7, Contractor Records Retention, of the other clauses of this contract. If this contract is completely or partially terminated, the records relating to the work terminated shall be made available for 3 years after any resulting final termination settlement. Records relating to appeals under the disputes clause or to litigation or the settlement of claims arising under or relating to this contract shall be made available until such appeals, litigation, or claims are finally resolved.

(3) As used in this clause, records include books, documents, accounting procedures and practices, and other data, regardless of type and regardless of form. This does not require the Contractor to create or maintain any record that the Contractor does not maintain in the ordinary course of business or pursuant to a provision of law.

(e) Notwithstanding the requirements of the clauses in paragraphs (a), (b), (c) or (d) of this clause, the Contractor is not required to include any FAR clause, other than those listed below (and as may be required by an addenda to this paragraph to establish the reasonableness of prices under part 15), in a subcontract for commercial items or commercial components—

(1) 52.222–26, Equal Opportunity (E.O. 11246);

(2) 52.222–35, Affirmative Action for Special Disabled and Vietnam Era Veterans (38 U.S.C. 2012(a)); and

(3) 52.222–36, Affirmative Action for Handicapped Workers (29 U.S.C. 793).

(4) 52.247–64, Preference for Privately Owned U.S.-Flagged Commercial Vessels (46 U.S.C. 1241) (flow down not required for subcontracts awarded beginning May 1, 1996).

(End of clause)

vs:

Quote

52.212-5 Contract Terms and Conditions Required To Implement Statutes or Executive Orders—Commercial Products and Commercial Services (MAY 2024)

(a) The Contractor shall comply with the following Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) clauses, which are incorporated in this contract by reference, to implement provisions of law or Executive orders applicable to acquisitions of commercial products and commercial services:

(1) 52.203-19, Prohibition on Requiring Certain Internal Confidentiality Agreements or Statements (JAN 2017) (section 743 of Division E, Title VII, of the Consolidated and Further Continuing Appropriations Act, 2015 (Pub. L. 113-235) and its successor provisions in subsequent appropriations acts (and as extended in continuing resolutions)).

(2) 52.204-23, Prohibition on Contracting for Hardware, Software, and Services Developed or Provided by Kaspersky Lab Covered Entities (DEC 2023) (Section 1634 of Pub. L. 115-91).

(3) 52.204-25, Prohibition on Contracting for Certain Telecommunications and Video Surveillance Services or Equipment. (NOV 2021) (Section 889(a)(1)(A) of Pub. L. 115-232).

(4) 52.209-10, Prohibition on Contracting with Inverted Domestic Corporations (NOV 2015).

(5) 52.232-40, Providing Accelerated Payments to Small Business Subcontractors (MAR 2023) (31 U.S.C. 3903 and 10 U.S.C. 3801).

(6) 52.233-3, Protest After Award (AUG 1996) (31 U.S.C. 3553).

(7) 52.233-4, Applicable Law for Breach of Contract Claim (OCT 2004) (Public Laws 108-77 and 108-78 (19 U.S.C. 3805 note)).

(b) The Contractor shall comply with the FAR clauses in this paragraph (b) that the Contracting Officer has indicated as being incorporated in this contract by reference to implement provisions of law or Executive orders applicable to acquisitions of commercial products and commercial services:

[Contracting Officer check as appropriate.]

__ (1) 52.203-6, Restrictions on Subcontractor Sales to the Government (JUN 2020), with Alternate I (NOV 2021) (41 U.S.C. 4704 and 10 U.S.C. 4655).

__ (2) 52.203-13, Contractor Code of Business Ethics and Conduct (NOV 2021) (41 U.S.C. 3509).

__ (3) 52.203-15, Whistleblower Protections under the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 (JUN 2010) (Section 1553 of Pub. L. 111-5). (Applies to contracts funded by the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009.)

__ (4) 52.203-17, Contractor Employee Whistleblower Rights (NOV 2023) (41 U.S.C. 4712); this clause does not apply to contracts of DoD, NASA, the Coast Guard, or applicable elements of the intelligence community—see FAR 3.900(a).

__ (5) 52.204-10, Reporting Executive Compensation and First-Tier Subcontract Awards (JUN 2020) (Pub. L. 109-282) (31 U.S.C. 6101 note).

__ (6) [Reserved]

__ (7) 52.204-14, Service Contract Reporting Requirements (OCT 2016) (Pub. L. 111-117, section 743 of Div. C).

__ (8) 52.204-15, Service Contract Reporting Requirements for Indefinite-Delivery Contracts (OCT 2016) (Pub. L. 111-117, section 743 of Div. C).

__ (9) 52.204-27, Prohibition on a ByteDance Covered Application (JUN 2023) (Section 102 of Division R of Pub. L. 117-328).

__ (10) 52.204-28, Federal Acquisition Supply Chain Security Act Orders—Federal Supply Schedules, Governmentwide Acquisition Contracts, and Multi-Agency Contracts. (DEC 2023) (Pub. L. 115-390, title II).

__ (11)(i) 52.204-30, Federal Acquisition Supply Chain Security Act Orders—Prohibition. (DEC 2023) (Pub. L. 115-390, title II).

__ (ii) Alternate I (DEC 2023) of 52.204-30.

__ (12) 52.209-6, Protecting the Government's Interest When Subcontracting with Contractors Debarred, Suspended, or Proposed for Debarment. (NOV 2021) (31 U.S.C. 6101 note).

__ (13) 52.209-9, Updates of Publicly Available Information Regarding Responsibility Matters (OCT 2018) (41 U.S.C. 2313).

__ (14) [Reserved]

__ (15) 52.219-3, Notice of HUBZone Set-Aside or Sole-Source Award (OCT 2022) (15 U.S.C. 657a).

__ (16) 52.219-4, Notice of Price Evaluation Preference for HUBZone Small Business Concerns (OCT 2022) (if the offeror elects to waive the preference, it shall so indicate in its offer) (15 U.S.C. 657a).

__ (17) [Reserved]

__ (18)(i) 52.219-6, Notice of Total Small Business Set-Aside (NOV 2020) (15 U.S.C. 644).

__ (ii) Alternate I (MAR 2020) of 52.219-6.

__ (19)(i) 52.219-7, Notice of Partial Small Business Set-Aside (NOV 2020) (15 U.S.C. 644).

__ (ii) Alternate I (MAR 2020) of 52.219-7.

__ (20) 52.219-8, Utilization of Small Business Concerns (FEB 2024) (15 U.S.C. 637(d)(2) and (3)).

__ (21)(i) 52.219-9, Small Business Subcontracting Plan (SEP 2023) (15 U.S.C. 637(d)(4)).

__ (ii) Alternate I (NOV 2016) of 52.219-9.

__ (iii) Alternate II (NOV 2016) of 52.219-9.

__ (iv) Alternate III (JUN 2020) of 52.219-9.

__ (v) Alternate IV (SEP 2023) of 52.219-9.

__ (22)(i) 52.219-13, Notice of Set-Aside of Orders (MAR 2020) (15 U.S.C. 644(r)).

__ (ii) Alternate I (MAR 2020) of 52.219-13.

__ (23) 52.219-14, Limitations on Subcontracting (OCT 2022) (15 U.S.C. 657s).

__ (24) 52.219-16, Liquidated Damages—Subcontracting Plan (SEP 2021) (15 U.S.C. 637(d)(4)(F)(i)).

__ (25) 52.219-27, Notice of Set-Aside for, or Sole-Source Award to, Service-Disabled Veteran-Owned Small Business (SDVOSB) Concerns Eligible Under the SDVOSB Program (FEB 2024) (15 U.S.C. 657f).

__ (26)(i) 52.219-28, Post-Award Small Business Program Rerepresentation (FEB 2024) (15 U.S.C. 632(a)(2)).

__ (ii) Alternate I (MAR 2020) of 52.219-28.

__ (27) 52.219-29, Notice of Set-Aside for, or Sole-Source Award to, Economically Disadvantaged Women-Owned Small Business Concerns (OCT 2022) (15 U.S.C. 637(m)).

__ (28) 52.219-30, Notice of Set-Aside for, or Sole-Source Award to, Women-Owned Small Business Concerns Eligible Under the Women-Owned Small Business Program (OCT 2022) (15 U.S.C. 637(m)).

__ (29) 52.219-32, Orders Issued Directly Under Small Business Reserves (MAR 2020) (15 U.S.C. 644(r)).

__ (30) 52.219-33, Nonmanufacturer Rule (SEP 2021) (15 U.S.C. 657s).

__ (31) 52.222-3, Convict Labor (JUN 2003) (E.O. 11755).

__ (32) 52.222-19, Child Labor—Cooperation with Authorities and Remedies (FEB 2024) (E.O. 13126).

__ (33) 52.222-21, Prohibition of Segregated Facilities (APR 2015).

__ (34)(i) 52.222-26, Equal Opportunity (SEPT 2016) (E.O. 11246).

__ (ii) Alternate I (FEB 1999) of 52.222-26.

__ (35)(i) 52.222-35, Equal Opportunity for Veterans (JUN 2020) (38 U.S.C. 4212).

__ (ii) Alternate I (JULY 2014) of 52.222-35.

__ (36)(i) 52.222-36, Equal Opportunity for Workers with Disabilities (JUN 2020) (29 U.S.C. 793).

__ (ii) Alternate I (JULY 2014) of 52.222-36.

__ (37) 52.222-37, Employment Reports on Veterans (JUN 2020) (38 U.S.C. 4212).

__ (38) 52.222-40, Notification of Employee Rights Under the National Labor Relations Act (DEC 2010) (E.O. 13496).

__ (39)(i) 52.222-50, Combating Trafficking in Persons (NOV 2021) (22 U.S.C. chapter 78 and E.O. 13627).

__ (ii) Alternate I (MAR 2015) of 52.222-50 (22 U.S.C. chapter 78 and E.O. 13627).

__ (40) 52.222-54, Employment Eligibility Verification (MAY 2022). (E. O. 12989). (Not applicable to the acquisition of commercially available off-the-shelf items or certain other types of commercial products or commercial services as prescribed in FAR 22.1803.)

__ (41)(i) 52.223-9, Estimate of Percentage of Recovered Material Content for EPA-Designated Items (MAY 2008) (42 U.S.C. 6962(c)(3)(A)(ii)). (Not applicable to the acquisition of commercially available off-the-shelf items.)

__ (ii) Alternate I (MAY 2008) of 52.223-9 (42 U.S.C. 6962(i)(2)(C)). (Not applicable to the acquisition of commercially available off-the-shelf items.)

__ (42) 52.223-11, Ozone-Depleting Substances and High Global Warming Potential Hydrofluorocarbons (MAY 2024) (42 U.S.C. 7671, et seq.).

__ (43) 52.223-12, Maintenance, Service, Repair, or Disposal of Refrigeration Equipment and Air Conditioners (MAY 2024) (42 U.S.C. 7671, et seq.).

__ (44) 52.223-20, Aerosols (MAY 2024) (42 U.S.C. 7671, et seq.).

__ (45) 52.223-21, Foams (MAY 2024) (42 U.S.C. 7671, et seq.).

__ (46) 52.223-23, Sustainable Products and Services (MAY 2024) (E.O. 14057, 7 U.S.C. 8102, 42 U.S.C. 6962, 42 U.S.C. 8259b, and 42 U.S.C. 7671l).

__ (47)(i) 52.224-3, Privacy Training (JAN 2017) (5 U.S.C. 552a).

__ (ii) Alternate I (JAN 2017) of 52.224-3.

__ (48)(i) 52.225-1, Buy American—Supplies (OCT 2022)) (41 U.S.C. chapter 83).

__ (ii) Alternate I (OCT 2022) of 52.225-1.

__ (49)(i) 52.225-3, Buy American—Free Trade Agreements—Israeli Trade Act (NOV 2023) (19 U.S.C. 3301 note, 19 U.S.C. 2112 note, 19 U.S.C. 3805 note, 19 U.S.C. 4001 note, 19 U.S.C. chapter 29 (sections 4501-4732), Public Law 103-182, 108-77, 108-78, 108-286, 108-302, 109-53, 109-169, 109-283, 110-138, 112-41, 112-42, and 112-43.

__ (ii) Alternate I [Reserved].

__ (iii) Alternate II (DEC 2022) of 52.225-3.

__ (iv) Alternate III (FEB 2024) of 52.225-3.

__ (v) Alternate IV (OCT 2022) of 52.225-3.

__ (50) 52.225-5, Trade Agreements (NOV 2023) (19 U.S.C. 2501, et seq., 19 U.S.C. 3301 note).

__ (51) 52.225-13, Restrictions on Certain Foreign Purchases (FEB 2021) (E.O.'s, proclamations, and statutes administered by the Office of Foreign Assets Control of the Department of the Treasury).

__ (52) 52.225-26, Contractors Performing Private Security Functions Outside the United States (OCT 2016) (Section 862, as amended, of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2008; 10 U.S.C. Subtitle A, Part V, Subpart G Note).

__ (53) 52.226-4, Notice of Disaster or Emergency Area Set-Aside (NOV 2007) (42 U.S.C. 5150).

__ (54) 52.226-5, Restrictions on Subcontracting Outside Disaster or Emergency Area (NOV 2007) (42 U.S.C. 5150).

__ (55) 52.226-8, Encouraging Contractor Policies to Ban Text Messaging While Driving (May 2024) (E.O. 13513).

__ (56) 52.229-12, Tax on Certain Foreign Procurements (FEB 2021).

__ (57) 52.232-29, Terms for Financing of Purchases of Commercial Products and Commercial Services (NOV 2021) (41 U.S.C.4505, 10 U.S.C. 3805).

__ (58) 52.232-30, Installment Payments for Commercial Products and Commercial Services (NOV 2021) (41 U.S.C. 4505, 10 U.S.C. 3805).

__ (59) 52.232-33, Payment by Electronic Funds Transfer—System for Award Management (OCT 2018) (31 U.S.C. 3332).

__ (60) 52.232-34, Payment by Electronic Funds Transfer—Other than System for Award Management (JUL 2013) (31 U.S.C. 3332).

__ (61) 52.232-36, Payment by Third Party (MAY 2014) (31 U.S.C. 3332).

__ (62) 52.239-1, Privacy or Security Safeguards (AUG 1996) (5 U.S.C. 552a).

__ (63) 52.242-5, Payments to Small Business Subcontractors (JAN 2017)(15 U.S.C. 637(d)(13)).

__ (64)(i) 52.247-64, Preference for Privately Owned U.S.-Flag Commercial Vessels (NOV 2021) (46 U.S.C. 55305 and 10 U.S.C. 2631).

__ (ii) Alternate I (Apr 2003) of 52.247-64.

__ (iii) Alternate II (NOV 2021) of 52.247-64.

(c) The Contractor shall comply with the FAR clauses in this paragraph (c), applicable to commercial services, that the Contracting Officer has indicated as being incorporated in this contract by reference to implement provisions of law or Executive orders applicable to acquisitions of commercial products and commercial services:

[Contracting Officer check as appropriate.]

__ (1) 52.222-41, Service Contract Labor Standards (AUG 2018) (41 U.S.C. chapter 67).

__ (2) 52.222-42, Statement of Equivalent Rates for Federal Hires (MAY 2014) (29 U.S.C. 206 and 41 U.S.C. chapter 67).

__ (3) 52.222-43, Fair Labor Standards Act and Service Contract Labor Standards-Price Adjustment (Multiple Year and Option Contracts) (AUG 2018) (29 U.S.C. 206 and 41 U.S.C. chapter 67).

__ (4) 52.222-44, Fair Labor Standards Act and Service Contract Labor Standards—Price Adjustment (MAY 2014) (29 U.S.C 206 and 41 U.S.C. chapter 67).

__ (5) 52.222-51, Exemption from Application of the Service Contract Labor Standards to Contracts for Maintenance, Calibration, or Repair of Certain Equipment—Requirements (MAY 2014) (41 U.S.C. chapter 67).

__ (6) 52.222-53, Exemption from Application of the Service Contract Labor Standards to Contracts for Certain Services—Requirements (MAY 2014) (41 U.S.C. chapter 67).

__ (7) 52.222-55, Minimum Wages for Contractor Workers Under Executive Order 14026 (JAN 2022).

__ (8) 52.222-62, Paid Sick Leave Under Executive Order 13706 (JAN 2022) (E.O. 13706).

__ (9) 52.226-6, Promoting Excess Food Donation to Nonprofit Organizations (JUN 2020) (42 U.S.C. 1792).

(d) Comptroller General Examination of Record. The Contractor shall comply with the provisions of this paragraph (d) if this contract was awarded using other than sealed bid, is in excess of the simplified acquisition threshold, as defined in FAR 2.101, on the date of award of this contract, and does not contain the clause at 52.215-2, Audit and Records—Negotiation.

(1) The Comptroller General of the United States, or an authorized representative of the Comptroller General, shall have access to and right to examine any of the Contractor's directly pertinent records involving transactions related to this contract.

(2) The Contractor shall make available at its offices at all reasonable times the records, materials, and other evidence for examination, audit, or reproduction, until 3 years after final payment under this contract or for any shorter period specified in FAR Subpart 4.7, Contractor Records Retention, of the other clauses of this contract. If this contract is completely or partially terminated, the records relating to the work terminated shall be made available for 3 years after any resulting final termination settlement. Records relating to appeals under the disputes clause or to litigation or the settlement of claims arising under or relating to this contract shall be made available until such appeals, litigation, or claims are finally resolved.

(3) As used in this clause, records include books, documents, accounting procedures and practices, and other data, regardless of type and regardless of form. This does not require the Contractor to create or maintain any record that the Contractor does not maintain in the ordinary course of business or pursuant to a provision of law.

(e)(1) Notwithstanding the requirements of the clauses in paragraphs (a), (b), (c), and (d) of this clause, the Contractor is not required to flow down any FAR clause, other than those in this paragraph (e)(1), in a subcontract for commercial products or commercial services. Unless otherwise indicated below, the extent of the flow down shall be as required by the clause—

(i) 52.203-13, Contractor Code of Business Ethics and Conduct (NOV 2021) (41 U.S.C. 3509).

(ii) 52.203-17, Contractor Employee Whistleblower Rights (NOV 2023) (41 U.S.C. 4712).

(iii) 52.203-19, Prohibition on Requiring Certain Internal Confidentiality Agreements or Statements (JAN 2017) (section 743 of Division E, Title VII, of the Consolidated and Further Continuing Appropriations Act, 2015 (Pub. L. 113-235) and its successor provisions in subsequent appropriations acts (and as extended in continuing resolutions)).

(iv) 52.204-23, Prohibition on Contracting for Hardware, Software, and Services Developed or Provided by Kaspersky Lab Covered Entities (DEC 2023) (Section 1634 of Pub. L. 115-91).

(v) 52.204-25, Prohibition on Contracting for Certain Telecommunications and Video Surveillance Services or Equipment. (NOV 2021) (Section 889(a)(1)(A) of Pub. L. 115-232).

(vi) 52.204-27, Prohibition on a ByteDance Covered Application (JUN 2023) (Section 102 of Division R of Pub. L. 117-328).

(vii)(A) 52.204-30, Federal Acquisition Supply Chain Security Act Orders—Prohibition. (DEC 2023) (Pub. L. 115-390, title II).

(B) Alternate I (DEC 2023) of 52.204-30.

(viii) 52.219-8, Utilization of Small Business Concerns (FEB 2024) (15 U.S.C. 637(d)(2) and (3)), in all subcontracts that offer further subcontracting opportunities. If the subcontract (except subcontracts to small business concerns) exceeds the applicable threshold specified in FAR 19.702(a) on the date of subcontract award, the subcontractor must include 52.219-8 in lower tier subcontracts that offer subcontracting opportunities.

(ix) 52.222-21, Prohibition of Segregated Facilities (APR 2015).

(x) 52.222-26, Equal Opportunity (SEP 2016) (E.O. 11246).

(xi) 52.222-35, Equal Opportunity for Veterans (JUN 2020) (38 U.S.C. 4212).

(xii) 52.222-36, Equal Opportunity for Workers with Disabilities (JUN 2020) (29 U.S.C. 793).

(xiii) 52.222-37, Employment Reports on Veterans (JUN 2020) (38 U.S.C. 4212).

(xiv) 52.222-40, Notification of Employee Rights Under the National Labor Relations Act (DEC 2010) (E.O. 13496). Flow down required in accordance with paragraph (f) of FAR clause 52.222-40.

(xv) 52.222-41, Service Contract Labor Standards (AUG 2018)(41 U.S.C. chapter 67).

(xvi) __ (A) 52.222-50, Combating Trafficking in Persons (NOV 2021) (22 U.S.C. chapter 78 and E.O. 13627).

__ (B) Alternate I (Mar 2015) of 52.222-50 (22 U.S.C. chapter 78 and E.O. 13627).

(xvii) 52.222-51, Exemption from Application of the Service Contract Labor Standards to Contracts for Maintenance, Calibration, or Repair of Certain Equipment—Requirements (MAY 2014) (41 U.S.C. chapter 67).

(xviii) 52.222-53, Exemption from Application of the Service Contract Labor Standards to Contracts for Certain Services—Requirements (MAY 2014) (41 U.S.C. chapter 67).

(xix) 52.222-54, Employment Eligibility Verification (MAY 2022) (E. O. 12989).

(xx) 52.222-55, Minimum Wages for Contractor Workers Under Executive Order 14026 (JAN 2022).

(xxi) 52.222-62 Paid Sick Leave Under Executive Order 13706 (JAN 2022) (E.O. 13706).

(xxii)(A) 52.224-3, Privacy Training (JAN 2017) (5 U.S.C. 552a).

(B) Alternate I (JAN 2017) of 52.224-3.

(xxiii) 52.225-26, Contractors Performing Private Security Functions Outside the United States (OCT 2016) (Section 862, as amended, of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2008; 10 U.S.C. Subtitle A, Part V, Subpart G Note).

(xxiv) 52.226-6, Promoting Excess Food Donation to Nonprofit Organizations (JUN 2020) (42 U.S.C. 1792). Flow down required in accordance with paragraph (e) of FAR clause 52.226-6.

(xxv) 52.232-40, Providing Accelerated Payments to Small Business Subcontractors (MAR 2023) (31 U.S.C. 3903 and 10 U.S.C. 3801). Flow down required in accordance with paragraph (c) of 52.232-40.

(xxvi) 52.247-64, Preference for Privately Owned U.S.-Flag Commercial Vessels (NOV 2021) (46 U.S.C. 55305 and 10 U.S.C. 2631). Flow down required in accordance with paragraph (d) of FAR clause 52.247-64.

(2) While not required, the Contractor may include in its subcontracts for commercial products and commercial services a minimal number of additional clauses necessary to satisfy its contractual obligations.

(End of clause)

 

[formerfed]

3 hours ago, Vern Edwards said:

Everyone should remember that the MATOCs and MADOCs that are the building blocks of GWACs and MACs were authorized by the Federal Acquisition Streamlining Act of 1994. The idea was to make buying commercial items easier and faster and to get better prices. After 30 years, what is the verdict?

Any facts? Any fact-based consensus?

We’ve already discussed problems with prices.  As far as faster, data for award times mostly resides with the respective GWAC executive agencies.  That doesn’t appear to be publicly available.  

[General.Zhukov]

2 hours ago, Vern Edwards said:

Everyone should remember that the MATOCs and MADOCs that are the building blocks of GWACs and MACs were authorized by the Federal Acquisition Streamlining Act of 1994. The idea was to make buying commercial items easier and faster and to get better prices. After 30 years, what is the verdict?

Any facts? Any fact-based consensus?

Facts wise - I know definitively from my agency's internal records that ordering from a GWAC is faster than open market, for commercial products. 

The two major factors causing the difference are what you would expect - 1) it takes much longer to issue the solicitation for open market (and they are many pages longer) and 2) the pre-award back-and-forth with the awardee takes a little longer.

For commercial services, what we award via GWAC vs. Not-GWAC are very different, so hard to compare.  For HHS as a whole, it looks like GWACs are a little faster, but it's not obvious in the data I have.  

 

 

Anecdotally, I think that for commercial software (commercial items), the GWACs are essential.  The GWAC has solved two difficult challenges for the ordering activity CO - terms and conditions (especially EULAs that violate federal law, which is almost all of them) and baseline cybersecurity standards.  This is enterprise level work.  Don't haggle with Oracle every time you buy, do it once, or even better, have GSA do it for you.  Buying cloud services on your own is madness.

For IT hardware (commercial items), GWACs are very useful, but not essential. 4/5.   Compliance is less of an issue with hardware, but still a burden to do on a per-order basis.  

 

[C Culham]

19 hours ago, formerfed said:

I don’t see it as practical for many situations such as when you want a solution rather than just looking at standing quotes presumably for defined labor categories.  Another problem is the need to publicize per FAR 13.105 at some point. That may attract a large number of potentially interested firms to deal with.  In addition, one would generally have to restrict consideration to only small businesses.  That may be fine in many instances but perhaps not on large value and/or complex needs.

It is confusing.   So you have a GSA FSS or even a GWAC with defined labor catagories and prices and you can use those for pricing a solution.  What is wrong with using a standing quotation to price a solution in the same manner?  In the world of BPA's competition is required unless the establishment of the BPA or BPA's has been publicized then you can use some process for an actual call with only the one or those that were issued a BPA.  Why not the same for some or even one standing quotation?  Nothing in the FAR says you must have multiple standing quotations.   I will not research but I wonder how many task orders for the NIH GWAC will exceed $7.5 million?

Interesting side not is this from a dated GAO decision - "Southeast asserts that MGC's quotation should not have been considered because it was not submitted in response to the RFQ. However, there is no requirement that agencies consider only quotations in response to an RFQ; under FAR Sec. 13.103, a standing quotation properly may be considered in a simplified acquisition if it is current."   https://www.gao.gov/products/b-289065

In the end just thoughts regarding your noted potential pitfalls with no intent to imply a standing quotation is the only solution.   I just wonder why BPA's, GWACs, MATOCs etc when there is yet one more solution?   

[formerfed]

3 hours ago, C Culham said:

It is confusing.   So you have a GSA FSS or even a GWAC with defined labor catagories and prices and you can use those for pricing a solution.  What is wrong with using a standing quotation to price a solution in the same manner?  In the world of BPA's competition is required unless the establishment of the BPA or BPA's has been publicized then you can use some process for an actual call with only the one or those that were issued a BPA.  Why not the same for some or even one standing quotation?  Nothing in the FAR says you must have multiple standing quotations.   I will not research but I wonder how many task orders for the NIH GWAC will exceed $7.5 million?

EIn the end just thoughts regarding your noted potential pitfalls with no intent to imply a standing quotation is the only solution.   I just wonder why BPA's, GWACs, MATOCs etc when there is yet one more solution?   

I see what you’re saying.  I suppose there’s not much difference between standing quotes and BPAs, especially if the BPAs contain pricing.  Of course once the order value exceeds the threshold of FAR 13.105, open market ordering gets much more time consuming and burdensome.