Contracting with one requirement but two different GWACS

MCritzman said:

Of course if we were to anticipate receiving a significant amount of proposals on one vehicle we would not entertain competing among two vehicles.

What's the danger/risk here with obtaining more competition?

No danger or risk- obtaining more competition is the precise thing we are looking for.  The concern is if there are any prohibitions against this practice.  Can this be done and are there any additional requirements that need to take place in order for this to be completed.

MCritzman said:

No danger or risk- obtaining more competition is the precise thing we are looking for.  The concern is if there are any prohibitions against this practice.  Can this be done and are there any additional requirements that need to take place in order for this to be completed.

I suggest contacting the GSA points of contact and ask them. 

As for whatever other considerations or requirements, we don't know what you are trying to procure but I think that you should also consider how much time and resources of the schedule holders would be required to respond to your RFQ's.

You should advise them of your approach. Firms will decide whether or not to compete against  not only the other firms on their contract but now with those additional firms from another vehicle. 

Ask yourself why you haven't been getting much response under one schedule and whether firms will be interested in potentially wider competition scenario.

This archive discussion may help identify additional considerations/risks of the dual competition.........sort of like asking the question internal to your own agenciy's multiple award IDIQ's can I compete the same requirement under two MAC at the same time?

/legacy/reg/5459c1bc44d120ae.html

My opinion is essentially unchanged from that which I expressed 15 years ago in the archived thread. Thanks, Carl.

The terms and conditions of the two different GWAC contract groups are different so it would be awfully hard to evaluate  the proposals fairly apples ot apples.

For clarity I believe ."utilize fair opportunity"  might be better than evaluate but such clarity does not change the possible fact that that the T&Cs would be different inclusive of application of fair opportunity.

If the GWACs you select are reserved for different categories of small business (e.g. small business and 8a), I think you would have trouble with the SBA doing, in effect, a small business and an 8a set aside for the same procurement. Perhaps you could consider a cascading set aside procurement approach, but I don't know how you could do that using separate GWACs already set aside for small business categories.

Thank you all for the feedback.  The archive thread is helpful as well. Although it does not seem like there is a prohibition against this practice I agree it may become difficult/troublesome when we are evaluating proposals. Something to think about....

In addition to the challenge of dissimilar contract terms and conditions, are you also aware of or somewhat concerned about the fairness aspect/business viewpoint of changing the boundaries of the competition beyond the pools that firms reasonably expected competition to be limited to?

Not sure why you haven't attracted more interest in the past.  Perhaps you would interest additional firms - or discourage some firms that would have responded under a competition under a single GWAC.  I suggest some market research into potential resistance or additional interest by competing among multiple GWAC sources.