joel hoffman

  • Content count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

0 Neutral

About joel hoffman

  • Rank
    P.E., DBIA

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

23,187 profile views
  1. Are you kidding? Surprising? Yes! Shocking? Yes! Disgusting? YES!
  2. ...An example or two of competitive published price lists for commercial items? Thanks.
  3. Did anyone ever answer your question?
  4. The H- clause makes perfect sense where the parties or the government expected the same contractor to be awarded follow on contracts and orders. Why tie up funding or have the contractor include the price of efforts that arent necessary if it is anticipated that the contractor will continue the services under follow on contracts and orders? My point earlier is that the government ought to know whether or not the contractor included the cost for closeout in those contract vehicles, considering that this is a major acquisition program and how the contracts and orders should have been negotiated. The OP says that it involves huge costs. Having worked on an ACAT I Defense Acquisition Program, we knew what our Systems Contractor was including or not including in its proposal and what was negotiated. If the parties have been aware of the difference in interpretation of the H-Clause, it should have been resolved or reworded by this point.
  5. Then the Program Office ought to know what this contractor did or didn't propose to include in their contract prices for closeout and the parties ought to know each other's interpretation of the H-Clause. All that should have been resolved before now. Purely rhetorical questions - No need to bother to answer here. Just to make my point that such complex issues need to be thoroughly researched and resolved other than in a Discussion Forum without the benefit of the entire contract and background information. How on earth could a Program Office for an ACAT I program overlook millions?? or billions?? of dollars necessary for closeout when evaluating and negotiating the various contract vehicles? Who the Heck estimated, evaluated, audited, prepared the negotiation objectives, negotiated these contracts, etc.????????????
  6. We don't know how the contract(s) was formed or in what detail it (they)was (were) priced - was it negotiated? Line items? How could the government miss ten billion dollars worth of costs in evaluating proposed prices? If this is an issue on multiple contracts or orders, how long have the parties been aware of the other's interpretation? Etc., etc.?
  7. As the details are dribbled out to us, it becomes obvious that there is much more to the story that we don't know, including an apparent history of prior dealings and interpretations. It's like asking your counsel for a legal opinion based upon generalities If this is such a large dollar value, the program ought to have access to appropriate advisors that can research and provide advice, instead of asking for lightly researched opinions and speculation in a forum, when proper answers require a thorough review and understanding of all relevant documents, content and history. Finally, if you don't understand what the contractor is asking for ASK for an explanation, ORALLY, if necessary.
  8. The contractor may be asking for evidence that funding will be available to be reimbursed for the efforts, if directed pursuant to the H-Clause..
  9. Need source of funds looks like: "XXXX needs additional funding to perform the work required to execute these tasks."
  10. I agree with thee contractor. The cost of closeout documentation isn't included in the contract price and will be separately funded. It appears that this clause specifically states that the closeout procedures will be directed and paid for separately.
  11. I agree with Lionel and have read similar protest decisions. There needs to be more definitive pricing information to evaluate than individual labor rates, such as a sample task or seed task with actual labor categories and proposed hours that will allow comparisons of overall price for price reasonableness, possibly realism, and for comparison between proposers.
  12. I tend to agree with Seeker's logic. However, the FAR language is so convoluted that I can't tell what is actually supposed to happen if the KO can't determine that the price is fair and reasonable for award purposes and the higher level agrees that it isn't fair and reasonable. It should be evident that, even under competition, if the prices do not appear to be fair and reasonable, the KO can request , if necessary, information other than certified cost or pricing data" in order to evaluate the pricing. But it appears that, upon completion of the evaluation, if the prices are determined not to be fair and reasonable, then the standards for the "adequate competition" exception to the requirement to obtain certified cost or pricing are not met. Seems to then go into a "do loop". Is the next step to obtain a waiver of the requirement before awarding? Or just bump it up to a high enough level to award regardless?
  13. Sap, Please clarify. What kind of contracts are you referring to and are you talking about payments to subs and suppliers?
  14. Matthew, I saw that, too. I hadn't addressed that aspect of seekers post yet, just the reference to the clause. I recognize the point you are trying to debate but I doubt if Seeker will bite. In my opinion, the acquisition involves software and the data rights are an aspect related to that acquisition. CICA would apply if the action is out of scope but there is already an exception. If the contractor developed the software, nobody else could provide the expanded data rights. But those issues are moot, here. Bottom line is that the contract clause 252.2027-7014(b)(4) allows the parties to bi-laterally modify the data rights. Thus, the action is within scope of the contract (even if not within the scope of the Changes clause).
  15. So, I modify my first paragraph above - the referenced clause and specific paragraph allows the parties to modify the terms for government rights by mutual agreement and scope isn't an issue. But if it were, CICA has already been considered. There is an exception to full and open competiton for the entire acquisition that would apparently cover the present modification to the government rights, which was part of the government's original intent. Plus the rights being sought are for specific software provided under the contract. Nobody else could provide it. Thanks, Seeker. Sorry that I didn't read your reference earlier.