CIOSP4, Emerging Large Businesses and Affiliation

You really should ask NITAAC.  Please share your answer here.

lawyergirl said:

If a Member of a CTA (Contractor Teaming Agreement) (Partner A), with revenue averages under $500M is bought by Company B who has revenues over $7B does Partner A still qualify to be a Member of a CT bidding as an ELB?

Is this a general question or one specific to the RFP?

Both a general and RFP question, I guess you could say.  This would be a prime/sub CTA.  Our company will be the ELB prime.  Wondering if it matters whether the sub (Partner A) is an ELB as well (Partner A may exceed the ELB requirements after its proposed acquisition by a billion $$$ company).

ji20874 said:

You really should ask NITAAC.  Please share your answer here.

lawyergirl said:

Both a general and RFP question, I guess you could say.  This would be a prime/sub CTA.  Our company will be the ELB prime.  Wondering if it matters whether the sub (Partner A) is an ELB as well (Partner A may exceed the ELB requirements after its proposed acquisition by a billion $$$ company).

Agree with ji20874.  The NIH has essentially created this new set-aside category on their own and I suspect unless stated in internal policy somewhere this statement in the RFP will get lots of discussion...........and the OP is the first to start the discussion.

Page 155 Section L.5.1 quoted in part - "If the offeror is proposing as an emerging large business, they must provide documentation that shows their average yearly revenue for the last five years was between $30M and $500M per year. An example of this documentation is an income statement. Any business with average yearly revenue greater than $500M per year for the last five years is considered another than small business."

PS - The quick read by me is that only the offeror's average yearly revenue for the last five years will be considered but then again that is the OP's question.

C Culham said:

"If the offeror is proposing as an emerging large business, they must provide documentation that shows their average yearly revenue for the last five years was between $30M and $500M per year. An example of this documentation is an income statement. Any business with average yearly revenue greater than $500M per year for the last five years is considered another than small business."

Whoever decided to establish a category of "emerging large businesses" and put the above in a solicitation should have their head examined. In March 2020 NIH was telling us that masks were worthless. Now they're creating their own socio-economic category.

https://washingtontechnology.com/blogs/editors-notebook/2021/05/ciosp4-analysis.aspx

Whatever happened to the gospel of Keep It Simple.

I hate the GWAC entrepreneurs. The protest attorneys are rolling up their sleeves.

Vern Edwards said:

Whatever happened to the gospel of Keep It Simple.

I hate the GWAC entrepreneurs.

The more revenue these contract programs bring in, the greater benefits accrue to the executive agency.  That means more people to manage the program, higher grades for the individuals, bigger operating budgets, and more recognition to include on their resumes.

The chief reason for including a category as “emerging large business” is revenue.  Those companies are doing the right things as small businesses and are in demand.  If they get excluded from a new contract program, agencies will find other programs/vehicles to reach them.  So the executive agency for the GWAC finds creative ways to keep these sources.

formerfed said:

The more revenue these contract programs bring in, the greater benefits accrue to the executive agency.  That means more people to manage the program, higher grades for the individuals, bigger operating budgets, and more recognition to include on their resumes.

With no profit incentive to drive decisions, why not...

“No government ever voluntarily reduces itself in size. Government programs, once launched, never disappear. Actually, a government bureau is the nearest thing to eternal life we'll ever see on this earth!” - Ronald Reagan

Vern Edwards said:

should have their head examined.

My, my so a person needs  to start here.   And I quote with emphasis added - "52.204-8 Annual Representations and Certifications MAR 2020 (a) (1) The North American Industry Classification System (NAICS) code for this acquisition is 541512. (2) The small business size standard is $30 million...."

I would love to see the threshold determination for $30 million for ELB as quick read makes me think the ELB threshold should have read "more than $30M" and as for the ceiling of $500M that has to be an equally good read!?!?!?!?

And yes I even do it but really "another than small business", yep that is what the ELB clause says!

Hi. I'm sorry but NITAAC can't give out any "live" information now that the RFP has dropped. Please refer to the RFP at sam.gov to see how to submit questions. There is a dedicated mailbox listed there.

Best,

SM

Thanks so much to all for the answers to this ELB question -- I sincerely appreciate your time and expertise.

Vern Edwards said:

The protest attorneys are rolling up their sleeves.

lawyergirl said:

Thanks so much to all for the answers to this ELB question -- I sincerely appreciate your time and expertise.

Sounds about right!

And ask for asking NITAAC, one of the things that's upsetting people is NITAAC didn't answer specific questions. They combined the questions and answered - something. Industry has been complaining about this:

What NITAAC did in releasing responses is they combined questions. So if you’re a prospective offer, and you’re looking for an answer to your question, it’s combined with another company’s question, it may not be answered fully, it may not be answered at all, but NITAAC thinks it was. - Stephanie Kostro, PSC

https://federalnewsnetwork.com/contractsawards/2021/06/industry-calling-on-nitaac-to-reassess-cio-sp4-solicitation-push-back-due-date-for-bids/

@contractor100, that article mentioned lots of issues.  I’ll just respond to the one you raised.  Combining questions and providing one answer is a common practice.  An agency may get 20 similar questions.  Some may even be “ghosting” so to reflect negatively on a competitor.  In other instances, the identity of the source posing the question may be obvious.  So paraphrasing and combining questions with a single answer isn’t wrong.

But not completely responding to a question is.

There is a difference between a subsidiary and a wholly owned subsidiary.  What is the status of company A after the purchase?  If they are a wholly owned subsidiary of Company B they may be able to remain the ELB.