Incorrect Wage Determination in a competitive award

Have you read FAR 22.404-9?

Have you considered this: https://www.gsa.gov/buy-through-us/purchasing-programs/multiple-award-schedule/help-with-mas-contracts-to-sell-to-government/scls-wage-determinations-applicable-to-mas-contracts

On 3/24/2025 at 11:10 PM, C Culham said:

Have you read FAR 22.404-9?

yes, and this makes it clear that the correct WD must be incorporated. however, the wall im hitting with legal is that doing so would violate the competition since we cannot know how other offerors would have proposed (possibly would have changed the competitive landscape), so rather than following 22.404-9, legal would say to terminate.

amv14 said:

yes, and this makes it clear that the correct WD must be incorporated. however, the wall im hitting with legal is that doing so would violate the competition since we cannot know how other offerors would have proposed (possibly would have changed the competitive landscape), so rather than following 22.404-9, legal would say to terminate.

Do some homework and maybe these thoughts can help with legal. In the end 22.404-9 provides for an "or" so you might not win legal over but........

First, does the new determination even increase the SCA required wage and if so have you determined that it would in turn increase the GSA MAS hourly rates for the contractor that was awarded? By example if the GSA MAS rate is already above the previous determination and the new determination then are you sure adding it would suggest an equitable adjustment? Just becasue the SCA goes up or down does not suggest that the contractors proposed rates have to especially for higher SCA is their labor rates are already higher.

Have you discussed the issue with the contractor? Has the contractor told you their pricing does not comply with the most current SCA determination noting that they are a GSA MAS contractor and should have considered. Bolstered by the post by ricroy that the right "refresh" may be in the parent GSA MAS. Likewise remember compliance with SCA is the contractors responsibility so for a sophisticated GSA MAS contractor, again their pricing may have considered being compliant with SCA and what is most current. Finally, and again in consideration that the competition was with regard to a GSA MAS has legal considered the parent GSA MAS, the refresh, the responsibility of a contractor to comply.

All the above also revolving around when was "notice" of the new wage determination?

My personal view is that an order under a GSA MAS competition presents a different landscape regarding "violate the competition" than what I will call full and open competiton and depending on how the above sorts out I could see where one could modify the contract and I could also see where one would not. As to viloate the c ompetion

On 3/24/2025 at 7:43 AM, amv14 said:

Legal hasn’t outright said it yet, but I believe he is going to say we need to cancel the contract and resolicit. I have been trying to find something to cite to legal that would explicitly allow the WD to be updated even after a competitive award, but I have not been able to find anything. Does anyone have any citations that could help? Am I out of luck and will have to resolicit?

Just now, amv14 said:

[T]he correct WD must be incorporated. however, the wall im hitting with legal is that doing so would violate the competition since we cannot know how other offerors would have proposed (possibly would have changed the competitive landscape), so rather than following 22.404-9, legal would say to terminate.

I presume that your lawyer is worried about a "scope of the competition" protest against a modification to add the correct wage determination..

You are agonizing too much.

You can: (1) terminate for convenience and recompete or (2) modify the contract and wait to see if you get a protest.

That's about it. Why not make a decision and get on with it? Corrective action will not get easier with the passage of time.