Jump to content
The Wifcon Forums and Blogs

joel hoffman

  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

0 Neutral

About joel hoffman

  • Rank
    Senior Member

Profile Information

  • Gender
  • Interests
    Following God, Family, Sailing, Motorcycling, Hunting, Volleyball; Acquisition, Source Selections, Contract Administration, Construction, Design-Build Construction, mods, claims, TFD, TFC, project controls,

Recent Profile Visitors

The recent visitors block is disabled and is not being shown to other users.

  1. Amen and Amen!!!! I HATE those written reference questionnaires. Bull crap. Call and speak with the references! I got much better info by speaking directly to the references. I will clarify my above post... Unfortunately, it means that government employees actually have to TALK to somebody- oh NO!!! And take notes - Double OH NO NO!!! Look at it from the references’ perspective. I hated getting a questionnaire to fill out and return - especially when contractors repeatedly cited me as a reference on multiple projects and/or for multiple source selections. I also stated that we reserved the right to call references to verify a performance rating. If we were already familiar with a project, there was no need to keep bothering the references to verify or repeat what they said previously.
  2. • Recent relevant experience, with a past performance rating including names and contact info for customer references for those specific govt or no-govt projects . EDIT: Use a standardized format for the experience submission. •. Proposed key personnel (define the positions) with a contract clause that makes the qualifications of those proposed and evaluated for award the new minimum for proposed substitutions if they exceed any RFP minimums and substitutions. Substitutions are subject to government approval . If you propose the A team, you must provide an A-team, not a B or C-team as substitutes. EDIT: use a standardized format for each key personnel submission. • same submission and evaluation criteria for your key subcontractors (define what is the key work, if subcontracted). If much or most of the key aspects of work is subcontracted, you don’t want to simply rely upon prime qualifications and experience. EDIT: Use a standardized format for each proposed key sub submission.
  3. Whether or not fines were involved, delays and idiotic actions by the Department of Environmental Regulation (DER) caused unnecessary and unreasonable delays ($) and additional unnecessary and costly measures. For instance, early in the construction phase, they rooted around in a dumpster outside the site project offices while on a site visit. They found two small, empty White Out eraser bottles and immediately stopped all on-going activities on site! , The stoppage affected over 130 Govt and Contractor staff and several hundred construction workers for two days until everyone had attended “remedial training”, because it was a RCRA site! “White Out”!!!!!
  4. With respect to this and the original question, where the State has been delegated authority to administer environmental laws , the State agency can indeed deny permits , stop jobs for safety and environmental rules violations and impose various requirements for design construction and operations. I saw it happen in at least two states during the Chemical Weapons Demilitarization Program . Cost the US Taxpayers hundreds of millions of dollars.
  5. I’ll also take a stab at it. If you are contractually locking in negotiated labor rates to be used in task orders, then I feel that those may constitute cost or pricing data or the underlying basis for those rates may constitute cost or pricing data. There may also be judgemental data involved. Once the rates are established, there is no basis to challenge the data in each task order. It’s too late to certify the labor rates other than certifying that the labor rates in the task are the ones in the contract and that the labor categories are the appropriate categories intended for use in the task. Otherwise, there is no reason to establish unit rates in the base contract. Profit for FFP tasks and fee for CP tasks should reflect the complexity, Risk, and other factors that are r typically analyzed when using the weighted guidelines for profit or fee. I would suggest requiring in the contract that the negotiated profit or fee will be based upon the DoD’s weighted guidelines method .
  6. One has to have certain riders on the Builders Risk policy to cover hurricane damages to materials and the unfinished work. For installations in states bordering the Gulf of Mexico and Atlantic Seaboard, that is important .
  7. I don’t want to be critical here, kathilou. However it is often essential to know as much of the facts surrounding the situation as possible in order to provide better advice. Good luck with your task order
  8. Sole source negotiated task order. there should be room for adjustment here. 1. Due to delays to performance there were cost increases... yall should be able to fix this. Is this an installation IDIQ or a Mobile District IDIQ? Years ago, I was the Chief of the USACE Mobile District office that negotiated all of the sole source construction contracts and source selections. Based upon the specific circumstances here, I think we would have been able to resolve this, working with OC and the KO. There seem to be a lot of mitigating factors that contributed to delays, etc. It wasn’t competitive. That helps. Commercial impracticalbility should be investigated as a good justification.
  9. Yes, I was relying on the small amount of the contract and REA and the statement that most of the REA is covered by justifications other than labor and material impacts. I don’t think I’ve ever been involved with a D-B contract that small and one that has taken 10 months to design before any construction begins. Can’t be very extensive original scope for that combined price for both design and construction. Its also why a FAR 50.1 relief effort won’t likely pass muster. Costs more to process than the relief.
  10. kathilou, I understand and do care. That’s why I suggested checking for DoD or other guidance on any relief that might be afforded the contractor. Others have suggested the possibility of considering commercial impracticability. But, if the DoD or Service hasn’t considered such as a possibility for implementation,, the contractor may have to develop that argument as applicable here, I think.
  11. Probably because nobody has informed the contractor that abandoning completion of the task order would put it in risk of default or breach ( check with legal). I would copy the surety In any government correspondence concerning failure to perform or threat of abandonment. The surety would likely contact the contractor and remind it that the surety will one after it to collect any expenses if the contractor defaults. good point, ji!
  12. Agreed. Please note that Builders Risk insurance only covers damage to work, stolen or damaged materials, etc. I think also that hurricane coverage is excluded unless there is a rider for that. i don’t think that it covers cost escalation impacts due to labor shortages and material price increases. To the extent that the contractor may be able to recover anything applicable under its BR policy, the government sympathizers should recognize that and remind the contractor. In my experience, many govt contract administrators did not know anything about BR because it ain’t specifically in the contract or in the FAR cookbook. P.S., ji, I corrected my paragraph numbering - sorry. You might want to edit your numbering for consistency.
  13. Hurricane Michael occurred ten months ago in October 2018. I wonder when the task order was issued, when in the period of performance the Hurricane struck, how much work remains to be accomplished, when the price impact became an issue, etc. just curious...
  14. Based upon the limited information here, It appears to me that : 1: The contractor says that it won’t complete performance of a task order without a price increase due to impacts caused by Hurricane Michael. 2. The “supervisory contracting officer”(?)** agrees and says it is “fair and reasonable”. 3. kathilou might agree with the “sco”(?) 4. kathilou’s “sco”(?) office tried to process a modification but the Finance and Accounting office won’t certify funds availability (speculating based upon DoD mod procedures) 5. Kathilou sent the request “upward”, presumably for KO determination. 6. The majority of the request involves additional work (change work - not differing site conditions, etc.) , which should be ok. 7. There is no relief for the impact or delay costs under the terms of the contract. 8. Additional time may be warranted pursuant to the Defaults Clause for delays due to unusually severe weather. 9. Extraordinary Relief pursuant to PL 85-804 and E.O. 10789 (see FAR 50.1 ) is unlikely under the outlined circumstances. That’s why it is referred to as “Extraordinary Relief”. 10. Both the “sco”(?) and the KO should check with legal and advise the contractor that abandoning the job would put it in default (breach of contract). ** is the “sco” an administrative contracting officer in kathilou’s office or is she referring to the PCO (or maybe another KO assigned to administer the contract or task order under the contract)? I forgot to ask who she refers to as the “sco”.
  • Create New...