Jump to content
The Wifcon Forums and Blogs

joel hoffman

Members
  • Content Count

    3,738
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

0 Neutral

About joel hoffman

  • Rank
    Senior Member

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Male
  • 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. joel hoffman

    Another 52.215-23 Discussion

    From gtarjohn’s description, assuming that this is a cost reimbursement task order, it would appear that the subcontracted effort is primarily a pass-through contracting arrangement. I disagree that -23 Clause is non-applicable to the negotiation of the order. Per the -22 provision, It defines what the government won’t pay for - the markups on the subcontracted portion of the order, where the primes involvement is minimal. Of course, the -22 provision says to exclude pass- through charges in the proposal. Thus the charges will be unallowable. NegotiAte the task order that way. Boom. The challenge is to determine if the subbed work is a pass-through and to enforce the contract.
  2. joel hoffman

    Out of Scope Period of Performance Extension

    “They” have no contractual right to make you, as the designer of record, legally responsible for their “redesign”. They may have voided certain aspects of legal warranties.
  3. joel hoffman

    Out of Scope Period of Performance Extension

    That GAO decision is for a service contract, not for a D-B construction contract. In that case, additional, compensable services were added after the original end of performance. Different animal. Another firm protested the action.
  4. joel hoffman

    Out of Scope Period of Performance Extension

    The PoP extension for a future requirement is unnecessary unless the govt and prime are adding an out of scope or in scope change to the original requirement after acceptance... If so, then it should be compensable... Otherwise, it would appear to me to simply be a retroactive time extension to extend the contract completion date before the project was considered substantially complete. But without all the facts, I can only speculate how it is supposed to work. And I don’t guarantee that the government’s KO and contract administrators know what they are doing. As a sub, I wouldn’t perform any uncompensated redesign without knowing how my original design doesn’t comply with the D-B design requirements.
  5. joel hoffman

    Out of Scope Period of Performance Extension

    Edit: posted before reading your last post above . Still have a signal today. There is no need for an extension to the “period of performance”. The project is substantially complete and turned over, tested and in full operation. Liquidated damages shouldn’t be applicable. This appears to be, from the government perspective, either a warranty issue or a latent defect. Otherwise (generally), acceptance is full and complete. The government must, as a minimum, tell the contractor and the contractor must tell you, as it’s sub, exactly how the system doesn’t meet the contract requirements. It might be simply something that is objectionable but meets the contract requirements. In that case, I’d venture to say that the contractor will have to pay you to redesign it.
  6. joel hoffman

    Out of Scope Period of Performance Extension

    In addition to not knowing the details, if the project is “substantially complete” and turned over for use, but the government has discovered a “deficiency” which doesn’t affect full use of the facility, there is no need for a time extension. You said that there is an “aesthetic” issue. That doesn’t look like it would prevent full usage of the facility, thus should not involve a time extension. It should probably be a punch list item. Did the alleged deficiency prevent the prime from turning over the project for the governments beneficial use and occupancy? I am a design-build specialist but would need a lot more info to provide sound advice. I do agree that the government should explain its position though. I am going to be out of country for a period after today, so may not be able to follow this thread from a sailboat in the Caribbean Sea.
  7. joel hoffman

    Multi-phase approach to Awarding BPAs

    Is this a "source selection" process?
  8. joel hoffman

    Multi-phase approach to Awarding BPAs

    The FSS holders don't appear to be saving any bid and proposal costs here, if they have to develop complete technical and price proposals with their initial submissions. Note that there are 2 trade-off evaluation processes involved, although step 1 might result in a small short-list.
  9. joel hoffman

    Multi-phase approach to Awarding BPAs

    I misread the initial post. It said that an agency is using the FSS to establish multiple BPA’s (blanket purchase agreements).
  10. joel hoffman

    Multi-phase approach to Awarding BPAs

    ji, that is a stretch. The two-step sealed bidding procedure has long required that those firms who submit ACCEPTABLE technical proposals in step one are allowed to compete in step two. There is no provision for shortlisting those firms in 14.5. And, (as distinguished between 14.5 and the schema in this thread) price is the discriminator among conforming offers (technical and bid prices) in Step two to select the apparent winner. There is no trade-off between higher quality or qualifications and price. In two-step sealed bidding, the government goes through the responsibility determination before awarding a contract to the lower bidder with an ACCEPTABLE technical proposal. “14.503-2 Step two. (a) Sealed bidding procedures shall be followed except that invitations for bids shall— (1) Be issued only to those offerors submitting acceptable technical proposals in step one.” There is little relevance between the two acquisition methods.
  11. joel hoffman

    Multi-phase approach to Awarding BPAs

    deleted. This is apparently a BPA action under established FSS under 8.404 and 8.405.
  12. The GAO did not say that it was not a commercial item. It concluded that the market research performed by the government was not adequate to determine that the government was purchasing trash services consistent with customary commercial practice for trash removal services outside the federal government, as required by FAR. I guess the question is - does buying trash services (or other services) differently than how non-federal government entities customarily contract for trash services (or other services) establish that the government’s services are “commercial services”? Perhaps it’s aliken to an example of pricing a contract for purchase of delivered concrete masonry units per unit with no limit on the number to be delivered per individual order; the customer could order one block or a flat-bed semi load. But the customer wants the contract priced by the block, without separately pricing delivery charges. It’s not done that way in commerce. Or how about a contract for barbers to come to a government installation to cut new recruits hair - but the government wants a unit price per hair cut with no minimum or maximum number of recruits on any day? Or say - what if the government wants a lump sum price for hair cutting services with no way to tell how few or how many recruits will be served on any day?
  13. In reading the Red River Waste GAO Decision, just because other government contracts have been classified as “commercial services”, those contract might or might not be consistent with commercial practices, pricing or other significant conditions. In that case, the GAO decided that the government hadn’t shown that it is common commercial practice to unit price refuse collection. In particular, the protestor (incumbent contract holder) argued that many of the primary costs are fixed, regardless how full the trash receptacles are. And - just because an agency calls a contract “commercial” doesn’t necessary confirm that it is consistent with common commercial practices.
  14. if you are looking for a private sector equivalent type position in firms that don’t focus on government acquisition, I would think that they are looking for what you described. Business law and good business judgement qualifications... in my opinion, government 1102 or equivalent military experience doesn’t necessarily qualify one for non-government contracting positions in firms that don’t limit themselves to government contracts. And working for an entity that is over $228 billion in debt doesn’t necessarily qualify one for employment in a company that must make a profit to stay in business. In some huge firms that specialize in government contracts, I’ve seen some corporate contracting execs who even out “FAR” the government, to the point of ridiculousness. If it isn’t literally prescribed in the FAR, they are lost. Many of those worked for big defense contractors, whose primary experience were with government cost reimbursement contracts. They were often unable to succeed on fixed price contracts. I apologize for my sarcasm this morning. What type of specific work activities are you looking for? E.g., How to contract with the government? How to win contracts with industry? How to subcontract or acquire products? How to negotiate contracts and subcontracts? How to manage subcontracts? Manufacturing? Services? Construction? Etc.
×