Welcome Login

For current information from GSA about COVID19 please click HERE

You are here

Sample RFQ Terminology For An "All Schedule Solution"

 

We often get requests for sample terminology.  Recently, I received a request for sample terminology in reference to complex requirements that cross domains of multiple Special Item Numbers (SINs) and/or Schedules.  What I am talking about is letting the contractors know up front during the RFQ phase, that the Government desires an All Schedule Solution.  Meaning, that the Government does not want open market items quoted, but instead would rather contractors figure out a way to meet the Government’s requirements using different methods.  I suggest pointing out all options. The reason for providing all of the options is that an agency I recently worked with posted an RFQ where they required a Contractor Teaming Arrangement due to the complex nature of their requirement. By only allowing the CTA, they were telling contractors that they had to work with other contractors, when in fact an individual contractor could meet all the needs of the requirement.

I just wrote this for one of our customers recently, so try this on for size. Of course, feel free to take any creative freedom you wish!

So, without further ado:

The Government intends on awarding a task order/delivery order (or establishing one or multiple BPAs) for xxxxxxxxxxx services. The Government understands that this requirement crosses the domains of SINs and/or Multiple Award Schedules (list Schedules and SINs here). Due to the complex nature of this requirement, the Government will accept submittals for an all schedule solution in the following ways;

1) If the contractor holds all of the appropriately referenced Schedules and SINs,

2) If the contractor has all of the Schedules and SINs under the Consolidated Schedule. For additional infromation on the Consolidated Schedule: Click Here.

or,

3) Contractor Teaming Arrangements (CTA) - If contractors choose the CTA as the best way to meet the needs of the Government, contractors are reminded that a copy of the CTA agreement shall be included as part of the submittals. The agreement is written by contractors. To assist in properly documenting the agreement, please see the following link for a list of critical elements that belong in an agreement: Click Here.  The Agreement document will be reviewed to determine whether it is in the best interest of the Government. Should a contractor with a CTA win the TO/DO/ or Established BPA, the agreement would then be incorporated into the award document.

Contractors may quote open market items as long as they are below the micro-purchase threshold. Otherwise, quotes shall not be accepted. (This is purely optional to reduce the COs administrative burden).

Additional Option 4) COs may want to consider an additional option. The FAR Part 51 deviation was written so that COs can provide contractors with a written letter of authority to purchase from Government Sources of Supply.  For more information including a desk reference and a sample letter of authority: Click Here.

Okay, that was what I had in mind.  Let me know what you think.  If you come up with any additional "best practices", I would appreciate you sharing them with us so that we can share them with all of our customers!

221
Share

Views: 1547

Comments

jnaubel
<p>My clients see this so often, especially in GSA eBuy, where the RFP is let under a particular SIN (say, for example, 874-1) but has a whole section of the SOW that is clearly IT-related. Clients become a little gun-shy when they are directed to provide a MOBIS solution but there are such obvious scope issues. Hopefully, contracting personnel will become more cognizant that there are a multitude of Multiple Award Schedules and that not everything fits under IT or MOBIS. By emphasizing a cross-Schedule solution and bringing CTAs to the forefront, this language would solve a lot of scope and open-market problems for the contracting officer and the contractor alike.</p><p>From the contractor side, I can say that I don&#39;t encourage my clients to use the FAR Part 51 Deviation if they can help it since it is a total pass-through for them with no chances to recover subcontractor/vendor management costs that can be included in a CTA.</p>
dwclemens
<p>Good job, Dan. I just sent you an e-mail regarding a couple of points made in your post &quot;Sample RFQ Terminology for an All-Schedule Solution&quot; to consider or ignore as you see fit. Thanks,</p><p>Dave</p>
Welcome to the Professional Services Category Community a forum to connect GSA’s industry partners and the federal acquisition community.
  • RMON4487's picture
    RMON4487
  • sarah_rumney@ibc.doi.gov's picture
    sarah_rumney@ib...
  • kimballsl's picture
    kimballsl