baierle

To answer your question about authority: I imagine they are making legal changes and they otherwise have this authority. I just think it invites trouble to make field changes without some sort of paper trail for such changes for various reasons, including warranty of workmanship. EB

As a contracting officer, I would not allow such an exchange without some sort of paper trail....even if the resultant changes did not affect time or total price. I think the best way to affect the desired changes is have an independent government estimate and contractor proposal for the change in sidewalk color. The same for the change in brackets vs. pattern. This does not have to be elaborate, but show some analysis. Surely the government estimated something when they decided to make the changes. If not, someone is getting lazy.

I spent 20 years with DoD (and it seemed like we were in a state of war most of the time): Army, Navy, Army Corps, both stateside and OCONUS (Germany, Spain). I deployed to Kuwait and to Bosnia. Where else can you get those travel opportunities, besides the Peace Corps? I received all training through Level III with DoD (DAWIA). Fabulous and stressful---and I would not change one moment. Then, I transferred to a civilian agency (we're number 1!!) where my DAWIA Level III was accepted and converted into FAC-C III. My observations about the transfer: I love the civilian agency for which I serve (we're number 1!!!) and would not change my decision to leave DoD. However, the depth and variety of contracting experience and opportunities I received with DoD is priceless. I don't think my civilian agency 1102 colleagues could even fathom. The world is changing quickly. I started out in construction and we were doing a lot of MILCON. Those days are waning. If I was just starting out right as an 1102 in 2014, I would learn all I could about IT, software contracting, data rights, intellectual property, research and development....

I guess one reason, besides "comfort zone", as to why I chose not go base plus options instead of IDIQ is because of the low quantitiy of 4. I understand that isn't a great reason and am grasping for more substance to support my approach.

I know--there is not much difference in my opinion. I was hoping someone with much more experience than I would give something that I have not already thought about. The reason for this posting is that I am being queried as to why I chose to structure this as base plus options and not IDIQ. I don't have much of an argument except it's what I know. same reason re: why not Requirements vs. IDIQ---same answer: comfort zone.

Hello-- I am interested in hearing your thoughts on the pros and cons of using "option for increased quantity" instead of IDIQ: 1- clearly defined supply items, firm fixed price, non competitive award. 2-total requirement is 4 systems, over the course of three fiscal years, and subject to continued need and funding. 3-base award will procure and fully fund 2 of these. Either scenario would work, I believe. And, human nature tends to keep us (me) on the path with which I am most familiar. What would you consider to be more advantageous to the Government: structure this as Base plus options, or as IDIQ with guarantee minimum being the first 2? I will appreciate any and all feedback. EB

The task would be issued as fixed price and the only payment clause would be FAR 52.232-1. This has helped me a great deal, Vern. I am sticking to my original plan. I started out thinking that I did not need D&F, this CLIN is FFP/IDIQ because I had fixed rate for a single type of technician, and intended to negotiate the hours before ordering. Then, my colleagues insisted this was T&M/LH (and not IDIQ), citing FAR 12.207(, etc. Thank you very much!

Vern-- Thank you. I apologize for the unclear message. The CLIN 0006 is intended to be IDIQ, one labor category "technician", and be priced inclusive of all burdens. We intended to have this fixed hourly rate for this technician and would negotiate the number of hours needed upfront (if this need arises). We would then issue a task once we secured an agreement on number of hours and the funding. I do not considered this to be "T&M/LH", but so many seem to consider this to be T&M that I am doubting myself. E

the reference was FAR 12.207( but the system turned it into a smiley face.

Thank you very much, Vern. This is helpful. I have another inquiry concerning structure of this non competitive award of a Firm Fixed Price (FFP) contract: The hypethetical CLIN 0006 (above) is for fixed, fully burdened technician hours, in the event our government techs need guidance or can't fix, post acceptance and operation. The preponderence of the value of what we are buying is commercial (Part 12) supply. My issue is colleagues insist that I consider it a T&M (Labor Hour) contract and do the D&F. I don't have problem with D&F, per se, but it appears that I don't have the authority for this 'hybrid approach' at all, pursuant to FAR 12.207(, because this is non competitive. Any guidance? If I truly don't have the authority, I am inclined to delete the FFP/IDIQ CLIN 0006 and negotiate a mod to the contract when the need for such hours arise. I appreciate any feedback. Thank you very much. E

I have been unable to find anything supporting this approach, nor have I found anything actually prohibiting it. I would like to canvass the professionals out there in the event someone has experience one way or the other: Contract will include FFP (fully-funded) Base CLINs, with option periods of performance (up to five years). Contract also will include FFP IDIQ CLINs for supplemental support hours (just in case). Question: Must IDIQ CLIN be associated with each period of performance, have min guarantee/max estimate, and be exercised each year? Or, can IDIQ CLIN be exercised with minimum guarantee at base award and remain open for use throughout the life of the contract? (subject to getting a firm fixed price for this lengthy period). Any feedback, lessons learned, gentle guidance, or good jokes will be appreciated. E

I enjoyed reading the posts of your favorites. I did have difficulty commiting to "favorites", but think these are certainly what I would include if faced with being stranded on an island, or in space: Book: "The Story of Art"- E.H. Gombrich Music (Album): "Legend" - Bob Marley Movie: "The Usual Suspects" Poet: Recently introduced to Persian poetry. A MUST if you like poetry. The two below are from Hafiz (Hafez), a Sufi poet....very romantic.... *** The Subject Tonight is Love The subject tonight is Love And for tomorrow night as well, As a matter of fact I know of no better topic For us to discuss Until we all Die! The Happy Virus: I caught the happy virus last night When I was out singing beneath the stars. It is remarkably contagious - So kiss me.

Got it! Thank you very much. I'm off to prepare for my first Phased Acquisition!! ;-) it's nice when the sun shines. -E

Vern--I agree with your caveat and shall bring this up to our "risk averse" PM for thoughtful consideration. And, I acknowledge former fed's suggestion for multiple award, something I was avoiding (although can't articulate why). So, without beating this horse too much, I have one more inquiry to the collective community: Would you think multiple awards (as former fed mentioned) would be a better process for this situation than the "phased acquisition" approach outlined in NFS 1817.73? I certainly appreciate your assistance in brainstorming this out with me....

Thank you. This was the helpful nudge that I needed. I'm off to challenge the team and figure out specifically how to master this and actually put it into play....

Yes, we intended to issue several SAPs to different firms to run real tests early in the mission to determine which contractor provides the best services, data, analysis. However, the population of these samples will get numerous to support the mission, which is why we want to ultimately issue the large contract for base plus option years. I still can't get my mind around how the larger contract can be competitive. The only thing that I can think of is to issue several BPA's in lieu of one, competitive IDIQ. However, that may not be good business practice because I know the client won't be rotating BPA calls once they find the firm that provides them the superior service.

Well, these aren't "sample" samples, these are real samples and we want legitimate, responsible, accountable work. And, these samples may not be the same to each vendor; may not be given the same time. It may not be "apples to apples" comparison with regard to competition familiar to me.

Help! I am reaching out to the community for some synergy----- ideas on how I may accomplish this acquisition: Scenario: Numerous types and quantities of sample analyses required for space mission, over several years. Definite need, just don’t know when and how much at this time, only estimates and descriptions of the types of analysis to be performed. Client does not want to depend solely on evaluation of proposal and past performance info for selection of this contract award. Client ‘visualizes’ sending samples to be analyzed/ turned into data to vendors they found in their market research in order to see the contractors’ work product. This will all be based on very thoughtful criteria; researchers and scientists, here. Naturally, client is risk adverse and willing to pay for the effort to perform actual samples (via small contract(s)?) during this process and prior to award of large contract. Q: How do I make this large, multi-year contract a competitive procurement? The two step proposal process is the one that I am familiar with, but it does not seem to fit. There is actual work effort and cost will be incurred by contractors running these tests. And, if we find the one firm that suits the client for their long-term requirement, the larger contract won’t be competitive. Your thoughts on how I can make this happen, please?

I have an inquiry somewhat related to this thread and it concerns Davis Bacon wage rates. I used the current wages during the RFP process, but it took 5 months to get to award --in September finally. Upon award, I incorporated the most recent DB wages and issued the award. Weeks later, contractor came back to inform that said action has changed his proposal price significantly. The POP extends about 300 calendar days and includes about 7 months lead time for the boiler and other equipment manufacturing. So, the actual ' trades ' will be on and off the site for various work over the course of this period. Q: Did I goof up by incorporating the latest DB wages without giving it an extra thought or heads up to anyone? At the time, it seemed like the RFP process took so long; the POP is lengthy, and the wages stay with the life of the construction project..... Any suggestions on how I handle this?

Vern-- thank you for this. This is very valuable information for me; you have given me a foundation to learn more. I agree--many of my colleagues also do not understand this completely. Elizabeth

Thank you, Vern. The process is to incorporate contractor's proposal into Section J at award. The word "promise" was not there, but the travel breakout and other price info was in the proposal documents, along with all the other technical capability info, as required by RFP. Although my specific issue is closed, I am still curious about how this "incorporation' practice is used by others in this field. To affect what purpose, outside of Interpretation and Order of precedence issues? Q: Is it NOT within the Government's right/common business practice to try to enforce something offered in a proposal that is not necessarily addressed in the SOW? I am not trying to beat a dead horse--Honestly....I just want some depth to the understanding of this issue.

Thank you to everyone. I understand everything you mentioned. So, riddle me this: What is the purpose of incorporating the contractor's proposal into the contract if not for issues like this? An example would help me understand the difference. It is true --it's not a separate CLIN and it is rolled into the FFP lump sum. And, it is true the SOW indicated company representation to the site conference and did not specify people. It is also true that a breakout of prices on the proposal that was incorporated into the contract indicates 3 people for 3 days with a price. So, this issue is small potatoes; I won't beat a dead horse on this contract. But, I would like to understand the purpose of incorporating contractor's proposal into the contract if it is not to capture all those things they promised to get the contract??? EB

I need some thoughts and advice concerning the following: FFP service contract. Contractor’s proposal included (and Government accepted as reasonable), a price for coast-to-coast travel for 3 people for 3 days to attend on site meeting at our Government facility. Meeting concluded last week. Only one attendee from the firm was on location. We confirmed he stayed for two nights, three days. One person from the firm attended the meeting via WebEx. Q: Do we have any rights to negotiate a reduction for the fact that we did not get the attendance they proposed? -One argument is that we accepted the firm fixed price proposal. Too bad, so sad…. Be a better negotiator in the future. -Another is, fixed price or not, we do not pay for what we did not receive. I need some guidance to continue the fight or suck it up and learn. EB

Certainly, the contractor would be very agreeable with regard to loaning / testing this as they are certain it will fit our needs and be a great sale for them. For our part, we wanted to be careful about showing a bias this early in the game, hence all the questions. Q: If more than one capable firm is found through our sources sought, would we set this up as an RFP to solicit and select best value firm to allow us to use this at no cost for our research/testing? Would a bailment be the resultant document?

Okay--we can do this. I am sure contractor would not have a problem as they are salivating at the potential business. But, this may lead to the researcher wanting the equipment (sole source) after testing it. We were thinking that we needed to do some sort of competitive process since this would ultimately result in the use of appropriated funds under a purchase contract and would be "FAR applicable".