Jump to content
The Wifcon Forums and Blogs

Jess

Members
  • Content Count

    6
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

0 Neutral

About Jess

  • Rank
    New
  1. I am a KO and have a requirement for a specialized type of intelligence analysis services that has been sole sourced for the last 15 years because market research indicates that only one contractor can provide this service. We competed the requirement this year (base plus four) to ensure that no one else in industry can accomplish this type of work. The solicitation stated that "we anticipate an FFP" contract type. We had no communication with the incumbent prior to proposal submission. At the proposal due date, only one proposal was received, a cost-reimbursable proposal from the incumbent who is an educational institution. We asked the contractor why they submitted a cost-reimbursable proposal and their response was that after careful consideration of the dynamic technological areas involved and the understanding that they were being asked to define deliverables several years into the future based on today's projections of a rapidly changing technology, a cost-reimbursable vehicle was better suited for both the contractor and the government. We agree. We are currently negotiating the contract type and cost with the contractor. As far as I can tell, the FAR does not dispute chnaging the contract type and there is no case law against this. In fact, FAR 16.103(a) states that "Selecting the contract type is generally a matter for negotiation and requires the exercise of sound judgment. Negotiating the contract type and negotiating prices are closely related and should be considered together. The objective is to negotiate a contract type and price (or estimated cost and fee) that will result in reasonable contractor risk and provide the contractor with the greatest incentive for efficient and economical performance." My leadership says that we should re-post the solicitation because there is a fairness issue at hand. They argue that changing the type of contract type after receipt of proposals significantly shifts the risk from the vendor to the government and it possible that more vendors would have bid had they had the opportunity to bid this as a cost type contract. I disagree that needs to be re-posted. Would like to hear your thought on this. many thanks, Jess
  2. I have a requirement to replace some old turnstiles in a government facility. This effort involves removing the old turnstiles, purchasing new turnstiles and installing the new turnstiles into the government facility--all commercially available items/services. Due to funding issues, the customer would like this to be treated as two separate requirements. One requirement for the teardown and install of the turnstiles (services) and another for the purchase of the turnstiles (item/commodity). Would this be considered a split requirement? The turnstiles are an end item. My thought is that the new turnstiles are not functional unless installed, so it should all be considered one single requirement and solicited as such. Please advise. Thank you!
  3. Understand--but how does this differ from a GSA contract? Most GSA service contracts are cost type contracts with pre-established labor rates.
  4. I am interested in issuing a CPFF IDIQ contract and request that contractors provide FFP labor rates in their proposals. My thought process behind this is that using FFP labor rates control cost and make it easier to conduct a government price analysis during task order (TO) proposal reviews to ensure the TO proposal is fair and reasonable. FFP labor rates also provide assist with market research for future requirements. I have read the FAR and don't see any reason this cannot be done. I suppose this could be considered a hybrid contract. Does anyone know of any reason this cannot be accomplished?
  5. Napolik hit the nail on the head. The customer is afraid that the money will no longer be available in September.
  6. We have a customer that would like to issue a $4M task order off of a FPAF IDIQ (O&M funded with FY10 funds) in June/July 2010 and make the award effective date for sometime in September 2010. Is this contractually and fiscally possible? Thanks, Jess
×