Extent Competed and Number of Offers Received for Modification Contracts

Comments

6 comments

  • Official comment
    Avatar
    AmandaC - Treasury

    Hi Edoardo, Gregory, and Jacob - Thank you for your question and participation in this discussion.

    The parent award (GS35F5910H) is Federal Supply Schedule (FSS). The FSS is a listing of more than one contractor that has been awarded a contract by GSA that can be used by all federal agencies.

    Delivery order 00001200204C0402DO86427GS35F5901H a competitive delivery order that received three offers from the multiple contractors of the parent award. This occurred once at the beginning of the delivery order.

    For more details about extent competed see element 10A Extent Competed the FPDS-NG Data Dictionary at https://www.fpds.gov/downloads/Version_1.5_specs/FPDSNG_DataDictionary_V1.5.pdf

    If you download the delivery order details, you will see the extent_competed and number_of_offers_received do not change for each modification. Download from https://www.usaspending.gov/award/CONT_AWD_00001200204C0402DO86427GS35F5901H_1435_GS35F5910H_4730

    Please let us know if you have any other questions or concerns.

    Comment actions Permalink
  • Avatar
    Gregory Sanders

    Edoardo,

    My working understanding, as an outside researcher, not as been that the extent competed and number of offers refers to the award/task order in its entirety. Thus modifications typically have the same value as the original. (I believe there are sometimes contradictions or gaps filled in, but if memory serves it's generally pretty consistent.)

    One change in the past few years has been that number of offers is no longer reported for new awards under a single-award IDC. With a single-award, there's only one potential recipient, so there may have been a decision that number of offers doesn't apply there.

    0
    Comment actions Permalink
  • Avatar
    Jacob Helium

    Not official here, but I think there are two possible answers. first, the compete status and number of bidders are just propagated from parent awards. Second, the IDV is an multi-award IDV, therefore the delivery oder is competed among multiple candidates under the IDV. 

    0
    Comment actions Permalink
  • Avatar
    Edoardo Briganti

    Hi Gregory and Jacob, 

    thanks a lot for your help! It is really useful. 

    In response to Gregory:

    • To your first point. I would rule out the possibility that those modifications refer to the initial parent award. Otherwise I would expect the same values for all of them: same # bidders, same extent competed referring to the initial parent award. However, FPDS reports values of Extent Competed and Number of offers all different. As if they are stand-alone contracts. 
    • I don't understand your second point: why a single-award IDC should have one potential recipient? I mean, a single recipient award could have been competed as long as the contractor opted for "Full and Open Competition" to award it. 

    In response to Jacob:

    • Same as first point in response to Gregory.
    • Basically you are suggesting that firms are competing for modifications of a parent IDV. If so, why then reporting all those modifications under the same "contract_award_unique_key"? Do you think it might happen that everytime a firm wins an award (modification) under an IDV, those awards are labelled in such a way that they look as part of the same contract. Even if those modifications have been competed separately. 

    Thanks again.

    0
    Comment actions Permalink
  • Avatar
    Gregory Sanders

    Edoardo,

    I checked the entry in our mirror of the database and USAspending.gov: https://www.usaspending.gov/award/CONT_AWD_00001200204C0402DO86427GS35F5901H_1435_GS35F5910H_4730

    For the version in my database/USAspending it looks like consistently CDO under extent competed and 3 offers.

    There may be something awry elsewhere on your contract pull. (That said, my mirror is old, so I haven't imported the version of the data with Contract Award Unique Keys for as far back as 2004).

    Also to answer your question, the overall single award IDV can certainly have been competed. I assume they may have stopped reporting number of offers on subsequent delivery orders as once the vehicle had been awarded, there's only one recipient going forward.

    0
    Comment actions Permalink
  • Avatar
    Edoardo Briganti

    Hi Gregory,

    thanks a lot for your reply. It was very useful.
    I have the whole database from 2000Q4 to 2020Q4 (downloaded a couple of months ago). I compared the entries in my database with those ones reported on the website at the link you sent me (thanks a lot for checking that!). Everything I have is consistent with what reported on the website, from modification number to product code. However, on the website they claim the contract was CDO and received three offers. In my database it says the "new" award received 3 offers and was A (full and open completion). Also, the following modifications I have, report different codes (three CDO, two A, one B and one C); offers received also change (3, 16, 1, 0, 51...).
    On the other hand, you are saying that in your database you have for all 8 rows the same extent competed, namely CDO, and the same number of offers received, namely 3? All referring to the initial award.
    Correct? If so, probably something awry is going on with my "extent competed" and "number of offers received" columns.

    Thanks again for your time and help,

    Edoardo

    0
    Comment actions Permalink

Please sign in to leave a comment.

Powered by Zendesk