FSS | The Contracting Education Academy

January 14, 2021 By cs

COFC confirms ‘rule of two’ analysis applies before agency decides to utilize a multiple-award vehicle

The U.S. Court of Federal Claims (COFC) issued a decision on Nov. 30, 2020 that supported the Small Business Administration’s position regarding the Rule of Two analysis requirements for government acquisitions.

The central question surrounding the case was whether the U.S. Army could cancel a Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) Part 8 service-disabled veteran-owned small business (SDVOSB) set-aside procurement under the General Services Administration’s Federal Supply Schedule (FSS) and move the requirement to a multiple-award indefinite-delivery, indefinite-quantity (MAIDIQ) contract vehicle that the plaintiff, The Tolliver Group, Inc. (Tolliver), did not hold.

In its protest, Tolliver argued, in part, that the Army’s actions violated the Rule of Two because the agency was required to determine whether two or more small businesses were capable of performing the requirement prior to choosing to put the procurement on the MAIDIQ contract.

The COFC’s decision confirms that the Rule of Two analysis applies before an agency elects to procure a requirement from a multiple-award contract (MAC) vehicle under FAR Part 16.5.

The Rule of Two requires contracting officers to set aside any acquisition over the simplified acquisition threshold for small business participation when there is a reasonable expectation that (1) offers will be obtained from at least two responsible small business concerns and (2) the award will be made at fair market prices.

In Tolliver, the Army argued that a Rule of Two analysis was not required because—according the Small Business Jobs Act, as implemented in 15 U.S.C. § 644(r)—federal agencies have the discretion to issue MACs without first conducting a Rule of Two analysis to determine whether it should be set aside for small businesses.

Keep reading this article at: https://www.jdsupra.com/legalnews/cofc-confirms-rule-of-two-analysis-83418/

April 29, 2020 By cs

Emergency acquisitions group at center of GSA’s coronavirus response

For the General Services Administration, the surge in contracting to respond to the coronavirus pandemic and now the fourth stimulus bill is business as usual.

Even with the activation of its emergency acquisitions group and new authorities, the Federal Acquisition Service is striking the balance between helping the Department of Health and Human Services, FEMA and other agencies, and pushing forward with key modernization initiatives.

Julie Dunne, the commissioner of the Federal Acquisition Service at GSA, said that contracting officers and other acquisition employees are meeting all the demands coming from multiple directions.

“I’ve heard from customers and other folks that GSA has not missed a beat in responding to the COVID-19 crisis. A lot of that is due to our telework capability and, in large part, the GSA IT shop has just been phenomenal,” Dunne said in an exclusive interview with Federal News Network. “Things we are seeing a lot of demand for, you won’t be surprised to hear, medical equipment, hand sanitizer and masks. We also are doing a lot in the IT world in terms of trying to support other agencies with telework capacity.”

Keep reading this article at: https://federalnewsnetwork.com/acquisition/2020/04/emergency-acquisitions-group-at-center-of-gsas-coronavirus-response/

The Contracting Education Academy at Georgia Tech has established a webpage where all contract-related developments related to the coronavirus (COVID-19) are summarized. Find the page at: https://contractingacademy.gatech.edu/coronavirus-information-for-contracting-officers-and-contractors/

February 25, 2020 By cs

Contractor successfully uses GAO pre-award protest to modify solicitation

When the terms of a solicitation run contrary to the regulations, challenging the solicitation in a pre-award protest may provide contractors the chance to shift the tide in their favor before bids are submitted and an award is made.

In January 2020, the Government Accountability Office (GAO) sustained a pre-award bid protest brought by Noble Supply & Logistics, Inc. that challenged the terms of a General Services Administration (GSA) solicitation. Noble Supply & Logistics, Inc., B-418141, 2020 WL 289546 (Jan. 16, 2020). Noble Supply argued the RFQ’s price evaluation methodology, as written, failed to provide for an evaluation of which offeror presented the best value and the lowest overall cost alternative, in violation of FAR part 8.

In the RFQ, GSA asked holders of GSA 51V Hardware Superstore Federal Supply Schedule (FSS) contracts to bid on four blanket purchase agreements (BPAs) to provide hardware products and services to four military branches. For its price evaluation factor, the RFQ stated that GSA would evaluate price quotations “to ensure that offered pricing, to include flat rates and tiered volume discounts, is fair and reasonable.” The RFQ then stated that GSA would not evaluate whether the award was the “lowest-priced technically acceptable” (LPTA), nor would it conduct a “best value tradeoff source selection methodology.” Thus, GSA would only evaluate the quotes for price reasonableness to determine whether prices were unreasonably high.

Noble Supply argued that this price methodology was contrary to 41 U.S.C. sections 152, 8.404(d) and 8.405-3(a), which require GSA to award BPAs to the awardee that provides the “best value and results in the lowest overall cost alternative.” GAO agreed, explaining that “consideration of the lowest cost is an imperative when using the FSS” and therefore GSA is required to “reach a determination regarding which FSS vendor meets the agency’s needs at the lowest overall cost.” Noble Supply & Logistics, Inc., B-418141, 2020 WL 289546, at *6 (Jan. 16, 2020).

Keep reading this article at: http://www.mondaq.com/Article/891604

February 18, 2020 By cs

GSA praised for progress on contracting schedule consolidation

As the second phase of the General Services Administration’s merger of 24 multiple-award schedules into a single contracting vehicle started at the end of January, experts applauded the progress the agency has made.

Initially, GSA put only new contracts on the consolidated schedule when it was first published in October. Then on Friday, GSA started the process of restructuring the terms and conditions of current contracts so that they are in sync with those on the new, single contracting vehicle. Contractors have until July 31 to accept the changes. Agencies purchase about $31 billion in goods and services every year through the schedules, and GSA assured them they should not experience disruptions throughout the merger.

“We’re right on track with [the multiple award schedule] consolidation,” GSA Administrator Emily Murphy said in a recent press release. “Moving to a single schedule is good for federal agencies, our industry partners, and our acquisition workforce. It’s a key piece of the picture for making it easier to deliver solutions.“

The Professional Services Council, a trade organization that has over 400 member companies that contract with the federal government, “applauds GSA’s continued progress in phase two of the multiple award schedules consolidation to meet the critical milestones needed to modernize the GSA schedules program,” said Alan Chvotkin, executive vice president and counsel. “PSC has long supported a single schedule that will make it easier for contractors to offer products, services, and solutions, and for agencies to find these offerings.”

GSA announced its plans for the consolidation in November 2018 after many vendors and federal buyers complained about the different terms and conditions for contracts across schedules that led to inconsistencies in the contracting process, Nextgov reported. In addition to making the process for obtaining more than 10 million commercial products easier, the agency wanted to lower the entry barrier for small businesses, technology start-ups and others that might want to contract with the government.

Keep reading this article at: https://www.govexec.com/management/2020/02/gsa-praised-progress-contracting-schedule-consolidation/162837/

February 21, 2019 By AMK

Agencies may evaluate contractor responsibility under FSS orders

Contractor responsibility is to be considered before every federal contract award, but what about task orders issued under an Federal Supply Schedule (FSS) contract? Are contractors still subject to responsibility inquiries when competing for orders?

According to GAO, the answer is, “yes.”

Dehler Manufacturing Company, Inc., B-416819 et al. (Comp. Gen. Dec. 19, 2018), involved a procurement by the Army to provide furnishings for barracks at Fort Jackson in South Carolina. The Solicitation, which contemplated the award of a task order, required prospective contractors to hold FSS contacts that included furnishings. Award was to be made on a low-price technically-acceptable basis. Proposals were to be evaluated on a number of factors, including past performance.

Dehler timely submitted a response to the solicitation. During the Army’s evaluation of past performance, it obtained information from the Past Performance Information Retrieval System (PPIRS). Of the five PPIRS reports the Army obtained for Dehler, four categorized Dehler’s performance as either “Marginal” or “Unsatisfactory.” Consequently, the Army concluded Dehler’s past performance was unacceptable and eliminated it from consideration.

Keep reading this article at: http://smallgovcon.com/gaobidprotests/agencies-may-evaluate-contractor-responsibility-under-fss-orders-says-gao/

The U.S. Court of Federal Claims (COFC) issued a decision on Nov. 30, 2020 that supported the Small Business Administration’s position regarding the Rule of Two analysis requirements for government acquisitions.

For the General Services Administration, the surge in contracting to respond to the coronavirus pandemic and now the fourth stimulus bill is business as usual.

When the terms of a solicitation run contrary to the regulations, challenging the solicitation in a pre-award protest may provide contractors the chance to shift the tide in their favor before bids are submitted and an award is made.

As the second phase of the General Services Administration’s merger of 24 multiple-award schedules into a single contracting vehicle started at the end of January, experts applauded the progress the agency has made.

Contractor responsibility is to be considered before every federal contract award, but what about task orders issued under an Federal Supply Schedule (FSS) contract? Are contractors still subject to responsibility inquiries when competing for orders?

Search this Website