Streamlining: multiple like requirements, in 1 solicitation, awarding multiple independent contracts, not a multi award IDIQ

[LizI-I]

Is there anything in the FAR that states multiple similar requirements cannot be combined into one RFP/RFQ document for streamlining the solicitation process and then make more than one independent award? I am not talking about a multiple award IDIQ contract. For example, I have 3 locations that need a service. One may have 2 types of items to service, one 3 and one 5. In the solicitation are 3 different price schedules, a list for each location of what type of services, site information, drawings as well as the usual admin and C/P sections. On the 1449 I state that 3 independent awards will be made, one per location. Vendors can choose any, all, or none to send a proposal for. The SSB only has to read one proposal per vendor instead of one each of the same for how many the vendors are offering. They may be C or D contracts; each awarded contract has only its own single location information, price schedules, maps, drawings etc.

[ji20874]

What you are describing is a common practice.

[LizI-I]

On 4/23/2024 at 3:02 PM, ji20874 said:

What you are describing is a common practice.

I was asking because I was told that it would have to be dealt with as though it were one award, adding all of the IGCE and then the approval process would be based on the total. The amounts may add up to a total over $50M and need a board and many layers of approvals rather than looking at the largest IGCE and using the approval process at that dollar size. I have used the size of the largest IGCE before and had no issues, including with legal, getting it signed off. Which is the correct way, total value  or highest IGCE and is there some documentation to back it up that is more than just our legal dept saying it is ok.

[ji20874]

Some organizations base reviews and approvals on the dollar value of the anticipated individual contract awards.

Other organizations base reviews and approvals on the total aggregate dollar value that might be awarded from t the solicitation.

I prefer the former.

But if your "legal dept is saying its ok," what is the problem?

[LizI-I]

I also prefer the former. There are 2 sets of reviewers who do not see it that way and have refused to sign off. I had figured that it was not in the FAR and there was no SOP referenced in the note. There is just an expectation that I would split everything apart and do multiple RFP to receive multiple exactly the same proposals over the now multiple RFPs for which the SSB would then have to unnecessarily review and score. Streamlining at it best.

[jjj]

Reviewers are irrelevant.  Who is the big boss in your office?  What does he or she say?  He or she can consider your input, and their input, and make a decision.

[LizI-I]

S/he is one of the reviewers as is a Procurement Analyst. It is all one action is the reasoning, so it all must be added together. This totally overlooking the fact that the RFP is only a method of delivery to get the info posted. IMO, the multiple awards make the result multiple actions. That reason is not in the FAR as far as I know and is the reason I was trying to find if there is a rule somewhere that I didn't know about. 

[jjj]

You might ask your procurement analysts to prove their FAR authority.  My copy of the FAR says that silence does not mean prohibition; rather, good business sense is the goal.  My copy of the FAR also does not include solicitation within the definition of contract or contract action.

The FAR does explicitly contemplate a master solicitation as a substitute for multiple solicitations.  See if that will help you.

Best wishes.  You might not prevail in this case, but your thinking is right.

[C Culham]

On 4/23/2024 at 10:33 AM, LizI-I said:

I am not talking about a multiple award IDIQ contract.

 

On 4/23/2024 at 10:33 AM, LizI-I said:

They may be C or D contracts

What?   This is very confusing as not a D type contract a mulitple award IDIQ?

Now to this.....

On 4/23/2024 at 10:33 AM, LizI-I said:

In the solicitation are 3 different price schedules

I would argue that if this is true then there should be 3 different IGCE.  Why?   How for example will proposal analysis be performed pursuant to FAR 15.404-1(b)(2)(v)? I used this particular cite just to get the thoughts rolling.   The real question is how would the guiding principles of the whole of FAR part 15 be applied with only one IGCE?

Then how about FAR part 7?  How about the guiding principle of aligning the IGCE with the SOW/PWS?  You have not mentioned setaside so how does your effort fit in with regard to the dicussion of "consoldiation"?

Lots to consider, it would be nice of the reviewers to provide their reasoning as to why one could not have multiple IGCEs for mulitple price schdules that are included in one RFP where award of each contract (price schedule) would be made to one, all or some.

PS - I was finishing this post just as the preceding post appeared.   I left mine as is.

[RJ_Walther]

21 hours ago, LizI-I said:

Which is the correct way, total value  or highest IGCE

Any consolidation/bundling approvals would seem to be based on the total value of the IGCEs included under a single solicitation, rather than the largest IGCE, per their definitions in FAR 2.1.

Reviewers may also be concerned about multiple requirements (i.e. multiple IGCEs) ending up on a single award, and breaking some threshold that wasn't considered using only the single largest IGCE as the estimated contract value. For example, maybe you have three requirements with IGCEs of $5M. Using the largest IGCE as your threshold you choose to use FAR 13.5, however one vendor wins two requirements and you choose to award a $10M contract to them, but now you're outside the range where you can use 13.5. That's a simple example but agencies may have all sorts of different thresholds for source selection plans, business clearances, etc.

You might be able to explain in your acquisition plan (or similar document) that you will use the total of the IGCEs for any approval of consolidation/bundling that may be required but that otherwise no individual award will exceed the largest IGCE or something to give reviewers/approvers confidence that nothing will inadvertently break a threshold later.

[Vern Edwards]

On 4/23/2024 at 10:33 AM, LizI-I said:

Is there anything in the FAR that states multiple similar requirements cannot be combined into one RFP/RFQ document for streamlining the solicitation process and then make more than one independent award?

No. But that was the wrong question.

From what I read above the conflict you appear to be having is with local reviewers, who tend to be conservative. It seems to me that you are dealing with the application of an agency-level or local-level review dollar threshold. If so, the matter could be resolved by the chief of the contracting office or the head of the contracting activity.

Question: Does the solicitation say that you will make three separate awards to three separate companies, or does it only say that you reserve the right to make multiple awards?

Hint, hint.

[LizI-I]

There is no bundling, 3 IGCE, 3 separate awards, FAR 15, it doesn't say to 3 separate companies because we often do not have 3 proposing to these 3 types, lucky to have 1. Another similar that I do, I have had 8 separate awards, but unfortunately we only have 5 vendors capable of performing this service. Set-aside is usually SB as this is such a niche market that even the 1 SDVOSB who does do most of his contracts, subs out one to a SB. That subbed out one happens to be in this grouping of 3 we are discussing. Yes, it is clearly stated upfront that 3 separate awards are being made and contractors are to only use the price schedules for those they are interested in.

I asked the first question so I could have the answer in case other reviewers told me I could not do it at all. Plus that question it sets up the next question, which is my real quest. I am the only one in the office doing some solicitations this way. There is no office policy. No agency policy was quoted; there seems to be nothing to base the "You have to do it this way" on. Conservative or not, I like to see the SOP or FAR regulation when I am being told something cannot be done. Upper levels do not have the experience that perhaps those in other agencies have.

[Vern Edwards]

11 minutes ago, LizI-I said:

Yes, it is clearly stated upfront that 3 separate awards are being made and contractors are to only use the price schedules for those they are interested in.

That's not the same as saying three separate awards to three separate companies. Three separate awards could be made to one company.

Goes to the matter of dollar thresholds, but you indicate that was not part of the disagreement.

Well, fight on!

[joel hoffman]

I remember Mobile District Corps of Engineers years ago (1990s) soliciting similarly for work in Panama - the Canal Zone. Offerors could select which contract bid schedules to propose on. These were year end O&M funded projects. And contract awards were subject to availability of funding. The Panama contracting community was well aware of the methodology and the year end funding situation. Funds might have been made available at 10:00 PM on Sep 30. There could be separate, multiple awards off one solicitation.