Archive

Tag Archives: Small Business

seaport e logo

On Nov. 9, 2015, the Seaport-e solicitation was released. Responses are due by January 2016 and awards are expected to be announced in June 2016.

To obtain your Free Confidential Analysis of this opportunity, compliments of Boston Warwick, please email your request to: Karen Mitchell at admin@boston-warwick.com.

NOTE: After this Rolling Admission period, there are no plans to add new vendors or on-ramps to the current SeaPort-e program.

The 22 Functional Services Areas include:

  1. Research and Development Support
  2. Engineering, System Engineering and Process Engineering Support
  3. Modeling, Simulation, Stimulation and Analysis Support
  4. Prototyping, Pre-Production, Model-Making, and Fabrication Support
  5. System Design Documentation and Technical Data Support
  6. Software Engineering, Development, Programming and Network Support
  7. Reliability, Maintainability and Availability (RM&A) Support
  8. Human Factors, Performance, and Usability Engineering Support
  9. System Safety Engineering Support
  10. Configuration Management (CM) Support
  11. Quality Assurance (QA) Support
  12. Information System (IS) Development, information Assurance (IA) and Information Technology (IT) Support
  13. Inactivation and Disposal Support
  14. Interoperability, Test and Evaluation, Trials Support
  15. Measurement Facilities, Range, and Instrumentation Support
  16. Logistics Support
  17. Supply and Provisioning Support
  18. Training Support
  19. In-Service Engineering. Fleet Introduction, Installation and Checkout Support
  20. Program Support
  21. Functional and Administrative Support
  22. Public Affairs and Multimedia Support

###

The NAICS code for this procurement is 541330 and the revenue size standard for Small Business is $38.5 Million. Ref: www.seaport.navy.mil

As a small or mid-cap business, your goal should not be merely to win an award on the Seaport-e ID/IQ, it should be to maximize the number of disciplines within which you can offer your firm’s capability while establishing the largest geographic foot print possible to do so.

Boston Warwick can help you.

###

ABOUT Boston Warwick:

Since 2007, Boston Warwick | http://www.boston-warwick.com has served more than 557 Large, Mid-cap and Small Business customers all over the country in preparing and ‘winning’ Seaport-e ID/IQ Contracts.

Our partnered proposal writers and Capture Managers have extensive background and understanding of the U.S. Navy organization to insure your company gets the largest geographic foot print possible, the first time!

Please contact us on a non-obligation basis to set-up a complimentary conference call to discuss the opportunity intelligence, evaluation criteria, and your ‘win’ strategy on this contract.

To setup a non-obligation conference call, visit: https://www.vcita.com/v/warwick

###

ABOUT Seaport-e:

The Naval Surface Warfare Center, Dahlgren Division, on behalf of the Naval Sea Systems Command and the Navy Virtual SYSCOM (partners NAVSUP, NAVAIR, SPAWAR and NAVFAC) along with other Navy activities and Marine Corps, is conducting a rolling admission per the terms and conditions of the SeaPort Enhanced (Seaport-e) Multiple Award Contracts.

The purpose of this rolling admission is to expand the contractor base by awarding additional Indefinite-Delivery/Indefinite-Quantity (ID/IQ) prime contracts. Existing Seaport-e prime contractors will also have the opportunity to expand their presence in other geographical zones to allow them to compete for Task Order awards in those zones and to voluntarily re-certify their size status.

As of Nov. 3, 2015, open-season for Seaport-e is now open with a response date of Jan. 13, 2016. The target date for awards is June 2016.

The NAICS code for this procurement is 541330 and the revenue size standard for Small Business is $38.5 Million. Ref: www.seaport.navy.mil

As a small or mid-cap business, your goal should not be merely to win an award on the Seaport-e ID/IQ, it should be to maximize the number of disciplines within which you can offer your firm’s capability while establishing the largest geographic foot print possible to do so.

Boston Warwick can help you.

To setup a non-obligation conference call, visit: https://www.vcita.com/v/warwick

###

ABOUT Boston Warwick:

Since 2007, Boston Warwick | http://www.boston-warwick.com has served more than 557 Large, Mid-cap and Small Business customers all over the country in preparing and ‘winning’ Seaport-e ID/IQ Contracts.

Our partnered proposal writers and Capture Managers have extensive background and understanding of the U.S. Navy organization to insure your company gets the largest geographic foot print possible, the first time!

Please contact us on a non-obligation basis to set-up a complimentary conference call to discuss the opportunity intelligence, evaluation criteria, and your ‘win’ strategy on this contract.

To setup a non-obligation conference call, visit: https://www.vcita.com/v/warwick

###

ABOUT Seaport-e:

The Naval Surface Warfare Center, Dahlgren Division, on behalf of the Naval Sea Systems Command and the Navy Virtual SYSCOM (partners NAVSUP, NAVAIR, SPAWAR and NAVFAC) along with other Navy activities and Marine Corps, is conducting a rolling admission per the terms and conditions of the SeaPort Enhanced (Seaport-e) Multiple Award Contracts.

The purpose of this rolling admission is to expand the contractor base by awarding additional Indefinite-Delivery/Indefinite-Quantity (ID/IQ) prime contracts. Existing Seaport-e prime contractors will also have the opportunity to expand their presence in other geographical zones to allow them to compete for Task Order awards in those zones and to voluntarily re-certify their size status.

February 19, 2015

In 2015, 3,417 areas that were redesignated, mostly as a result of census results a few years ago, will lose their HUBZone status.

However, the only time these firms will be directly notified by SBA that they are located in a redesignated area is when they receive a notice of proposed decertification from the program after their status of the area expired.

Now, to be fair it must be noted that the SBA “is analyzing existing resources” and by July, plans to implement an enhanced mechanism to better inform certified firms of HUBZone designations changes or, at least, explain how a redesigned area can affect their participation in the program.

In the meantime, if you are currently certified in the program:

(1) check your status by reviewing the map on the SBA’s website: https://www.sba.gov/content/hubzone-maps,

(2) review the following GAO report to become better informed: http://www.gao.gov/assets/670/668468.pdf, and,

(3) if you need any assistance extending or defending your HUBZone certification, please contact us to set a time to discuss your options at: http://www.vcita.com/v/warwick

R. Sutherland
Boston Warwick Law

Download GSA OASIS Source Selection Files @: http://teaming-exchange.com/pages/gsa-oasis-pia-violation-narrative-files

[NOTE] If you LOST on GSA OASIS, it may be as a result of GSA’s disclosure that you lost and many of the apparent awardees made the top 40 in the pool(s) that your firm sought to compete in. Indeed, had it not been for GSA’s disclosure, the current winners – and perhaps the entire ranking order in the competitive range – would have been different; and indeed, your firm very well may have been amongst the apparent awardees.

Should you decide to, you still have recourse to file a PIA claim at the Government Accountability Office (GAO) and/or the Court of Federal Claims (CoFC). Alternatively, a Class Action filing is currently being formulated. If you lost on GSA OASIS and have interest in this Class Action, please email BizEvangelist@vsbaonline.com. You will have 10-days from the date this posting to file with the GSA KO in order to maintain standing as an interested party.

OVERVIEW

The Procurement Integrity Act (PIA) prohibits the release of source selection and contractor bid or proposal information and GAO precedent establishes that in order to prevail, a Protester must demonstrate that it was prejudiced by this release. However, in accord with rulings at both GAO and the Court of Federal Claims – proof of prejudice notwithstanding – [the act alone is a violation and the mere possibility that the integrity of the federal procurement apparatus may have been breached is in and of itself grounds for procurement termination.]

SUMMARY BACKGROUND AFFIDAVIT

AA-I & Co. assisted 13 companies for the purpose of their participation in the Teaming Exchange, and 6 ultimately became apparent awardees. Although there are numerous illustrations of the competitive value of this information that I am unfortunately not at liberty to disclose due to non-disclosure agreements; I can share one basic example of advantage that was provided in assistance to our client’s strategic choice of “Past Performance” submission on OASIS SB.

It is a well-known fact that GSA essentially uses businesses as a virtual “sales force” through all of its contract vehicles, and intends to do the same with OASIS SB. It was also quite obvious from some of the interview dialogue in the source selection material shared that GSA was indirectly seeking agency “first adopter buy-in” commitment for OASIS SB to justify its contracting approach.

Therefore, we advised our clients, where possible, to make it a priority to submit only those past performances from the agencies that had been noted from the interviews conducted and cited in the source selection material whom expressed an affinity for using the GSA OASIS contract vehicle in the interviews. We did not tell them, however, that the agency list we provided originated from source selection material; rather, we advised them to “prioritize” their submission based upon a list of agencies we provided.

Read the entire AFFIDAVIT and download the GSA OASIS Source Selection Documents @: http://teaming-exchange.com/pages/gsa-oasis-pia-violation-narrative-files

One Voice…

Submitted to:
House Oversight and Government Reform Committee
Senate Homeland Security and Government Affairs Committee

I am a small business and government contracts consultant dedicated to helping small firms successfully navigate the federal marketplace. In addition to providing small businesses with guidance on complying with the Federal Acquisition Regulation and other key government contracts rules, my firm, Aljucar, Anvil-incus & Co. prepares and manages teaming, joint venture and mentor-protégé arrangements with large-cap firms. As a result of the above stated, my firm sometimes must defend its interest by GAO bid protest.

SUMMARY OF INQUIRY

The GAO is not a court of law. Therefore, by what [specific] legal or regulatory authority is the agency able to establish legal precedent? [NOTE]: This same inquiry was made to the Office of the Comptroller General on June 3, 2014 without response.

BACKGROUND

The GAO has presumed to create “impromptu” rules to supplement the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) §21 by virtue of its case precedent. I am requesting your assistance in determining on whose specific authority and/or by what specific law or regulation citation the GAO is able create impromptu rules to supplement the Code of Federal Regulations §21 by virtue of its own legal precedent in doing so. We have combed the laws incepting the agency and those governing its operations, and can find no requisite anywhere in CFR §21 that authorizes GAO attorney’s or management to append regulation and create rules by virtue of legal precedent.

Examples of rule supplements by GAO include the filing of “Motions” and the requirement for “Comments” on an Agency Report during a bid protest proceeding.

MOTIONS – GAO regulations [explicitly] state that [n]o formal briefs or other technical forms of pleadings or motions are required. This is all consistent with Congresses ‘mandate that the Comptroller General “provide for the inexpensive and expeditious resolution of protests” to “the maximum extent practicable.” However, federal agencies consistently file “Motions to Dismiss” during bid protests which are accepted and acted upon by GAO.

COMMENTS – It has been confirmed that there is no federal law or regulation that defines “comments on a report” in the context of a GAO protest by the agency’s Chief Quality Officer, Mr. Timothy Bowling and its Head of Procurement Law, Mr. Ralph White (see attached). However, according to Mr. White:

“The [definition] of “comments on a report” is not based on a specific regulation, but rather on long-standing [legal] precedent in connection with bid protests before GAO.”

The GAO has taken this position despite the agency NOT being a court of law. Indeed, the agency does not employ procedures that include discovery and evidentiary rules; it does not employ appellate review; and, it does not have the power to enforce its judgments.

Therefore I am respectfully requesting to know if this is truly Congress’ intent and if so by what [specific] law or regulation this authority to establish enforceable legal precedent is codified. Your time in consideration and response to this inquiry is greatly appreciated.

Thank you,

Rudy Sutherland

Tuesday, June 03, 2014

It is rare that an industry peer accuses a competitor of unethical behavior, on the border line of fraud; but that is exactly what happened this week. PaySimple (www.paysimple.com), established in 2005, was called out by Wells Fargo Bank executives for its questionable business practices towards Small Businesses in the processing and remittance of credit payments. It seems the company makes a practice of:

  1. debiting Smalls bank accounts without notice and sending invoices weeks later,
  2. charging and escalating fees without notice, and
  3. holding customer credit-card remittances in order to make money on the Federal Reserve overnight rate.

Wells Fargo has stated that it does not use nor recommend this company and its affiliates (discussed below).

PaySimple, whose competitors are PayPal™ and Authorize.net®, is a Denver, Colorado-based financial services provider that supplies merchant accounts along with several other services. The company specializes in providing merchants an integrated system that allows them to send electronic invoices and collect payments via credit/debit card, e-checks, and ACH transfers through customizable payment pages. In short, the company is a software company, NOT a credit card processor.

It would appear that PaySimple is a glorified software developer “front” for the credit card processor, North American Bancard or “NAB” (www.nabancard.com) a large merchant account provider based in Troy, Michigan that has an unusually high number of complaints filed against it by Small Businesses. At the recommendation of some in our group membership, we used the services and software interface of PaySimple with controversial results.

Although the software is very intuitive and user friendly, this did not mask the less than scrupulous business practices of NAB, its credit card processor. NAB has a long history, upon cancellation attempts, of trying to take money out of Small Business customer accounts with claims that they “never received” a request to cancel and putting extended holds, sometimes up to 21-days, on credit card payments for no apparent reason whatsoever.

Furthermore, our research has shown NAB has extensive complaints filed against it at the Federal Trade Commission by Small Businesses and a multiple of Attorneys General across the country. Because of this fact, we fully understand why the company needed a front like PaySimple to mask its poor business practices. This stated, and while PaySimple may be a very attractive and intuitive front-facing interface, we strongly encourage our membership to consider its competitors, PayPal™ and Authorize.net®.

We sincerely hope that PaySimple and NAB recognize the simple fact that, no matter how much lipstick you put on a pig, at the end of the day – it’s still a pig.

Change your business practices or face certain extinction.

One Voice…

R. Sutherland | http://linkd.in/OneVoice 

May 28, 2014

Two firms have filed Procurement Integrity Act (PIA) Violation Protests at GAO, B-408685.15 & B-408685.17, alleging un-redacted source selection material was released publicly by GSA OASIS contracting officer Tommy Thomas. These firms have posited that it was as a result of GSA’s disclosure that several firms became apparent awardees.

They are requesting that GSA cancel solicitation no. GS00Q-13-DR-0002, and all awards made to date, in order that the solicitation may be re-competed.

The Procurement Integrity Act, 41 U.S.C. § 423(a) (2006), prohibits any present or former official of the United States, with respect to a federal agency procurement, from “knowingly” disclosing contractor bid or proposal information or source selection information before the award of a federal agency procurement contract to which the information relates. The statute defines source selection information to include bid and proposal prices, source selection and technical evaluation plans, technical and cost/price evaluations of proposals, competitive range determinations, rankings of bids/proposals, and reports/evaluations of source selection panels, boards, or advisory councils. 41 U.S.C. § 423(f)(2).

Ref Case(s): Kellogg Brown & Root Services, Inc., B-400787.2; B-400861.

More to come.

%d bloggers like this: