GSA - Under SAT - LPTA

Ask each of the four for a discount.  See FAR 8.405-4.

After getting discounts, if you still have a two-, three-, or four-way tie, see https://www.gao.gov/decisions/bidpro/402519.htm.

Ji20874, 

Thank you for the response. The case you cited relied upon using FAR Part 14 procedures. As this acquisition is using FAR Part 8 which explicitly states that FAR Part 14 do not apply I don't see how that case resolves my issue. I am going to ask for revised pricing but It is not looking good.

ContractingPeoplesHatred said:

Ji20874, 

Thank you for the response. The case you cited relied upon using FAR Part 14 procedures. As this acquisition is using FAR Part 8 which explicitly states that FAR Part 14 do not apply I don't see how that case resolves my issue. I am going to ask for revised pricing but It is not looking good.

If you reread the decision, you'll see that GAO disagreed with the ACE, and determined that this was not, in fact, a sealed bidding acquisition. Instead, GAO determined that this acquisition actually used FAR subpart 12.6 procedures, which allows for more latitude in their evaluation. All that said, I agree that FAR part 14 does not apply to acquisitions using FAR part 8. Still, the GAO decision does indicate that GAO has upheld use of the equal low bids portion of FAR 14 in acquisitions that used FAR part 15 procedures. It certainly seems like a reasonable procedure, and absent any smoking gun FAR citation, I don't see any other, more reasonable solution, assuming you already asked for a discount and there remains a tie.

I assume you considered FAR 8.405-5(d)

Quote

(d) For orders exceeding the micro-purchase threshold, ordering activities should give preference to the items of small business concerns when two or more items at the same delivered price will satisfy the requirement.

Though I suspect that receiving four equal quotes means that a large business manufacturer quotes the same prices to each of their resellers or otherwise dictates pricing.

ContractingPeoplesHatred said:

Ji20874, 

Thank you for the response. The case you cited relied upon using FAR Part 14 procedures. As this acquisition is using FAR Part 8 which explicitly states that FAR Part 14 do not apply I don't see how that case resolves my issue. I am going to ask for revised pricing but It is not looking good.

Good grief. 😂

RightSaidFed, Thanks for pointing to FAR 8.405-5(d) -- I wasn't previously aware of that.  Professional discussion is good.

Original Poster (I cannot use the screen name), In light of the above, I'll adjust my advice--

• Step 1. Ask each of the four for a discount.  See FAR 8.405-4.  Not "revised pricing," but discount. This might solve your problem. If not, go to Step 2.
• Step 2. Consider FAR 8.405-5(d). This might solve your problem. If not, go to Step 3.
• Step 3. Re-read (and really read!) https://www.gao.gov/decisions/bidpro/402519.htm. This definitely will solve your problem.

Be careful.  I ran into this years ago buying furniture.  3 equal quotes.  We drew lots to determine who received the award only to find out the manufacturer wouldn't allow that distributor to sell in that area because of a territory policy on their end, so we had to cancel that order and go to the awardee that was had us in "their territory".  If you are dealing with 4 GSA contractors offering the same manufacturer's product you may want to verify that they are authorized to sell in your geographical area.