Source: http://www.wifcon.com/discussion/index.php?/profile/83-napolik/content/&type=forums_topic_post&change_section=1
Timestamp: 2019-11-17 03:41:22
Document Index: 125901865

Matched Legal Cases: ['§ 125', '§ 125', '§ 125', 'art 38', 'art 8', 'art 16', 'art 16', '§ 637', '§ 125', 'art 19', '§ 637', '§ 125', 'art 19', '§ 637']

@napolik seems to be suggesting I should look to changes in the statute to explain the difference between the two decisions as to the issue of jurisdiction, but I haven't had a chance to do that yet.
33 minutes ago, Jacques said:
My bad. I was hoping for thoughts on whether the rationale the GAO used in LBM, Inc. to get around limits on its jurisdiction are now in doubt (either as a result of as reflected in ServeFed).
The FAR was changed in 2018 to revise the GAO protest jurisdiction regarding orders under IDQ contracts:
(ii) Protests of orders in excess of the thresholds stated in 16.505(a)(10(i)(B) may only be filed with the Government Accountability Office, in accordance with the procedures at 33.104.
See also https://www.mcguirewoods.com/client-resources/Alerts/2018/5/New-GAO-Protest-Rules-Take-Effect-May-31
Dont you agree that the contracting officer (at the level of federal﻿-﻿wide﻿ ﻿regulation﻿) is not required to include the accounting﻿ citation i﻿n ﻿an indefinite delivery contract? ﻿
Didya View All Over Again:
http://www.wifcon.com/arc/forum304.htm
Well, what happens if the firm doesn't meet the minimum requirement in a tradeoff, i.e., "has no recent or relevant experience" What's the difference between that and "no recent or relevant experience" in an LPTA?
Also, take a look at this blog:
http://www.berenzweiglaw.com/sba-helps-on-responsibility-type-evaluations/
I suggest reading this decision referenced in the blog: Competitive Range Sols., LLC, B-413104.10, Apr. 18, 2017.
https://www.gao.gov/products/B-413104.10#mt=e-report
The solicitation advised offerors that the government would evaluate proposals in two phases. Id. at M-1. During phase 1, the government would evaluate the proposals based on four “Go/No-Go” requirements.[2] Id. at M-3, M-4. As relevant here, factor 2, management approach, subfactor 1, domain-specific capability in a health-related mission, was one of the go/no-go requirements to be evaluated during phase 1.[3] Id. at M-4.
As relevant here, the solicitation stated that under this subfactor the government would evaluate whether the offeror “demonstrates an inherent domain-specific capability in a health-related mission . . . . This capability can be demonstrated through experience examples or internal resources with substantial relevant experience.” Id. at M-8. The solicitation also stated that health-related missions were “broadly defined as those that contribute directly to human health and may include corporate expertise in fields such as healthcare, health-related/biomedical research and health science, clinical analytics and intelligence, health policy, health-related grant making, and regulation of health industries.” Id. The solicitation warned that proposals that fail to demonstrate domain-specific capability in a health-related mission would be deemed unacceptable and ineligible for further consideration for award. Id.
The agency received 552 proposals, including a proposal from CRS. Agency Report (AR), Contracting Officer Statement of Facts (COS) at 2; AR, Memorandum of Law (MOL) at 4. The agency evaluated the protester’s proposal under the service-disabled veteran-owned small business (SDVOSB) grouping.[4] AR, MOL at 4.
As relevant here, the agency found CRS’s proposal unacceptable under the management approach factor, domain-specific capability in a health-related mission subfactor. See AR, Tab 7, Go/No-Go Assessment, Factor 2, Subfactor 1- Domain Specific Capability in a Health-Related Mission Socioeconomic Group: SDVOSB, at 4, 10. Specifically, the agency found that the examples CRS provided in its proposal all involved “provision of IT services and solutions, which [was] not sufficient to demonstrate inherent capabilities in health-related missions.” Id. at 10. The agency also noted that CRS’s proposal also did not demonstrate that it possessed the requisite capability through “internal resources with substantial relevant experience.” Id. As a result, the agency found CRS’s proposal ineligible for further consideration for award. Id.
Here, the solicitation provided that in phase 1 of the evaluation, proposals were to be evaluated on a go/no-go basis, i.e., non-comparative basis. See RFP at M-3, M-4. The solicitation further provided that if rated unacceptable under any factor in phase 1, the entire proposal would be rendered unacceptable and ineligible for award. See id. at M-4. Further, the record provides no support for the agency’s argument that CRS’s proposal was eliminated because it was not responsive to the solicitation. Contrary to the agency’s arguments, the record shows that the agency found that the examples provided by CRS in its proposal were “not sufficient to demonstrate inherent capabilities in health-related missions” and that CRS’s proposal did not demonstrate that it possessed the requisite capability through “internal resources with substantial relevant experience.” See AR, Tab 7, Go/No-Go Assessment at 10. On this record, we find that the agency’s conclusion relates to CRS’s capability to perform the contract, not simply the adequacy or completeness of its proposal submission. See 22nd Century Team, LLC--Costs, B-412742.4, Dec. 15, 2016, 2016 CPD ¶ 369 at 6. Accordingly, the Small Business Act requires that the agency should have referred CRS to the SBA for a COC review in accordance with 13 C.F.R. § 125.5(a)(2)(ii). Cascadian Am. Enters., B-412208.3, B-412208.4, Feb. 5, 2016, 2016 CPD ¶ 29 at 7-8.
In sum, the agency evaluated the small business offerors on an acceptable/unacceptable basis, as opposed to a comparative basis, with respect to relevant experience, a responsibility-type evaluation factor, and found CRS’s proposal unacceptable under that factor. See 13 C.F.R. § 125.5(a)(2)(ii). As such, rejection of CRS’s proposal based on its rating of unacceptable under the management approach, domain-specific capability in a health-related mission subfactor, without first referring the matter to the SBA for a COC determination, was improper. Accordingly, we sustain the protest.
I still say "No" to the question of requiring re-documentation of reps and certs for each and every order [under a multiple-award IDIQ contract], even though I am okay with recertification of small business status﻿.
So far, it appears that an unacceptable proposal of a small biz determined to be unacceptable based upon an LPTA evaluation of a responsibility related criterion (e.g. experience) must be referred to the SBA for a COC. However, it does not need to be referred if the small biz failed to provide documentation required by the solicitation:
As for the protester’s contention that the agency was required to refer Sea Box’s unacceptable proposal to the SBA, we disagree. Where an agency finds the proposal of a small business to be unacceptable under a responsibility-related factor, that is, a factor pertaining to its ability to perform, such as whether it has adequate corporate experience or production equipment and facilities, the determination is essentially one of nonresponsibility, meaning that referral to the SBA, which has the ultimate authority to determine the responsibility of small business concerns, is required. Tyonek Worldwide Servs., Inc.; DigiFlight, Inc., B-409326 et al., Mar. 11, 2014, 2014 CPD ¶ 97 at 12. Where an agency rejects a proposal as technically unacceptable on the basis of factors not related to responsibility, however, referral to the SBA is not required. Id. Likewise, where an agency rejects a proposal as technically unacceptable on the basis of a factor that is arguably responsibility related, but the finding of unacceptability is based on the offeror’s failure to submit specific documentation required by the solicitation, referral to the SBA is not required. AttainX, Inc.; FreeAlliance.com, LLC., B-413104.5, B-413104.6, Nov. 10, 2016, 2016 CPD ¶ 330 at 5.
Sea Box, Inc., B-414742, Sept 6, 2017
http://www.wifcon.com/cgen/414742.pdf
So I still say "No" to the question of requiring re-documentation of reps and certs for each and every order, even though I am okay with recertification of small business status.
Your application of the GAO decision is mis-placed in my view as it deals specifically with a FSS RFQ and a commercial item contract (52.212-3).
§ 125.1 What definitions are important to SBA's Government Contracting Programs?
Multiple Award Contract means a contract that is:
(1) A Multiple Award Schedule contract issued by GSA (e.g., GSA Schedule Contract) or agencies granted Multiple Award Schedule contract authority by GSA (e.g.,Department of Veterans Affairs) as described in FAR part 38 and subpart 8.4;
(2) A multiple award task-order or delivery-order contract issued in accordance with FAR subpart 16.5, including Governmentwide acquisition contracts; or
If the GAO has expanded the 2002 decision to other than commercial item contracts (52.204-7, 8, 13 and 19) and other than FSS contracts I would appreciate seeing it.
The Oryza Group, LLC., B-416719,B-416719.2: Nov 26, 2018
https://www.gao.gov/products/B-416719,B-416719.2#mt=e-report
On June 22, 2018, the Army issued the TOR to holders of Veterans Technology Services 2 (VETS 2) indefinite-delivery, indefinite-quantity (IDIQ) governmentwide acquisition contracts (GWACs) pursuant to the procedures of Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) subpart 16.5.
Q. Must a contracting officer document reps and certs for each and every order under an indefinite-delivery contract?
A. Not unless the CO has the urge to do it based upon his/her beliefs and or the "advice" of the small biz specialist.
39 minutes ago, joel hoffman said:
I found these under a Google Search on my iPhone
The last 2 URLs yield nothing. The first 2 yield copies of protests against solicitations, not against source selections.
My point is that one can use "responsibility" eval factors for source selection and avoid the requirement for a COC if one is using a tradeoff vice an LPTA.
However, I have seen Decisions which upheld the right of the government to require certain minimum amount of experience where that was determined to be a reasonable requirement.
Jamaal, the GAO has said that the government could set a requirement for some minimum amount of experience as a technical requirement. It has also said that the government could use it as a comparative factor.
Under the SBA’s COC program, authorized pursuant to the Small Business Act, 15 U.S.C. § 637(b)(7), and implementing regulations, 13 C.F.R. § 125.5, see also FAR subpart 19.6, agencies must refer a determination that a small business is not responsible to SBA if the determination would preclude the small business from receiving an award. 15 U.S.C. § 637(b)(7); 13 C.F.R. § 125.5; FAR subpart 19.6. In this regard, the Small Business Act provides that it is the SBA’s duty to certify to government procurement officers with respect to all elements of responsibility (including capability, competency, capacity, credit, integrity, perseverance, and tenacity) of any one or a group of small business concerns to receive and perform a specific government contract. 15 U.S.C. § 637(b)(7)(A). Further, SBA’s regulations specifically require a contracting officer to refer a small business concern to SBA for consideration for a COC when the contracting officer:
Refuses to consider a small business concern for award of a contract or order after evaluating the concern’s offer on a non-comparative basis (e.g., a pass/fail, go/no go, or acceptable/unacceptable) under one or more responsibility type evaluation factors (such as experience of the company or key personnel or past performance) . . . .
Cascadian American Enterprises, B-412208.3; B-412208.4, Feb 5, 2016
https://www.gao.gov/assets/680/675014.pdf
See Alternative Procurement Strategies: An Obscure Aspect Of The FAR, The Nash & Cibinic Report, May 2001.