setasides on schedules again

Did this Acquisition Letter - V-05-12 - expire June 6? If it did, does it mean agencies can issue setasides on GSA schedules, I don't think so?

http://www.gsa.gov/Portal/gsa/ep/contentVi...contentId=19589

If you read the last supliment to that letter, it stated an intent to add the restriction described in that letter to the GSA Manual. Have you checked to see if the latest update of that publication includes the terms contained in the letter?

contractor100,

Despite whether or not V-05-12 lapses or not, FAR 8.404(a) still very clearly states: "Parts 13 (except 13.303-2©(3)), 14, 15, and 19 (except for the requirement at 19.202-1(e)(1)(iii)) do not apply to BPAs or orders placed against Federal Supply Schedules contracts." (The exception at 19.202-1(e)(1)(iii) is for bundled requirements.)

Did this Acquisition Letter - V-05-12 - expire June 6? If it did, does it mean agencies can issue setasides on GSA schedules, I don't think so?

http://www.gsa.gov/Portal/gsa/ep/contentVi...contentId=19589

You misread the letter. GSA Schedules don't permit setasides. What the letter says is you can make socioeconomic status a primary evaluation factor. For example if you wanted to get credit for a small business award, you can make offerors socioeconomic (small business) status a significant factor in a best value determination.

You misread the letter. GSA Schedules don't permit setasides. What the letter says is you can make socioeconomic status a primary evaluation factor. For example if you wanted to get credit for a small business award, you can make offerors socioeconomic (small business) status a significant factor in a best value determination.

Agree with all, that 8.404 means set asides aren't allowed. I very often encounter them in RFQs, though, and had been using the letter as additional support. Thanks all.

Agree with all, that 8.404 means set asides aren't allowed. I very often encounter them in RFQs, though, and had been using the letter as additional support. Thanks all.

There's a lot of bad information and practices associated with Schedules. But it puts companies, especially large businesses, in an awkward situations when you see a small business setaside with GSA Schedules. There's no such thing. You can complain but it usually doesn't help.

FAR 8.405-5 subparagraph b states:

Ordering activities may consider socio-economic status when identifying contractor(s) for consideration or competition for award of an order or BPA. At a minimum, ordering activities should consider, if available, at least one small business, veteran-owned small business, service disabled veteran-owned small business, HUBZone small business, women-owned small business, or small disadvantaged business schedule contractor(s).

While I know that this does not state that set-asides are allowed under FAR Part 8, doesn't it allow placing language such as "In an effort to support the socio-economic goals of the requesting activity, small businesses will be given preference in the best value evaluation for this award IAW FAR 8.405-5 subparagraph b" into the narrative section of the GSA e-Buy RFQ?

While I know that this does not state that set-asides are allowed under FAR Part 8, doesn't it allow placing language such as "In an effort to support the socio-economic goals of the requesting activity, small businesses will be given preference in the best value evaluation for this award IAW FAR 8.405-5 subparagraph b" into the narrative section of the GSA e-Buy RFQ?

Sure. That's also consistent with the language in the GSA Acquisition letter first mentioned.

Sure. That's also consistent with the language in the GSA Acquisition letter first mentioned.

So here's an issue. If an agency gives small businesses preference, can a small and large business enter into a GSA teaming agreement? If each party is in privity with the government on such an agreement, as GSA states, does that mean there are two contracts, and that the agency can't award the large business portion of the contract, because small business was a preference factor?

The reason a large and small firm might want to team would be to use both parties' schedules.

There's no cases or guidance on this that I can find - because there aren't supposed to be setasides on schedules.

So here's an issue. If an agency gives small businesses preference, can a small and large business enter into a GSA teaming agreement? If each party is in privity with the government on such an agreement, as GSA states, does that mean there are two contracts, and that the agency can't award the large business portion of the contract, because small business was a preference factor?

The reason a large and small firm might want to team would be to use both parties' schedules.

There's no cases or guidance on this that I can find - because there aren't supposed to be setasides on schedules.

It is my understanding that only one order (GSA orders not contracts) to the prime contractor. For example - A GSA order is placed with a small business (Prime) that performs more than 50% of the requirement and that small business has a teaming agreement with a large business (Subcontractor) that performs less than 50% of the requirement. There is no order issued to the large business teaming partner, only to the small business partner.

leo1102,

There isn't a prime and sub role with Contractor Team Arrangments. The order usually gets issued to the team and the team agreement spells out each parties responsibilities including invoicing. Take a look at this link for more information:

http://www.gsa.gov/Portal/gsa/ep/contentVi...;contentId=8124

contractor100,

I think the reason is nobody has answered your question until now is we don't know the answer. I assume it's up to the ordering agency to say in the solicitation how teaming agreements between large and small sources get evaluated.

leo1102,

There isn't a prime and sub role with Contractor Team Arrangments. The order usually gets issued to the team and the team agreement spells out each parties responsibilities including invoicing. Take a look at this link for more information:

http://www.gsa.gov/Portal/gsa/ep/contentVi...;contentId=8124

contractor100,

I think the reason is nobody has answered your question until now is we don't know the answer. I assume it's up to the ordering agency to say in the solicitation how teaming agreements between large and small sources get evaluated.

Thanks to all for answering!

Right, formerfed, a teaming agreement, not a subK agreement. Agree with you the ordering agency should spell out how the preference is supposed to work.

As ordering agencies should spell out answers on teaming agreements, in general. As far as I know, there is no official guidance on the following questions on teaming agreements, do you know otherwise?

What if the parties to the teaming agreement have the same SINs on the same schedule? May the parties use all the labor categories on both schedules?

May the teaming arrangement bill for work performed by one party using another party's schedule rate?

These questions also need to be answered for contractors who are entering into agreements in which one party to the teaming agreement must receive a certain amount of the work, as in a "preference" which is a proxy for a setaside.

Thanks to all for answering!

Right, formerfed, a teaming agreement, not a subK agreement. Agree with you the ordering agency should spell out how the preference is supposed to work.

As ordering agencies should spell out answers on teaming agreements, in general. As far as I know, there is no official guidance on the following questions on teaming agreements, do you know otherwise?

What if the parties to the teaming agreement have the same SINs on the same schedule? May the parties use all the labor categories on both schedules?

May the teaming arrangement bill for work performed by one party using another party's schedule rate?

These questions also need to be answered for contractors who are entering into agreements in which one party to the teaming agreement must receive a certain amount of the work, as in a "preference" which is a proxy for a setaside.

contractor 100,

I think GSA intentionally made the guidance vague so to make the approach flexible. The problem is agencies don't know what to do since there's so little information available.

My answers to your questions, based on what I read under the FAQ section, are contractors are free to spell out how everything works. If the ordering agency agrees, then everyone is happy. So each contractor would define what theyplan on doing and how. Therefore each would cite their own labor categories even if they both use the same SIN. For example, contractor A will do a design document using a senior system analyst labor category. Contractor B does the development work using a senior system analyst labor category from their own contract.

Contractor A agrees to invoice for both companies.

GSA should develop some hypothetical examples or samples and post them so both industry and government have a better sense on how CTA's should work.

Formerfed - Thanks for the clarification dated 6 Jul 09. I have been out of the office for the past two weeks and am just getting around to reading WIFCON.