Source: http://www.wifcon.com/discussion/index.php?/profile/66-weno2/&do=content&page=2
Timestamp: 2018-03-23 22:42:39
Document Index: 125388734

Matched Legal Cases: ['art 19', 'art 19', 'art 19', 'art 19', 'art 8', 'art 19', 'art 19']

Weno2's Content - Page 2 - The Wifcon Forums and Blogs
Weno2 replied to camphenry's topic in Schedules, GWACS, MACs, IDIQs
Vern, in point #2 you stated there isn't a need for options in an IDIQ contract. During the 2009-2011 Wifcon period - there was a discussion regarding IDIQ contracts and the use of options. I remember reading there was an exception: Using options for IDIQ multiple award contracts. The reason for the exception was because if you had multiple award contracts, the contracting officer must provide each awardee a fair opportunity: FAR 16.505((1). For example, if there was an awardee and there were issues with the awardee (e.g. contractor deciding not to submit a task order proposal) with an awardee, unless there was an exception under FAR 16.505((2), the contracting officer must provide the awardee a fair opportunity during the ordering period of the contract. If the contracting the contracting officer had options, the contracting officer could decide not to exercise the option of the awardee. Would having options be a nuisance for multiple award IDIQ contracts?
Thanks to all that contribute in order to make this an effective website and providing a trove of advice, feedback, opinions, and invaluable information.
LPTA and Adequate Price Competition
Weno2 posted a topic in Contract Award Process
Government is using LPTA Source Selection Process for procuring services. Solicitation Section M provision Evaluation states The evaluation process will begin with a ranking based on the Total Evaluated Price (TEP) from the lowest to highest price of all proposals according to the evaluation criteria set forth in paragraph (a) of this section. The offers will subsequently be evaluated utilizing price analysis techniques to determine if the price is complete, reasonable, realistic and balanced. Following the price ranking, the lowest price proposal will then be evaluated for technical acceptability under the non-price factor, according to evaluation criteria set forth in paragraph b of this section. Award will be made upon identification of a successful offer with the lowest price and acceptable non-price factors. The government will not evaluate Technical Proposals from offerors who proposed higher pricing than the successful offeror. The government reserves the right to evaluate the lowest-priced proposal first to determine technical acceptability. If the government determines the lowest price meets the acceptability standards for non-cost factors, the government will award to the offeror. The government received five proposals (for example). Offeror #1 I(lowest evaluated price) was technically unacceptable. Offeror #2 (second lowest evaluated price) is technically acceptable. The government did not evaluate Offeror's 3-5 per the evaluation provision: Offer Total Evaluated Price Technical Evaluation #1 $300K Unacceptable #2 $320K Acceptable #3 $340K Did not evaluate #4 $400K Did not evaluate #5 $425 Did not evaluate FAR 15.401-1, Proposal Techniques states the contracting officer (KO) is responsible for determining the reasonableness of the offered prices. The KO wants to use FAR 15.401-1( (2)(I) Comparison of proposed prices received in response to the solicitation. Normally, adequate price competition establishes a fair and reasonable price (see 15.403-1©(1)(i)) to determine fair and reasonableness. Although the KO did not conduct a technical evaluation on offerors' #3-5, could the KO determine Offeror's #2's price to be fair and reasonable based on adequate price competition? Or would the KO have to conduct other price analysis techniques to determine Offeror #2 price as fair and reasonable? Legal's opinion is the KO must conduct other price analysis techniques to determine the fair and reasonableness of Offeror #2's price. Their position is for LPTA procurements, an offeror must have a technically acceptable proposal in order to consider the offeror's price for adequate competition.
Weno2 replied to Weno2's topic in Contract Award Process
Weno2 replied to anonco's topic in Schedules, GWACS, MACs, IDIQs
Weno2 replied to Gns's topic in Schedules, GWACS, MACs, IDIQs
GSA gave a Multiple Award Schedule webinar on February 6th, 2014. C. Culham's link was last updated by GSA September 19, 2013. The instructor said FAR Part 19 definitions does apply to FSS orders. Rules within FAR 8.405 are applicable. FAR Part 19 "Rule of Two" doesn't apply to FSS orders. FAR Part 19 "Exceptions" are "Bundling" and "Size Standard Criteria." According to the presentation charts: FAR Part 19, generally "does not apply" to Schedule "orders". - See 8.404(a) FAR 8.405-5 provides policy for Schedules set-asides.19.502-4 Multiple-award contracts and small business set-asides. Contracting officers may, at their discretion-© Set aside orders placed under multiple-award contracts for any of the small business concerns identified in FAR 19.000(a)(3)....For FSS orders, see FAR 8.405-5"FAR Subpart 8.405-5 Small Business 8.405-5(a) - Preference programs of Part 19 are not mandatory.8.405-5(a)(1) - Set-asides are discretionary for orders and BPAs for small business concerns identified in FAR 19.000(a)(3).8.405-5(a)(2) - Follow the ordering procedures at 8.405-1, 8.405-2, and 8.405-3, as applicable.The specific small business program eligibility requirements identified in Part 19 applyFAR 19.000(a)(3) reads "Setting acquisitions aside for exclusive competitive participation by small business, 8(a) business development participants, HUBZone small business concerns, service-disabled veteran-owned small business concerns, and economically disadvantaged women-owned small business concerns and women-owned small business concerns eligible under the Women-Owned Small Business Program" This would mean you can have a competitive set-aside for FSS orders, but not a sole-source set-aside for FSS orders.
Weno2 replied to Vern Edwards's topic in Contracting Workforce
The concept of making a personal pledge to improve the process is interesting, but would probably conclude with the pledge being a fool's errand. Standardization is one reason. Cookie-cutter contracting is becoming the norm. Another reason is because the customer (i.e. program office) is now running the procurement process, and contracting shops are becoming customer service organizations. If I had a dollar for every time I was told "We didn't do it that way before, so we aren't going to do it now", I wouldn't have to suffer through any more furlough Fridays. There are those who want to improve the procurement process. There are those who are verbal in wanting to improve the procurement process. There are those who do it in silence. There are those who know how it'll end, and suffer in silence. Here_2_help makes a good point about if everyone felt more confident in themselves. Maybe that's why people pine about the "good old days." We we were encouraged to bring something to the table other than an appetite. We were encouraged to try something different, new, without getting taken to task by customers and upper management. We wanted to improve the process and get out the work instead of "Just get out the work." Reminds me of Godfather II, when Frankie Five Angels leaves Michael Corelone in anger because Michael tells him not to do anything, and Michael says "That man had too much wine."
Weno2 replied to Don Mansfield's topic in Contracting Workforce
A belated Happy Birthday, Bob. And a special thanks for running and supporting the website.
FAR/DFARS iOS App
Weno2 replied to akramer84's topic in Contracting Workforce
Just bookmark WIFCON.
Weno2 replied to govt2310's topic in Proposed Law & Regulations; Legal Decisions
FAR 8.404(d) - Best Value and Lowest Overall Cost
The government is placing a GSA Task Order to the offeror who has the highest overall rating (i.e meets the special features), but isn't the lowest priced offeror. FAR 8.405-2(d) reads The ordering activity is responsible for considering the level of effort and the mix of labor proposed to perform a specific task being ordered, and for determining that the total price is reasonable. Place the order with the schedule contractor that represents the best value (see 8.404(d) and 8.405-4), . FAR 8.404(d) reads Therefore, ordering activities are not required to make a separate determination of fair and reasonable pricing, except for a price evaluation as required by 8.405-2(d). By placing an order against a schedule contract using the procedures in 8.405, the ordering activity has concluded that the order represents the best value (as defined in FAR 2.101) and results in the lowest overall cost alternative (considering price, special features, administrative costs, etc.) to meet the Government's needs When awarding the GSA task order to the offeror who doesn't have the lowest overall price, should the KO use the wording "The KO concludes the order represents best value to the government", or "The KO concludes the order represents best value to the government and resilts in the lowest overall cost alternative."
Is acceptable to use: "The KO concludes the order represents best value to the government"; "The KO concludes the order represents best value to the government and resilts in the lowest overall cost alternative." Or is either phrase acceptable.
One phrase in particular, or either phase is suffice?
Weno2 commented on robert_antonio's blog entry in Bob Antonio's Blog
Government behavior during negotiations
Weno2 replied to August's topic in Contract Award Process
Language in Contract Changing Type of Contract
The government has a procurement for services where the type of K is T&M, and the Period of Performance (POP) is for five years. The KO wants to insert language in the solicitation, advising offerors that after a certain period of performance under the K (e.g. two years), the government may ask the contractor to submit a FFP proposal for the remaining tasks and the POP under the K. The reason for the possible change is b/c the contractor will be performing the same effort three times during the performance period of the K, so the contractor's risk will diminish after the second year. I know the government can renegotiate the type of K during performance of the K. Since the govenment has the right to do this, should the govenrment put this language in the solicitation? Thanks
Don, 1. It will be a task order against a GSA FSS MOBIS schedule. 2. The base period of the task order will be for five years, and one two-year option. 3. The CLINs are for labor hours and rates for the base period and the option period. The CLINs are not by each task cited in the statement of work.
The procurement is a competitive FSS task order for a study (MOBIS) (MY fault, b/c I should've been clearer when I wrote the post). The TO would be a five year base period (fully funded) w/a two year option. The government will perfom the same study apprximately three times, and the option will allow the contractor to perform the study two more times. After the government reaches a particular SOW task (or performance period), the government wants to change the type of K from T&M to FFP. This would be for the remainder of the base period, and the two year option period. The government would "reprice" the remainder of the base period of the TO, and the two year option period.
I have read the following discussions pertaining to applying G&A on Travel costs and ODCs: http://www.wifcon.com/discussion/index.php?showtopic=228 http://www.wifcon.com/discus/messages/8787/8669.html I am assuming the same philosophy applies to charging B&P. Such negotiations are at the TO level, but a contractor may apply their B&P rate against their travel and ODCs.
Weno2 replied to DOECPA's topic in Contract Award Process
I remember in the pre cradle-to-grave days there were contractors would not request progress payments. The CS would run a weighted guidelines, w/o progress payments as a factor. The profit rate is higher when the contractor doesn't receive progress payments. Once the contract was awarded, the contracting shop would toss the K over to K Administration. After award, the contractor would request - guess what - progress payments! They knew K Administration wasn't going to run a new weighted guidelines (receiving progress payments would lower the profit rate) so the contractor would receive same profit as if they weren't receiving progress payments. Curious if this contractor has a history of asking for progress payments after K award.
IDIQ-Cancellation
Weno2 posted a topic in Contract Administration
The government has an IDIQ K (does not have option periods), and because of mission requirements, no longer has a need for the services. The government has met the stated minimum quantity. When the government notifies the contractor, could the KO send a letter to the contractor, informing the contractor that the government will no longer place orders against the contract? Or could the KO issue an unilateral modification, cancelling the contract? Thanks