By bob antonio on Tuesday, January 23, 2001 - 08:13 am:

The Texas Vendor Guide explains that the State's agencies select potential suppliers from the Centralized Master Bidders List (CMBL). In order to get on the CMBL, there is an annual fee of $50. It appears there is an exception to the use of the CMBL by state agencies in regard to Historically Underutilized Businesses. Information on the CMBL can be seen below.

http://www.gsc.state.tx.us/hubbid/vendhow2.html#A2

In looking at the Central Contractor Registration site for the Department of Defense (DoD) and other users, I could not find a requirement for a fee. So my question. If it is good for Texas, which procures $3.2 billion a year, is it good for the DoD and other federal agencies with over $170 billion a year in procurement?

Should contractors pay to play in the federal contracting arena? If so, how much should they pay?

By Rita Sampson on Thursday, January 25, 2001 - 12:03 pm:

Bob-Since you scared me with your "death spiral" reference, I'm jumping in on this one. While I think on the one hand that it might be a good idea to make contractors pay to be on the big federal master bidder list, I'm pretty sure there are too many obstacles to overcome. A few leap to mind. It would obviously restrict competition. It might be seen to be a direct attack on any and all small business and other special interest bidder categories. I don't work in the weapons system area, but I understand there are hundreds of sole source contractors. What incentive would they have to pay a fee to be on a bidders list when they are sole source?

On the other hand, back in the old days when we mailed out solicitations, I remember researching the issue of whether it was appropriate to charge bidders a non-refundable fee for a copy of the solicitation. I didn't find a prohibition so we did charge for them. This was mostly construction contracts (remember all those big tubes of blueprints?) and I worked for the VA at the time. So, it seems like we probably could charge if we wanted to.

I guess I've now talked myself around to the other side and don't see any particular gain in having such a super list. Though, maybe if it were a prequalified bidders list it would open up a whole world of possibilities with items that lend themselves to reverse auctioning.

By Kennedy How on Thursday, January 25, 2001 - 01:22 pm:

The issue of a Central Contractor Registry allows for all potential sources of supply to be located in one easy reference point for all of us Contracting types to access. Additionally, it takes away the burden of a small contractor from having to either register with numerous Govt agencies, or hire a bid harvester.

I think that the Federal Govt had surplus resources available to be able to pull this off and support the infrastructure without charging the contractors to use it. Texas may not have such a surplus; the fee may well be for it to be self-sufficient, or at least offset some of the cost. I don't believe it was to weed out those that were doing it on a lark.

As far as bid fees are concerned, I remember us issuing a competetive vehicle procurement once where we attached a $5000 fee to it, in order to cover the costs of reproducing 100K aperture cards and the engineering data that accompanied it. This had the effect of limiting interest to serious producers, you didn't get Smith Mfg from getting a free TDP.

Kennedy

By Linda Koone on Thursday, January 25, 2001 - 01:27 pm:

I'm with Rita. Your talk about a 'death spiral' scares me too (though it doesn't necessarily surprise me). And she raises good points, especially with respect to sole source weapons system suppliers.

Apparently, the state of Texas charges the fee to recover the costs of maintaining the listing/ site... and it is promoted as a means of advertising.

I agree with Kennedy that the cost of maintaining the CCR site would be off-set by the savings realized as a result of EFT, meaning that this fee would amount to a 'profit'.

What do you suppose DoD would do with such 'profit'?

By Eric Ottinger on Thursday, January 25, 2001 - 01:38 pm:

Bob and all,

Under the (now OBE) FACNET concept, potential offerors were required to pay a third party VAN (value added network) for the privilege of being able to propose using FACNET. If I remember correctly, the fee paid to the VAN was something like $600. I suspect Texas has a similar concept.

A small fee to cover the cost of the service and demonstrate that the offeror is seriously interested doesn’t seem to be an unreasonable requirement. In any case, there is precedent. (The effort required to figure out how to pay for the service using appropriated funds might be more trouble than it would be worth.)

Eric

By joel hoffman on Friday, January 26, 2001 - 08:18 am:

"Should contractors pay to play in the federal contracting arena? If so, how much should they pay? "

No.

Nothing.

It would do nothing to enhance competition, to promote small business, to promote SDB. To the business community, it would just be another ridiculous, unnecessary Federal requirement. The CCR was created for the Government's benefit, not industy's. Streamline, don't ADD more requirements. Just my opinion. Happy Sails!

By bob antonio on Friday, January 26, 2001 - 08:29 am:

Joel:

Maybe we should make a recommendation to the Texas General Services Commission since they charge. I thought it was an interesting difference. The Commission has something else interesting on its site for history buffs. We may not all be Texans but Texas is a part of all of us.

http://www.cemetery.state.tx.us/

By Anonymous on Friday, January 26, 2001 - 08:35 am:

I don't think it would be a profit so much as an enhanced appropriation which of course is illegal. If the CCR or any other all inclusive Federal listing benefits the government,as I assume it does, then we should make it as painless as possible for all interested parties to enlist.

By Ramon Jackson on Friday, January 26, 2001 - 11:42 am:

And they talk about encouraging "commercial" solutions. I certainly wonder how many small businesses, or even large strictly commercial ones, will pay-to-play when they have a commercial solution. Maybe they'll just call it a standardized bribe.

By Kennedy How on Monday, January 29, 2001 - 12:28 pm:

I think "profit" is a misnomer as used by us here. Many agencies are "fee for services"; it comes out of the respective budgets somewhere. This can either be over or under the actual cost to perform this service. Usually, you don't really know where you are in the amount paid until the end of the FY, when that agency does it's reconciliation. And, most likely, they base it on the amount of service provided, which gets you into estimating what your level of business for next year. So, if you overpay this year, you probably won't see that adjustment until the year after (at least, a fully "audited", reconciled adjustment).

Government "for fee" operations are no-win situations. If you're like Amtrak, who's a money-loser all the time, you get flak for draining the appropriation. If you make money, you get dinged for getting more out of the public than maybe you should have.

The budget surplus could be considered a "profit", but people see it as either paying down the deficit or a tax cut.

Kennedy