govvan markee sabrine

0 views

Skip to first unread message

Rebbeca Schulke

unread,

Aug 3, 2024, 1:48:18 AM8/3/24

to nioseranic

www.SlideRuleEra.net RE: Civil Engineering Sole Proprietorships (or small partnerships) Slugger926 (Bioengineer)18 May 05 17:17Thanks for the purchasing advice. I already have a reputable overseas software company that will sell me their software at a deep discount since I won't be doing much full time work with for some time. They also are offering me nice commisions if I can demo and sell their software to domestic firms here.

I already have dog training friends in multiple states that want my help in designing retriever training ponds. These would be fun to do, but these people can only pay with puppies and free training. It would be hard to recoup transfering my license to many states besides trying to figure out local codes and paperwork in multiple states.

I also doubt that some of these people realize how much it will cost to develop their specialty rentention ponds. I believe most of them are expecting to pay construction costs of a little more than what the surveying fees that will be required. googletag.cmd.push(function() googletag.display('div-gpt-ad-1406030293255-2'); ); Red Flag This PostPlease let us know here why this post is inappropriate. Reasons such as off-topic, duplicates, flames, illegal, vulgar, or students posting their homework.
CancelRed Flag SubmittedThank you for helping keep Eng-Tips Forums free from inappropriate posts.
The Eng-Tips staff will check this out and take appropriate action.

ALTHOUGH A SMALL BUSINESS SET-ASIDE OF AN A&E PROCUREMENT MIGHT PRECLUDE AWARD TO A FIRM THAT WOULD BE FOUND TO BE THE MOST HIGHLY QUALIFIED IN AN UNRESTRICTED PROCUREMENT, WE THINK THE SETTING ASIDE OF AN APPROPRIATE NUMBER OF A&E PROCUREMENTS FOR SMALL BUSINESSES AND THE AWARDING OF A CONTRACT TO THE MOST HIGHLY QUALIFIED SMALL BUSINESS FIRM WOULD NOT BE INCONSISTENT WITH THE THRUST OF THE BROOKS BILL, WHICH IS TO SECURE AWARD OF A&E CONTRACTS ON THE BASIS OF TECHNICAL EXCELLENCE WITHOUT REGARD TO COMPETITIVE PRICING.

"IN THIS RESPECT, THERE IS NO EVIDENCE, EITHER IN THE SMALL BUSINESS ACT ITSELF OR IN THE LEGISLATIVE HISTORY THAT THE CONGRESS INTENDED TO ABROGATE THE BROOKS BILL SELECTION CRITERIA IN THE PROCUREMENT OF PROFESSIONAL A&E SERVICES UNDER THE 8(A) PROGRAM. THUS, EXCEPT IN THOSE INSTANCES WHERE THE CONGRESS HAS CLEARLY MANDATED A CONTRARY RESULT, E.G., BOYER, BISKUP, BONGE, NOLL, AND SCOTT & ASSOCIATES, INC., 55 COMP.GEN. 765(1976), 76-1 CPD 110 (CASE INVOLVING THE AWARD OF AN A&E CONTRACT WITHOUT REGARD TO THE BROOKS BILL UNDER AUTHORITY OF THE INDIAN SELF DETERMINATION AND EDUCATION ASSISTANCE ACT, 25 U.S.C. 450(1976)), THE AWARD OF A CONTRACT FOR A&E SERVICES MUST, IN OUR VIEW, BE GOVERNED BY THE POLICY EXPRESSED IN THE BROOKS BILL EVEN THOUGH THE ZONE OF COMPETITION ELIGIBLE FOR THE AWARD MAY BE LEGALLY LIMITED BY OTHER CONSIDERATIONS."

Unless this Decision has been superseded or otherwise prohibited under Agency regulations, a competitive set-aside for 8( a ) A/E firms, using the selection procedures under FAR 36.6 would appear to be allowable. As ji stated, please ask your attorneys if it is still a valid decision. See:

I'm curious what's y'all's take (Joel in particular) on going 8(a) sole source for DESIGN-BUILD? There's some debate amongst KO's in my contracting shop & legal counsel about whether the Small Business Act (section 8(a) in particular) qualifies as "another acquisition approach authorized by law" as referenced at FAR 36.104, 10USC 2305a, 41USC 253m, and 10 USC 2862 (all linked below). The USACE has an ER 1180-1-9 Design Build Contracting that states that competition and two phase is required as well, but it doesn't address the "another acquisition method authorized by law" question either so it's not bringing any clear resolution to the table. Thanks in advance!

FAR 36.104(a) [Construction] Methods of Contracting - "(a) Unless the traditional acquisition approach of design-bid-build established under the Brooks Architect-Engineers Act (40 U.S.C. 1101 et seq.) or another acquisition procedure authorized by law is used, the contracting officer shall use the two-phase selection procedures authorized by 10 U.S.C. 2305a or 41 U.S.C. 253m when entering into a contract for the design and construction of a public building, facility, or work, if the contracting officer makes a determination that the procedures are appropriate for use (see subpart 36.3). Other acquisition procedures authorized by law include the procedures established in this part and other parts of this chapter and, for DoD, the design-build process described in 10 U.S.C. 2862."

I have stated in other threads that the design-build statutes that you referenced are specific exceptions to the Brooks Architectural-Engineer Act procedures for procuring A-E design services and that they are all competitive methods. The USACE doesn't allow sole source 8 (a) contracts for A-E services because it deviates from the Brooks Act competitive procedures. There is an excellent discussion of the history and evolution of design-bid-build, a-e contracting and design-build that should lead one to understand that the authorized D-b methods all require competition. See US Court of Fed claims no 00207-c , March 24 2005 Flour enterprises vs US , especially beginning at page 25. Sorry - my battery is low....

I apprciate your input. That CofC case does provide good historical context of the project delivery methods in federal procurement. The DAU "professor" seems to agree with the conclusion as well ( =42&cgiQuestionID=120016).

I'm intrigued. How does a government agency consider the qualifications of an 8(a) A-E firm in the sole-source acquisitions you are describing? Is there an evaluation board involved (see FAR 36.602-3)?

I think reliance on FAR Parts 6 and 19 is misplaced. I think reliance has to be on FAR 36.104(a). The beginning of FAR 36.104(a) allows for "another acquisition procedure authorized by law" but the end of that paragraph tells us what the "[o]ther acquisition procedures by law" are, and they don't seem reach to 8(a) sole-source.

But if your agency is doing design-build 8(a) sole-source, this means there is no FedBizOpps pre-award synopsis, so no one in the public is aware, so no one can complain to question the propriety of the sole-source award for design-build services.

That was me both here and at AAP. I understood the AAP response to to mean that the "this" of "you may do this" in the first sentence refers to pursuing an 8(a) sole source award in general--to do so you must have a qualified source. However the second sentence is more to the point pertaining to this specific scenario (DB construction implemented via FAR Subpart 36.3).

You have good questions about how one would evaluate the AE qualifications in a sole source DB solicitation. I'm intrigued as well. It'll most likely go on until instruction not to, direct and in no uncertain terms, is provided from above.

The 8(a) program is not mandatory, so this may be a matter of local policy. The Corps of Engineers EFARS 36.602 (S-101) says sole source procedures cannot be use for A-E services, but I don't know if what I read is current and I don't know on what it is based. I have found nothing like it in any other FAR supplement.

So unless somebody comes up with something very specific, I see no reason why a CO can't offer an A-E or design-build requirement to the SBA for an 8(a) sole source award. I wouldn't accept a lawyer's say-so based on his or her own statutory analysis. That would not be authoritative enough for me.

First when determining whether to set aside a procurement for 8(a) an agency can ask the local district to provide appropriate firms for the project or how far the competition for an 8(a) competitive must stretch. If the local District can not provide adequate firms for a sole source to the agencies liking the agency can ask for more. Remember the first step in doing an 8(a) is market research of the specific firms in the 8(a) Program. Yes SBA can force a match but that situation is truly rare in my experience.