Source: http://www.wifcon.com/discussion/index.php?/profile/83-napolik/&do=content&type=forums_topic_post&change_section=1
Timestamp: 2018-04-27 05:06:11
Document Index: 713855055

Matched Legal Cases: ['art 15', 'art 8', 'art 19', '§ 121', '§121', '§121', '§121', '§121']

Posts posted by napolik
Question: Is this situation so stark that the company is left with no alternative except to absorb the B&P cost, and effectively perform the contract for nothing?
I don't think so. Those processes, often constructed on the basis of the FAR Part 15 Process Model, have been effected in the same way.
Well, don't construct them like the 15.3 process. Try other approaches that are more efficient and , more importantly, more effective.
Since FAR 15 does not apply, how does this approach strike readers?
The agency will assess the résumés, experience, past performance, and the price of quotes in accordance with FAR Subpart 8.4. Non-price factors, when combined, are significantly more important than price. After this assessment, the contracting officer may award a contract to the contractor he or she determines to represent the best value, or may obtain additional information from and negotiate with that contractor to improve the terms of the deal reflected in its quote. If the contracting officer is unable to negotiate a favorable deal with the contractor, he or she reserves the right to negotiate and reach agreement with another firm submitting a quote that was not assessed initially to be the best. This process will continue until a contract has been reached or until all those firms submitting a quote have been considered. If agreement on a deal cannot be reached with any of the firms, negotiations may be reopened with all firms or the solicitation may be canceled.
http://www.wifcon.com/discussion/index.php?/topic/1731-gsa-buys-award-without-discussions/&
That effect on acquisition is more insidious. For an example, see First Financial Associates, Inc. B-415713, B-415713.2: Feb 16, 2018. (March 2, 2018).
I would prefer to see the GAO retain bid protest jurisdiction. In fact, I would prefer that the COFC get out of the bid protest business. But, I know this will not happen.
First, the GAO knows the procurement legislation and processes better than COFC judges. This superior knowledge allows the GAO to issue decisions more quickly than the COFC and to be more consistent with the practices flowing from procurement law and regulation. Second, the GAO will issue a single decision, and it will follow precedent. The COFC takes longer than GAO, and its 16 judges can issue different decisions on the same topics. Third, the GAO decisions are expressed more clearly and are, therefore, more readily comprehensible than the COFC decisions.
These are my opinions based upon my years of experience in procurement. I do not have any empirical evidence to support them.
In my experience, a clearance is a document setting out a plan of action and supporting information. The document can be prepared as an Acquisition Plan, as a Pre-negotiation plan, as a Post-negotiation summary and source selection or as an explanation/ justification of a contract administration action (e.g. option exercise). The approval or disapproval of the clearance is made by a contracting officer, an SSA, or another reviewer/review board within or above the contracting office.
The degree of detail contained in the clearance varies by contracting office.
Some agencies address clearances in their FAR supplements.
Past performance can encompass "commercial" or private contract performance. See FAR 15.305(a)(2):
Past performance evaluation.
(ii) The solicitation shall describe the approach for evaluating past performance, including evaluating offerors with no relevant performance history, and shall provide offerors an opportunity to identify past or current contracts (including Federal, State, and local government and private) for efforts similar to the Government requirement. The solicitation shall also authorize offerors to provide information on problems encountered on the identified contracts and the offeror corrective actions. The Government shall consider this information, as well as information obtained from any other sources, when evaluating the offeror past performance. The source selection authority shall determine the relevance of similar past performance information.
(v) The evaluation should include the past performance of offerors in complying with subcontracting plan goals for small disadvantaged business (SDB) concerns (see Subpart 19.7).
See also FAR 12.206:
On 2/5/2018 at 9:14 AM, Vern Edwards said:
"You can't know everything in the world. Whatever happens you'll die a fool."
Use your customer's estimates of labor categories and labor hours.
If you have issued an order for the same task, compare the current estimate to the historical figure. If they don't coincide, ask your customer to explain why they do not.
What is an ICG?
1 hour ago, ContractingPeoplesHatred said:
Can the now large business still compete on IDIQ requirements? FAR 16.505(b) states fair opportunity must be given, FAR 19.301-2 states that it does not change the terms and conditions of the contract, but does not FAR 19.502-2(b)(1) apply that I have two other small business vendors must I not set aside?
The contracting officer has the discretion to require the contract holders to recertify their small business size status when competing an order under an IDIQ. See InuTeq, LLC, B-411781, Oct. 21, 2015:
With regard to long-term multiple-award contracts, including GSA schedule contracts, a contracting officer has the discretion to request recertification of offerors’ small business size status in connection with the issuance of task orders. 13 C.F.R. § 121.404(a)(1)(i); Enterprise Information Services, Inc., B-403028, Sept. 10, 2010, 2010 CPD ¶ 213 at 3-4. In issuing its regulations regarding small business size determinations under multiple-award long-term contracts, the Small Business Administration (SBA) has specifically stated: Allowing procuring agencies to request size certifications in connection with particular orders is consistent with the purposes of the Small Business Act (procurements meant for small businesses should be awarded to small businesses) . . . . The final rule gives contracting officers the discretion to request size certifications for individual orders, but does not require them to do so. . . .
71 Fed. Reg. 66434, 66438 (2006).
§121.404 When is the size status of a business concern determined?
(a) SBA determines the size status of a concern, including its affiliates, as of the date the concern submits a written self-certification that it is small to the procuring activity as part of its initial offer (or other formal response to a solicitation), which includes price.
(1) With respect to Multiple Award Contracts and orders issued against a Multiple Award Contract:
(i) SBA determines size at the time of initial offer (or other formal response to a solicitation), which includes price, for a Multiple Award Contract based upon the size standard set forth in the solicitation for the Multiple Award Contract if a single NAICS codes is assigned as set forth in §121.402(c)(i)(A). If a business is small at the time of offer for the Multiple Award Contract, it is small for each order issued against the contract, unless a contracting officer requests a new size certification in connection with a specific order.
(ii) SBA determines size at the time of initial offer (or other formal response to a solicitation), which includes price, for a Multiple Award Contract based upon the size standard set forth for each discrete category (e.g., CLIN, SIN, Sector, FA or equivalent) for which a business concern submits an offer and represents it is small for the Multiple Award Contract as set forth in §121.402(c)(i)(B). If the business concern submits an offer for the entire Multiple Award Contract, SBA will determine whether it meets the size standard for each discrete category (CLIN, SIN, Sector, FA or equivalent). If a business is small at the time of offer for a discrete category on the Multiple Award Contract, it is small for each order issued against that category with the same NAICS code and corresponding size standard, unless a contracting officer requests a new size certification in connection with a specific order.
(iii) SBA will determine size at the time of initial offer (or other formal response to a solicitation), which includes price, for an order issued against a Multiple Award Contract if the contracting officer requests a new size certification for the order.
(g) A concern that represents itself as a small business and qualifies as small at the time of its initial offer (or other formal response to a solicitation), which includes price, is considered to be a small business throughout the life of that contract. This means that if a business concern is small at the time of initial offer for a Multiple Award Contract (see§121.1042(c) for designation of NAICS codes on a Multiple Award Contract), then it will be considered small for each order issued against the contract with the same NAICS code and size standard, unless a contracting officer requests a new size certification in connection with a specific order. ...
This would not be a problem if the CO had done his/her job.
Will the CO's performance bonus be reduced?
44 minutes ago, ContractingPeoplesHatred said:
"this is just how we have always done it"
A phrase used by far too many contracting professionals when explaining decisions from acquisition planning through source selection and contract admin.
One can only hope that they will engage their brains to read the regulations and discern business practices as well as they engage their fingers to enter their automated procurement systems.