joel hoffman

Is there a contract already or is this an ongoing acquisition? You said the legal office is asking for the surge labor costs to be reduced.

Here is the FAR definition of an administrate change. ”43.101 Definitions. As used in this part- Administrative change means a unilateral (see 43.103(b)) contract change, in writing, that does not affect the substantive rights of the parties (e.g.,a change in the paying office or the appropriation data).” See also: “43.103 Types of contract modifications. Contract modifications are of the following types: (a) Bilateral. A bilateral modification (supplemental agreement) is a contract modification that is signed by the contractor and the contracting officer. Bilateral modifications are used to- (1) Make negotiated equitable adjustments resulting from the issuance of a change order; (2) Definitize letter contracts; and (3) Reflect other agreements of the parties modifying the terms of contracts. (b) Unilateral. A unilateral modification is a contract modification that is signed only by the contracting officer. Unilateral modifications are used, for example, to- (1) Make administrative changes; (2) Issue change orders; (3) Make changes authorized by clauses other than a changes clause (e.g., Property clause, Options clause, or Suspension of Work clause); and (4) Issue termination notices.”

Deleted

Absolutely!!!

I am familiar with G&A, home office overhead (usually G&A) as well as departmental overheads and overheads for separate Dvisions (e.g., Southwest Division, Eastern Division, Construction Equipment Rental, etc.). In manufacturing there can be design division, plant division, materials division, manufacturing division, shipping division, etc. You can easily look these overhead terms up. EDIT: For construction contracts there is field office “overhead” or site office “overhead”, which are misnomers. Those are generally direct costs to a single contract or project (shared over two or more contracts at a site). The up to date term is now “General Conditions”. All of those terms are for direct costs to the contract but not generally, directly to an individual FFP CLIN or work activity. Rather they are generally apportioned to (spread over) FFP CLIN(s). They can be: one time costs: e.g., mobilization, demob, fences, borrow pit opening and closing costs, field office and shops setup and removal. fixed (time related) costs per day or month or workday. variable costs (directly related to the amount of work or cost) or semi-variable costs (not total directly related or a combination of variable and fixed (e.g., additional supervision personnel needed as the scope of work increases, etc.). Depends upon the nature of the costs. The term Field Office Overhead (HOOH) is still often used, simply because those costs are spread over the contract. However, General Conditions is a more accurate term, at least for FAR consistency in “overhead” terminology. I didn’t do a word search for General Conditions in the FAR but it is a commonly used industry term.

Inasmuch as “Business Development” might encompass a broad category of specific activities, one also needs to look at various selected costs in 31.205 to determine allowability of specific activity costs. Some examples might include 31.205-1 Public relations and advertising costs, , 31.205-13 Entertainment costs and 31.205-38 Selling costs.

Yes, it’s been shown in this thread that the Q&A’s, which were in an attachment to an amendment, required submission of signed letters of commitment for proposed key personnel who aren’t current employees. And yes, as Vern said, “those questions could not be answered on the basis of the information provided.” On 3/24/2023 at 1:40 PM, TyroneSlothrop said: “If there is no instruction that one should include something in an offer (e.g., letters of commitment for the key personnel)…” That’s why I asked Tyrone: Tyrone said that the Q&A, which stated the requirement” was included in the “Questions and Responses” , attachment 4 to an unsigned “amendment”. Tyrone said that they saw the requirement but didn’t include signed letters of intent because they thought that it would limit the resume to one page instead of two. That doesn’t make sense plus it doesn’t justify ignoring the stated requirement for signed letters of intent. Tyrone then suggested that the failure to submit signed letters of intent should be overcome by the company orally affirming the CO’s question “in the presence of the key personnel”, during a 15 minute oral presentation, “if the key personnel were available full-time” . That’s not the same as signed letters of intent for non-current employees and doesn’t even appear to address what the letters of intent are for. I shouldn’t have digressed after that concerning my personal opinion that letters of intent don’t really provide much value. They were nonetheless a requirement for proposed key personnel who are non-current employees of the company. That has nothing to do with Tyrone’s questions and the apparent lack of merit of his company’s position. I will delete those subsequent posts. I will also say that I wasn’t the only respondent to digress from the question at hand. Opinions concerning the communications skills and abilities of government contracting personnel weren’t necessary or relevant to this situation, either. Here, the government stated the requirement that Tyrone’s company disregarded.

duplicate.

Oops, formerfed. This is the link to the previous thread concerning substitutions of key personnel. http://www.wifcon.com/discussion/index.php?/topic/8177-letters-of-commitment-for-key-personnel/ But it isn’t relevant to the questions in the Original post.

deleted

deleted

Deleted.

Deleted.

Thanks, Tyrone. My interpretation of the key personnel requirement was that they have to be prime contractor employees. If they aren’t current employees, the offeror would have to provide signed letters of intent. There were two separate Q&A’s clarifying that. And the Q&A’s were prominently included in attachment 4 of the amendment described as “Final RFP for XXXXXXX” I can see your question concerning a two page limit for the resume, if it included a letter of intent. However, I didn’t read into the submission requirement that it would be part of the two page limit or considered part of the resume. It looked like a separate requirement, as clarified twice in Attachment 4. “Key personnel may be proposed if there is a signed letter of intent.” Why would a resume for a proposed employee be limited to one page plus a signed letter of intent? That doesn’t seem like a reasonable interpretation to me. Because the submission requirement and evaluation standard would be different and unequal for current vs proposed employees. An oral commitment in response to a question isn’t the same as a “signed letter of intent”. You said that CO asked if they “were available full-time”, not whether prospective employees would commit to the company if awarded the contract. In Re-reading your statement written in the passive voice, just now, it isn’t clear to me if each person separately responded affirmatively or if a company spokesperson answered the question “in the presence of those key personnel”. EDIT - ADD: Now that the situation is clearer, Tyrone’s initial assertion** appears to be without merit. The solicitation was amended to include the Q &A’s in attachment 4. They clearly required letters of commitment for key personnel who aren’t current employees. Tyrone’s company disregarded the instruction and can’t assume that a vague question and answer during oral presentation would otherwise meet the intent of the required, signed letters of intent. **“On 3/24/2023 at 1:40 PM, TyroneSlothrop said: “If there is no instruction that one should include something in an offer (e.g., letters of commitment for the key personnel)…”

If you don’t mind me asking, please quote the solicitation language, such as solicitation instructions and any evaluation criteria in the solicitation regarding demonstration of commitment for key personnel. Thanks.