If you wish to place an order with a FSS holder who is an 8a participant,and the FSS indicates such,do you have to comply with the competition procedures stated in the schedule? And,if the answer is yes, do you have to get approval from SBA to compete the 8a below the competition thresholds?

By formerfed on Monday, June 18, 2001 - 01:43 pm:

Since no one responded, I'll give it a try. I believe you must comply with the competition procedures even though the contract holder is 8a). GSA makes the FFS awards using competitive procedures, regardless of the status or size of the offeror. Any using agency must abide by the ordering procedures GSA establishes - comply with competition procedures if the order value exceeds the micro-purchase threshold.

As a side note, SBA and GSA agreed last year to let ordering agencies get credit for 8(a) and SDB awards. If I remember correctly, it's up to the offeror to designate whether their status is either 8(a) or SDB at the time of award.

In any event, you do not need SBA's approval to compete.

By Anonymous on Monday, June 18, 2001 - 02:39 pm:

FF THANKS

By anon q on Tuesday, June 26, 2001 - 03:34 pm:

GSA does not use competitive procedures to award MAS FSS. Almost anyone who wants one can have one. Competition does not take place until orders are placed.

By Loki on Tuesday, June 26, 2001 - 03:37 pm:

You are not allowed to sole source using 8(a) noncompetitive authority under an FSS schedule contract.

By Charlie Dan on Tuesday, June 26, 2001 - 06:10 pm:

Loki: Is there a regulation that prohibits awarding a sole source 8a procurement under an FSS contract?

By Anonymous on Tuesday, June 26, 2001 - 06:13 pm:

So just award your own contract as a 8(a) sole source if it meets the sole source criteria. While I don't know the details, I know my agency issues sole source contracts to 8(a) firms all the time as long as the value is under $3M. Everyone seems happy that the firm is 8(a) because there won't be a need to compete the requirement. And the SBDU is really happy.

By Anonymous on Tuesday, June 26, 2001 - 10:18 pm:

During training offered by GSA, speakers emphasized that "thou shalt not do a sole source when using GSA schedules".

This causes a problem if the schedule is the best approach under the circumstances you find yourself in - where you have a real sole source, no time, and no people.

What do the experts think? My reasoning is that the only way you could use the GSA schedule for a sole source buy is to meet any statutory requirements for a non-Part 8 buy before purchasing using the GSA contract: (e.g., synopsis, Part 6 J&A (depending on the threshold), independent fair and reasonable price determination).

By Anonymous on Wednesday, June 27, 2001 - 09:17 am:

The issue first raised was supposed to lead to the question"Why not". I mean besides the issue that the ordering procedures say you cannot what is gained? Of what value is a vehicle ,that could easily be used to support a specific socio-economic program,be somehow made unavailable for that purpose? Most of us realize that we could issue a seperate solicitation and contract but when a simple delivery order would accomplish the same thing why are we prevented from doing so? Was FASA and FARA designed to obviate the 8a program? Its no cakewalk trying to meet such goals but when GSA stands in the way I say timeout..lets reconsider.

By Eric Ottinger on Wednesday, June 27, 2001 - 09:25 am:

Anon 10:18,

GSA Schedule contracts are intended for commercial, readily available supplies or services.

If we do a lot of sole source J&A's for supplies and services which should be readily available on the commercial market, somebody is going to question whether GSA should be contracting for these supplies and seervices.

Eric

By Anonymous on Wednesday, June 27, 2001 - 10:49 am:

EO
A J&A is not required for 8a procurements (FAR.6.204), the sole issue here is why one cannot use an 8a FSS on a sole souce basis.

By Eric B. Ottinger on Wednesday, June 27, 2001 - 11:01 am:

Anon 10:49,

I was responding to Anon 10:18.

"This causes a problem if the schedule is the best approach under the circumstances you find yourself in - where you have a real sole source, no time, and no people."

However, you are correct. I was somewhat off topic.

Eric

By Charlie Dan on Wednesday, June 27, 2001 - 11:10 am:

Between FAR 6.305(b)(4), FAR 8.404(a), and FAR 8.404(b)(6), I think there's plenty of authority to place a sole source order to an 8a firm using a FSS contract.

I don't understand why 8a firms can't supply commercial items of supplies or services, and I don't think there's any contradiction or impropriety in going sole source to them. After all, CICA authorizes it, the Small Business Act authorizes it, and FAR Subpart 8.4 doesn't preclude it. In fact, it seems to encourage it.

By ANON 1ST THREAD on Wednesday, June 27, 2001 - 12:02 pm:

Its GSA that objects to it.

By Roston on Thursday, June 28, 2001 - 12:02 pm:

Mr. Dan appears to have a very logical perspective of the situation. It makes no sense to complicate the process when we're all supposed to be focused on streamlining - which is exactly what his view supports. I don't see any violation of law or regulation - use the available vehicles and support socioeconomic objectives. Isn't that the bottom line? And one that GSA, SBA and all the agencies should support?

Good discussion from all - an interesting topic!

By Anon 1st thread on Thursday, June 28, 2001 - 01:39 pm:

Reston
you are right...as CDan pointed out,and many of us know how this should work..problem is (read LOKIs note) the FSS ordering procedures make no such allowance. Or rather ,pay any heed to what CDan says. There is an easy solution however...first authorize sole source 8a FSS orders below the comp threshold and require kos to verify,through ProNet the currency of 8a status and size standard.Put these instructions in the FSS and we will all be back on track.

By formerfed on Thursday, June 28, 2001 - 02:30 pm:

Anon q,

You got me thinking. GSA awards MAS contracts after advertising the procurement, issuing a solicitation, evaluating responses, sometimes holding discussions, and makes awards consistent with their stated plan (something like offer to the Government consistent with most favored customer). So what do you call that procedure? I mentioned competitive and you didn't agree. It's not noncompetitive.

By Anonymous on Thursday, June 28, 2001 - 02:51 pm:

formerfed,

As far as I can figure, an officer is a gentleman "by act of Congress."

In the same way a GSA schedule contract is competitive, even though almost anyone who wants one can have one.

By bob antonio on Thursday, June 28, 2001 - 03:56 pm:

Back in the 1970s for MAS, FSS used a "benchmark" process to accept discounts from published prices of offerors under a schedule class. One of the problems they had was the setting of the benchmark. It was not based on competition and it was an abstract process. I cannot remember exactly how it worked anymore. However, the prices were often bad.

The agencies that used the schedules often picked sole source from a schedule too. So there was no direct competition at FSS and often sole source at the agency level.

GAO did a report that showed prices were high under the MAS back in 1979. They were then considered to be non-competitive. I remember references to the "competititve single award program" and the "non-competitive multiple-award program." I may have even written that terminology--I cannot remember.

Back in 1984, Jack Brooks clarified it by adding that MAS were competititve if

"(A) participation in the program has been open to all responsible sources; and

(B) orders and contracts under such procedures result in the lowest overall cost alternative to meet the needs of the Government."

That is how we reached that point.

By ANON 1ST on Friday, June 29, 2001 - 09:14 am:

BOB
Your memory serves you well...that is exactly the situation. Mandatory single source schedules were awarded throught true competition; items like carpet,typewriters and such;multiple award schedules were awarded to anyone who agreed to the terms and conditions and treated the government as MFC. . As to FF the procedure you describe is right but a MAS is more like a BOA and competition takes place during the odering phase ,not the award phase. In fact I believe the ordering procedures required by GSA are designed to bring the FSS into CICA compliance. And yet,even here,the competition is still limited...at least three. Notwithstanding is there any agreement here that 8a sole sorce FSS delivery orders should clearly be authorizes?

By Loki on Friday, August 31, 2001 - 03:40 pm:

You don't need the schedules to do an 8(a) sole source.

Just use existing pricing that has been authoritatively established as FM or F&R as your benchmark...this could be schedule pricing...and save your 1% on the IFF.

If your agency has the simplied MOU/MOA (whichever) in place with SBA this should be a snap.

This discussion is circular.

By ANON O6-15 on Monday, September 24, 2001 - 12:15 pm:

The point is,its easier to use the schedules......I do not see any logical reason why the FSS cannot accomodate 8a sole source delivery orders .Putting that issue aside is there any legal objection to limiting our negotiations with ,for example, three 8a FSS holders?

By Anonymous on Monday, September 24, 2001 - 12:22 pm:

I have often heard that when an acquisition has been set aside for the 8a program it must stay there.....is this true and if so where does it come from?

By Anon8a on Monday, September 24, 2001 - 04:59 pm:

In order for an acquisition to remain in the 8(a) program, there must be separate offers and acceptances. The FAR and SBA regulations inherently recognize that circumstances change from contract to contract; therefore agencies must evaluate and construct their acquisition strategy on a case-by-case basis. I have found no statutory or regulatory support for the belief that “once 8(a), always 8(a),” this belief appears to be rooted in agency practice or “that’s how we’ve always done it.” A contract that was once suitable for the 8(a) program may no longer be so, it just depends on the circumstances. If anyone has information to the contrary, PLEASE provide it, as our organization has been wrestling with this issue for years.

By Anonymous on Tuesday, September 25, 2001 - 03:11 pm:

Policy questions regarding the 8(a) MAS MOU can be directed to Jim Parker at the Small Business Administration at 202-205-3644.

By Loki on Friday, October 12, 2001 - 03:41 pm:

Anonymous on Monday, September 24, 2001 - 12:22 pm

+++

If you set anything that is recurring aside for a small business...any type of small business, you must first receive SBA's okay before you open it up in the future for large businesses...there is no safe harbor to be found in FASA or in the FSS schedules program that permits you to avoid this.

By Loki on Friday, October 12, 2001 - 03:42 pm:

One more comment....the rule of two applies.

By Anon2U on Tuesday, October 16, 2001 - 11:12 pm:

Loki,

I would think you could procure from a small business off of a FSS and still satisfy SBA without having to do a full blown source selection IAW part 14 or 15.

How about it, does any SBA specialists out there want to clarify this?

By cmercy on Wednesday, October 17, 2001 - 02:56 pm:

LOKI
Where in the FAR does it say you have to get SBA permission to not set aside a recurring action for SB SA? You might have to answer an appeal but prior approval? The only requirement is that if there are not at least two SB who can meet the current requirement....

By Loki on Wednesday, October 17, 2001 - 04:46 pm:

B-277979, Jan. 26, 1998

B-285164.2 & .3

If you can't pull them up on the net from the usual sources, let me know.

Do you want to run the risk of making the wrong call....and be called to task by SBA or a vendor? Not me. I'd prefer to not look that dim.

By Vern Edwards on Wednesday, October 17, 2001 - 07:52 pm:

FAR 8.404(a) says, in the very first sentence: "Parts 13 and 19 do not apply to orders placed against Federal Supply Schedules except for the provision at 13.303-2(c)(3)." Last time I checked the rules for the 8(a) program were in FAR Part 19.

The small business programs do not apply to the placement of orders against GSA's FSS contracts.

By Loki on Thursday, October 18, 2001 - 10:26 am:

Read the decisions mentioned. Small business programs trump the FASA and FSS safe harbors.

By Vern Edwards on Thursday, October 18, 2001 - 12:18 pm:

Loki:

I have read the decisions, and neither of them stands for either of the propositions that you claim for them: (1) that small business programs "trump" FASA and (2) that they trump GSA's FSS ordering procedures. In fact, neither decision has anything to do with GSA's FSS program. You have misread them rather badly.

The first decision you mention, Valenzuela Engineering, Inc., B-277979, Jan. 26, 1997, is not a protest decision, but a letter to the Secretary of the Air Force (there was also one to the Secretary of the Army, but the pertinent one was to the Air Force). There is a related protest decision with same "B" number, but it is dated December 9, 1997, has nothing to do with either FASA or GSA's FSS program, and GAO dismissed the protest.

What happened in Valenzuela was that the USAF had an 8(a) contract with Valenzuela for O&M services. During the course of the contract the USAF learned that the Army had awarded an IDIQ task order contract for similar services and decided to use the Economy Act to obtain the services throught the Army rather than exercise its option with Valenzuela. The GAO made no protest decision about this, but notified the Air Force that the Small Business Act required it to coordinate with the SBA and satisfy other statutory and regulatory requirements before going to the Army throught the Economy Act. The issues had nothing to do with FASA or GSA's FSS program and the letter made no reference to FASA or the FSS program.

The other reference you made was to N&N Travel & Tours, Inc., et al., B-285164.2, August 31, 2000. In that case the USAF had a contract with N&N, a small business, for travel services. When the contract came to an end the USAF issued an RFP for the services as a small business set-aside and received nine offers, but cancelled it in reaction to a protest. The USAF then decided to obtain those services by placing an order against a GSA "master contract," which is an IDIQ task order contract, but not an FSS contract.

The firms that had submitted offers in response to the USAF's cancelled RFP protested on various grounds. The GAO sustained the protest for reasons that are obscure, but apparently because inclusion of the travel services sought by the Air Force in the scope of the GSA master contract constituted unjustified bundling. In any event, GSA's FSS ordering procedures were not at issue. Furthermore, the decision mentions FASA only in passing and to the effect that the FASA prohibition against protests of task orders did not apply in this instance.

I suggest that you read the decisions again.

The person who started this thread asked whether or not a CO could place an 8(a) sole source order against a GSA FSS contract. The answer to the question is no, because FAR 8.404(a) expressly states that the rules in FAR Part 19 do not apply to the placement of orders against FSS schedule contracts. The rules for the 8(a) program appear in FAR Part 19, and thus cannot be cited as authority to issue a sole source order based on the contractor's 8(a) status.

I do not know of any decision by a Federal court or the GAO which says that an agency may use 8(a) procedures to place a sole source order against a GSA FSS contract despite FAR 8.404(a). Do you?

By Dave Barnett on Thursday, October 18, 2001 - 01:36 pm:

FAR 8.404(b)(6) states:

Small business. When conducting evaluations and before placing an order, consider including, if available, one or more small, women-owned small, and/or small disadvantaged business schedule contractor(s). Orders placed against the schedules may be credited toward the ordering agency's small business goals. For orders exceeding the micro-purchase threshold, ordering offices should give preference to the items of small business concerns when two or more items at the same delivered price will satisfy the requirement.

I don't see the word "shall" anywhere. What's imperative?

By anonymous8 on Sunday, October 21, 2001 - 09:45 pm:

Presented during GSA training and spelled out in procedures for ordering services under GSA schedules is a prohibition against sole source orders.

By Anonymous on Friday, October 26, 2001 - 02:48 pm:

Question:

Seeking assistance in dealing with choice of law when doing business with 8(a) Indian Tribe. Is state law applicable and how to handle arbitration and disputes for same issue or does federal law only apply. If so, then in what way.

By formerfed on Friday, October 26, 2001 - 03:38 pm:

I assume Federal law applies. I believe each tribe is considered a corporation. Therefore the SBA 8(a) award is made with a contractor just like other contracts. You go by whatever terms and conditions are in the 8(a) contract including the disputes and other provisions.

By Paul Murphy on Tuesday, October 30, 2001 - 05:57 pm:

My research into the most current FPDS data indicates that the government issued $5 million in sole source awards on contracts coded with Kind = G (for GSA Schedule) during FY 2000. Also, there was about $300,000 issued as 8(a) set-asides on Schedule contracts. But there were no schedule obligations that were coded both as sole source and 8(a).

Assuming the $5 million was not mis-coded, there do seem to be some contract officers going sole source on schedule.

By Anonymous on Tuesday, October 30, 2001 - 07:49 pm:

I wouldn't believe anything in the FPDS based on what I see everyday at my agency. Knowledgeable KOs work the large contracts and the inexperienced, losers, and untrainable work the small purchases and GSA Schedules. They put anything into the computer that will pass the edits. They can't even code two identical purchases the same. Some make up NAICS codes off the top of thier head. Even the State and city of the job performance is wrong many times. How can services being performed in Washington, DC by a firm from Florida be coded as being in performed in San Diego, CA?

If I pull 10 DOs/POs at random from the file room, I will bet that the data in at least 6 is wrong. A friend at another agency said he sees the same thing there.

So the FPDS data in total may give some indication of the size of the government spending by agency but I wouldn't trust any of the details. Garbage in, Garbage out.

By Anonymous8 on Wednesday, October 31, 2001 - 08:15 am:

Dear Anonymous,

Surely you did not mean to call people doing simplified acquisition and orders off of GSA schedules "inexperienced, untrainable losers".

There are some shops in which the contracting people do large, small, test program, negotiated competitive and sole source buys, and anything required to get the job done. We no longer have 1105s. The more techniques you understand, the broader your "box" to think in or out of.

Frankly, it takes a lot of flexibility, ability to work quickly, and strong diplomatic skills to do the SAP and GSA orders.

(You may have guessed I do Part 8, 12, 13, and 15 buys).

Regards,
Also anonymous.

By Vern Edwards on Wednesday, October 31, 2001 - 09:52 am:

Anonymous:

Inexperienced, perhaps, but "losers and untrainables"? Well, maybe some of them, but haven't you painted with a rather broad brush? Is that why you posted anonymously?

By formerfed on Wednesday, October 31, 2001 - 10:14 am:

I agree with Anonymous8. Doing GSA Schedules properly is a complex job, particularly when buying professional services and using performance based SOWs. SAP also involves some rather viable and higher dollar value hardware and equipment projects. Typically the person doing the procurement work is expected to work independently with the program office and this often involves assuming a leadership role providing guidance in doing the everyone's job. Regardless of what many people think, SAP gives the CO a great deal of discretion in making selection decisions and other acquisition related judgments.

By Kennedy How on Wednesday, October 31, 2001 - 12:40 pm:

I wouldn't cal them losers and untrainable, but until a change on Oct 1, we could code a commercial item procurement under FAR Part 12 to include the Walsh Healy in the contract!

I do know that edit coding is a nightmare, since I am involved with it to some degree. And, I also know that our input operators would put in whatever it needed for the system to accept the inputs and proceed onwards, even though the input is at odds with reality.

Kennedy

By Anon10/30 7:39PM on Wednesday, October 31, 2001 - 05:57 pm:

I was speaking of my current agency not 1102s in general but face it, the good people are put on formal contracts and the less good people are given lessor responsibilities.

I meant what I said about losers.

Untrainable? Some people just can't handle complexity and should have never been hired into contracting (the most complex job I have ever had).

If I were the supervisor, they would all be packing. That sounds cruel but how else can you comply with the requirements and provide good service to the customer. It might take a year or two to fire a government employee but they would shape up or be gone. I know it can be done because I had to clean house on a previous job. I am not a supervisor at my current agency but can't wait until promoted.

But the point is: You can't trust the FPDS data because of the poor input.

By Paul Murphy on Thursday, November 01, 2001 - 09:35 am:

Just got back to the thread.

I don't doubt there is mis-entered data in the FPDS system, given that 520,000 individual contract obligations were reported during FY 2000 from 2,387 different purchase offices.

The FPDS does transaction processing on the data and they do capture a fair number of obvious errors before going to press (like non-existent NAICS and PSC codes), but some errors are hard to trap. A common one that slips through is the accidental addition of three zeroes on the end of the obligation amount figure (dollars are supposed to be reported in thousands).

Millions of transactions, particularly small schedule and purchase card transactions, never enter the FPDS system because they fall below the $25K reporting threshold. I'm sure this kind of low-level but necessary accounting is tedious. Yet the voluntary 347 form (brief Purchase Order summaries for Schedule awards) documents as many as 50,000 schedule purchases per year, so some of the larger schedule purchases have corroboration.

The FPDS upgrade project currently underway is supposed to eliminate opportunities for error in tracking contract obligations. The results of those efforts are months or years away.

In the mean time, FPDS appears to be getting better, and I've been processing this data for almost 20 years. We went from $188 billion to $205.3 billion in reported awards from FY 99 to FY 00, when the budget was relatively flat.

The question remains, do the sole source stats I pulled out of the FY 2000 Schedule data in the FPDS database indicate a possible precedent for doing sole source jobs on schedule? The question is not merely hypothetical -- I understand from the SBA that DoD and DoT have issued blanket sole source justification for any portion of Bush's $40 billion emergency money they wind up spending. Could they cite exigency in awarding this money on their vendors' various Schedule Contracts?

By Anonymous on Thursday, November 01, 2001 - 11:17 am:

Way back in the early '70s, the accuracy of DD350s (DOD's version of SF279 and SF281) was a frequent source of complaint and concern. The forms are a little complicated (much more today than in the '70s), the coding is a little confusing (ditto), and a lot of people who feel that they are pressed for time are trying to move on to the next job and hate filling out the @*&! things. They would prefer not to.

So it goes. Ah Bartleby! Ah humanity!

By Loki on Friday, September 20, 2002 - 10:11 am:

The schedule contracts do not permit set-asides because of CICA. Take a look at the CICA language re. schedule contracting being considered full and open competition provided it allows everyone equal access. A set-aside is not equal access...that's why GSA walks the high wire and says you may select three of your choice (or more depending upon your needs), but will not call them set asides.

An 8(a) order under the schedules may be considered an 8(a) award, but not an 8(a) set-aside.

By CM on Friday, September 20, 2002 - 10:55 am:

LOKI
You might want to look at GAO B 290541 AUG7 02.

By Anon on Friday, September 20, 2002 - 01:21 pm:

I read the GAO decision a while back, I saw nothing inconsistent with the decision with respect to FAR. Part 8.404 states that agencies need not consider small business programs, but it doesn't say shall not. Further in 8.404 for orders exceeding the micropurchase threshold the agency is to look to at least three schedule vendors. Later in 8.404 it states that agencies should consider small businesses as part of its review of the three (or more) schedules. So what is wrong with limiting the review to three schedules held by small businesses only, thereby effectively reserving the award for a small business?

By cm on Friday, September 20, 2002 - 01:32 pm:

Take a look at DRUM 10-55 topic above Part 19 trumps FSS

By Anon on Friday, September 20, 2002 - 01:57 pm:

The case Drum has addresses bundling and the inclusion of work that was historically set-aside into a multiple award IDIQ contract awarded by the Army that has a vague SOW. The inclusion of the work addressed in the CompGen decision occured three years after the IDIQs were awarded. I didn't read where Federal Supply Schedules were a part of that decision (did I miss something?).

Looking at FAR Part 8 and the priorities for sources of supply/services, it has acquisitions entered into pursuant to FAR 8.4 as taking precedence over commercial (open market) acquisitions.

By Anon on Friday, September 20, 2002 - 02:19 pm:

Ignore the bundling aspect in my post above, that was another GAO I read, but the rest pretty much sums it up.

y DRUM on Thursday, October 31, 2002 - 11:07 am:

Just wait to read what OMB has in store with its new guidance on not bundling....it would seem the Part 19 requirements are being explicitly enforced for FSS schedules and GWACs.

I'll stop posting on the other thread now.

By bob antonio on Thursday, October 31, 2002 - 03:48 pm:

Here is access to the report.

http://www.acqnet.gov/Notes/contractbundlingreport.pdf

By Anonymous on Tuesday, December 10, 2002 - 04:43 pm:

What is 8A sole souce contract? We are 8A company and recently got GSA Schedule contract. How do we market our GSA schedule?

By a sadbu on Wednesday, December 11, 2002 - 10:55 am:

Since you are an 8(a) firm, you should probably talk to your SBA BOS to discuss 8(a) sole source contracts, what they are, and how you market your firm, not just your GSA contract.

By formerfed on Wednesday, December 11, 2002 - 12:31 pm:

A sadbu is exactly right. The SBA business opportunity specialist is the place to go first for guidance.

The answer to your question is that government agencies can award contracts on a noncompetitive basis to 8(a) firms when the value of the procurement is less than $3 million for services and $5 million for supplies/products.

I've found that the best 8(a) firms market their firms capabilities first and then let the clients know they are available by contract as an 8(a)

By Anonymous on Wednesday, December 11, 2002 - 03:44 pm:

Unless your GSA schedule specifically indicates that it is an 8a schedule...it is not available for 8a sole source procurements...unless the schedule has the only items or servicers needed by the ordering agency.

By Anon2U on Wednesday, December 11, 2002 - 08:20 pm:

If you are going to sole source to an 8a firm and the requirement is under the dollar threshhold, why would you get a GSA Schedule involved. Just get a proposal, negotiate a fair and reasonable price and award. The SBDU will love you. Don't make a procurement more complicated than necessary.

The mistake I see COs making is that they just accept the prices as proposed and do not do a proper price analysis and negotiation. We had one 8a services contract that upon expiration was reawarded to the same contractor. The new CO found that the first contract had been overpriced by almost 100%. He told the contractor he wouldn't accept the proposal and to try again. The contractor rebid at almost half the original price and accepted the contract. He knew he got over the first time. Poor contracting and a few bad contractors are what give the 8a program a bad name when most companies can give the government excellent service for a great price.

By FormerFed2 on Thursday, December 12, 2002 - 10:47 am: