|
National Acquisition Center - Federal Supply Schedule Service - VA Services Schedule Help Desk - 621I Program Information Portal
708-786-7722 - Phone
888-801-7210 - Voice Recognition
708-786-7722 - Voice Recognition
708-786-5828 - Fax
helpdesk.fss621i@va.gov - Email
Report a broken link |
Service Contract Act (SCA) Wage Determinations under the 621I program were updated on October 1, 2008.
Effective October 1, 2008, IFF Payments shall be made via ACH Electronic Transfer of Funds. See updated clause 552.238-74 INDUSTRIAL FUNDING FEE AND SALES REPORTING (JUL 2003) (DEVIATION 2008) for more information. (17.9kb)  
Frequently Asked Questions Forthcoming! |
To our Partners in Industry:
The National Acquisition Center Services Schedule Help Desk now allows your facility to browse through useful resources related to VA Federal Supply Schedule Service Contracts on the web.
If you are a company that is interested in pursuing a contract for Professional and Allied Healthcare Staffing Services under the 621I program, please send an e-mail to our help desk to request our initial inquiry questionnaire. Your responses will allow for us to determine if your firm will be eligible for an award under this program.
For information regarding other VA Federal Supply Schedule Contracts, contact the Service Help Desk or Supply Help Desk.
Please feel free to contact us with comments and suggestions regarding the information provided.
Cordially,
Dore Fessler, Assistant Director
VA Federal Supply Schedule (FSS) - Services Branch
Ordering Guidance | Service Contract Act Info | For 621I Contractors
Useful Links | GAO Decisions
Schedule Sales History:
Return to top 
Return to top
Return to top
Marketing Related Information:
Documents and Forms:
Contract Administration:
Return to top
Regulatory Guidance:
Useful Resources:
Return to top
Para Scientific Company, B-310976, February 25, 2008
Protester’s contention that a procurement must be set aside for small business concerns is dismissed where, during the course of the protest, the Small Business Administration concluded that the protester does not qualify as a small business under the applicable North American Industrial Classification System code; under these circumstances, the protester is not an interested party for the purposes of arguing that the procurement must be set aside.
Superlative Technologies, Inc., B-310489; B-310489.2, January 4, 2008
Agency did not have a reasonable basis for canceling solicitation where agency states that cancellation was necessitated by the agency’s disclosure of source selection information, which the agency believed gave an “unfair advantage” to at least one offeror, and where the agency subsequently awarded a sole-source contract to a contracting team that included the same contractor to whom the source selection information was disclosed.
Global Analytic Information Technology Services, Inc., B-297200.3, March 21, 2006
Where agency initially set Federal Supply Schedule (FSS) procurement aside for small businesses, but subsequently decided to conduct purchase on non-set-aside basis, agency’s elimination of set-aside was unobjectionable; small business set-aside requirements do not apply to FSS purchases.
CourtSmart Digital Systems, Inc.--Costs, B-292995.7, March 18, 2005
Issuance of order that included non-Federal Supply Schedule (FSS) item under a competition among FSS vendors was improper…
American Systems Consulting, Inc., B-294644, December 13, 2004
Award of a blanket purchase agreement based on a competition among Federal Supply Schedule (FSS) vendors using Federal Acquisition Regulation Part 8 procedures, is improper, where awardee’s quotation contains services not identified on its FSS contract.
Altos Federal Group, Inc., B-294120, July 28, 2004
Where request for quotations for nursing services announced agency’s intention to select a Federal Supply Schedule (FSS) contractor, vendors were effectively placed on notice that agency intended to acquire all services using FSS procedures and hence that all services were required to be within the scope of the vendor’s (or its subcontractors’) FSS contract(s)…
REEP, Inc.--Costs, B-290665.2, July 29, 2003
In REEP, Inc., supra, we held that the Army improperly awarded delivery orders under the awardee’s Federal Supply Schedule (FSS) contract (for language training services), despite having actual knowledge that the same services were available from numerous other vendors--including the protester--under a different schedule covering the same services, apparently at lower prices.
Warden Associates, Inc., B-291440; B-291440.2, December 27, 2002
Protest that agency established unreasonably short deadline to respond to request for quotations issued under the Federal Supply Schedule program is denied, where protester essentially admits it could have timely responded but chose not to.
OMNIPLEX World Services Corporation, B-291105, November 6, 2002
Protest that contracting agency’s award of a blanket purchase agreement to a firm pursuant to its federal supply schedule (FSS) contract was improper and contrary to the solicitation’s terms is sustained where it is unclear from the record whether the services to be provided are within the scope of the offeror’s FSS contract…
OSI Collection Services, Inc., B-286597, B-286597.2, January 17, 2001
GAO sustained the protest where the agency’s evaluation of past performance, which largely relied on a mechanical comparison of past performance scores for incumbent contractors, was unsupported and unreasonable.
T-L-C Systems, B-285687.2, September 29, 2000, 2000 CPD 166
GAO concluded that where items ordered as part of an integrated system were not on the awardee's FSS contract, the order was invalid. GAO further concluded that the agency’s proposed corrective action, the deletion of the items from the order, was inadequate since the agency’s stated need was for an integrated system and no FSS contractor offered such a system.
Draeger Safety, Inc., B-285366, B-285366.2, August 23, 2000, 2000 CPD 139
Where an agency requests competition among FSS vendors and decides to shift to the vendors the burden of selecting items on which to quote, the vendors must be given sufficient detail to allow them to compete intelligently and fairly. The agency’s description of its needs must be free from ambiguity and state the agency’s needs accurately.
SMS Systems Maintenance Services, Inc., B-284550.2, August 4, 2000, 2000 CPD 127
Protester’s quote for services, some of them non-FSS items, could not be selected for award in an acquisition under the FSS program, where the total price of the services not included in its FSS contract, considering both base and option periods, exceeded the micro-purchase threshold.
Spacesaver Systems, Inc., B-284924, B-284924.2, June 20, 2000, 2000 CPD 107
GAO denied protester’s allegation that the agency improperly performed a cost/technical tradeoff under a best value selection approach without advising the vendors of the evaluation method. The record showed that the agency did not conduct a best value evaluation or perform a tradeoff. Rather, the agency rejected the protester’s lower-priced product as unacceptable for failing to meet the delivery terms and made award to the FSS vendor offering to meet all requirements at the lowest overall cost to the government.
Sales Resources Consultants, Inc., B-284943, B-284943.2, June 9, 2000, 2000 CPD 102
In deciding whether to place an order under the Federal Supply Schedule (FSS), an agency is not required to consider an unsolicited offer of an alternative product from a non-FSS vendor. A protester that does not have an FSS contract is not an interested party to challenge an agency’s determination as to its minimum needs and its decision to conduct a limited competition among FSS vendors for a particular brand name.
Computer Products, Inc., B-284702, May 24, 2000, 2000 CPD 95
GAO sustained the protest in a competitive procurement under the FSS program where the solicitation announced that award would be made on a best value basis with technical factors more important than price because the agency improperly made award to the lowest price, technically acceptable proposal. More importantly, GAO found that the agency’s RFQ was fundamentally flawed because it dictated a level of effort of 11,955 hours while allowing vendors to propose different labor mixes. The RFQ failed to evaluate the labor mix or whether the proposed solution met the agency’s needs. GAO recommended that the agency revise the RFQ to allow the submission of different numbers of labor hours and different labor mixes for evaluation.
Delta International, Inc., B-284364.2, May 11, 2000, 2000 CPD 78
When an agency, in making a purchase under the FSS, decides not to consider some items because the agency concludes that those items do not meet its needs, the vendor whose items are excluded from consideration may protest the exclusion. GAO will determine whether the agency has a reasonable basis for determining that the excluded items did not meet its needs.
Vion Corporation, B-283804.2, January 24, 2000, 2000 CPD 22
GAO held that where an agency is making an FSS purchase, it is not required to equalize the information gathering process among potential FSS vendors. An agency may obtain information from one vendor concerning purchase from the FSS without seeking similar information from other vendors.
Williams Communications Solutions, LLC, B-283900, January 18, 2000, 2000 CPD 57
GAO denied a protester’s allegations that discussions were not meaningful where the record reflects that the agency led the protester into the area of its proposal in need of revision.
Cotton & Company, LLP, B-282808, August 30, 1999, 99-2 CPD 48
GAO sustained the protest where the contracting agency did not conduct meaningful discussions with the protester. The agency failed to clearly identify deficiencies in the protester’s proposal in either written or oral discussions and failed to respond when during oral presentations it became clear that the protester had misunderstood the agency’s concerns.
Pyxis Corp., B-282469, B-282469.2, July 15, 1999, 99-2 CPD 18
GAO reverses the “incidentals” test previously used to justify the purchase of non-FSS items in conjunction with FSS items. Agencies must follow applicable regulations when purchasing non-FSS items.
ACS Government Solutions Group, Inc., B-282098, B-282098.2, June 2, 1999, 99-1 CPD 106
GAO sustained the protest where the agency improperly failed to evaluate offers consistent with the instructions to offerors in the solicitation. The agency prohibited offerors from proposing a solution that assumed that the agency would permit the use of an electronic interface between the agency’s and the awardee’s data systems, and the record shows that the awardee’s proposal relied heavily on the use of such an interface to perform the requirement. In addition, the agency’s evaluation of past performance was improper where the solicitation called for a separate evaluation of each offeror’s corporate past performance experience and of their key employee’s experience but the agency’s evaluation was based almost entirely on the awardee’s key personnel.
Amdahl Corporation, B-281255, December 28, 1998, 98-2 CPD 161
In evaluating system-life cost under the an FSS RFQ procurement for a 36 month lease, the agency properly used the vendors’ catalog prices for maintenance for years beyond the lease period, where the solicitation advised the vendors of this evaluation scheme. The agency’s technical evaluation of vendor quotations on computer systems was reasonable when performed in accordance with the stated evaluation criteria and based on valid assessments of the proposed systems.
COMARK Federal Systems, B-278343, B-278343.2, January 20, 1998, 98-1 CPD 34
Under request for quotations asking vendors to identify a configuration of computer systems and related hardware and services on the FSS, where agency intended to conduct a technical evaluation and cost/technical tradeoff, the agency improperly failed to advise vendors of the basis for selection.
National Office Systems, Inc., B-274785, January 6, 1997, 97-1 CPD 12
Under regulations governing FSS use, procuring agency met its responsibility to select best value items at the lowest overall price after reviewing the General Services Administration’s automated pricing and product information system and reasonably determining that the selected FSS contractor's product meets the agency's needs.
Intelligent Decisions, Inc., B-274626, B-274626.2, December 23, 1996, 97-1 CPD 19
Where an agency is making a purchase from the FSS program, it is not required to engage in “equal discussions” with FSS vendors; rather, it may solicit information from only one vendor without affording another FSS vendor a similar opportunity to clarify the terms of that vendor’s FSS contract.
Design Contempo, Inc., B-270483, March 12, 1996, 96-1 CPD 146
Under FSS purchase, agency met its responsibility to select the best value item at the lowest overall cost by issuing a request for quotations to gather additional information on competing products, comparing features of the protester’s offered items with those of another FSS vendor, and selecting that vendor after reasonably determining that the protester's items did not possess certain required special features.
Bid Protest Decisions by Federal Acquisition Regulation or Specific Law - http://www.wifcon.com/pdbyfar.htm
Return to top
|
