Jump to content
The Wifcon Forums and Blogs

joel hoffman

Members
  • Content count

    3,221
  • 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

25,139 profile views
  1. Evaluation Factors

    The original poster for this thread was “Constricting Officer”. That scenario is what I was referring to in my comments. We are now apparently discussing another scenario with respondent, “Contracting “Cowboi” . I didn’t notice this yesterday.
  2. Fee on Negotiated Changes

    Matthew, Win-Lose behavior can be mutual in relationships and/or negotiations. “It takes two to have an argument”, as they say. I’ve seen some marriages with such behavior dissolve with a lot of de-programming necessary afterwards.
  3. Fee on Negotiated Changes

    Matthew, I think that many people quite often practice a win-lose approach for various reasons in their daily lives. This includes personal and business relations, and in any type of negotiations. Such behavior may be a reaction or even a habit, as a defense due to something else going on in their lives. Attending Stephen Covey’s “The 7 Habits of Highly Effective People” in 1989 was a huge eye opener and life changing for me. While each habit builds upon and works together with the other, the ideas of “win-win” and “win-win or no deal” stand out to me. They are highly successful life habits - when I don’t forget to apply them in daily life, including my personal and contractual relationships. Covey taught that “Win-Lose” behavior will ultimately lead to Lose-Lose results, not only in business but also in personal relationships. I reccomend that everyone read the book and attend the Course, if at all possible. By the way, such behavior is based upon moral, ethical and honest dealings with others.
  4. Evaluation Factors

    You are welcome. 😊
  5. Evaluation Factors

    The OP described a scenario where award would be made to the lowest price that meets whatever technical criteria they consider to be acceptable (a “go”). That means “LPTA”. The OP invoked Part 15 in the description. Here, it is stated that the tech criteria are rated either go or no go. There is no means to pay more to award to a higher qualified firm if a lesser but still qualified firm offers a lower price. To do so would involve some form of a trade-off, which wasn’t described here. This means that price is the most important factor between offers or proposals which meet the criteria to be rated as a “go”. You should not describe it as a weighted comparison or say that “price is more important”. That is already a given when the basis of award is “LPTA”.
  6. Evaluation Factors

    “Technical and past performance, when combined, are approximately equal to cost or price”?? This doesn’t make sense to me. Price is most important here and the technical must at least meet some minimum level.
  7. Fee on Negotiated Changes

    Win - lose means you must win and they must lose. Rather, the objective should be for “win-win or no deal” (Stephen Covey). And morals should NOT be put aside...
  8. Fee on Negotiated Changes

    By the way, only a fool would open a negotiation at their bottom line...unlessYou are not willing to negotiate.
  9. Fee on Negotiated Changes

    Pepe, If you don’t know what I meant then you appear not to understand how to develop pre-negotiation objectives; that there can be a range of reasonable objectives for various items or issues that can affect the bottom-line; that there is room for negotiations; how to expect the other party to justify the reasonableness of soft or questionable areas in its proposal or position; or how to effectively negotiate without making up something or lying. Or you might offer an alternative approach for the other party to consider that would be less expensive and/or faster. Etc.., etc. bruther... or sister...
  10. Fee on Negotiated Changes

    I am with Vern on this and am abhorred at the idea that other than honesty and good faith is necessary or acceptable for successful negotiations. That doesn’t mean that one can’t open with other than your bottom line position, offer or counteroffer. I was a very successful contract, claims and modifications negotiator during my career and didn’t have to lie. And I did not tolerate anyone working for me lying either
  11. Real Contracting Pros

    Bob, this is about the acquisition of a new USAF Tanker. I'm not saying that Boeing can't build great planes. It has built many, many outstanding planes. Believe me, I was in the Air Force for nine years, with a son-in-law who flew Boeing planes (my daughter flew Lockheed, C-130s). I am well familiar with AF history. On 24 February 2011, the USAF announced that the development contract for the new Tanker had been awarded to Boeing (Boeing was the "clear Winner"). Let's see now... May 2019 - February 2011 is approximately 9 years and three months (111 months) to receive the first acceptable (DEVELOPMENTAL ?) aircraft. World War 2 is said to have started on September 1, 1939 with the German invasion of Poland and ended on September 2, 1945 with the Surrender of Japan. That was a period of 6 years or 72 months... 111/72 = 1.542 Was this a "great contracting success" ? Albeit, the USAF was working under overbearing political pressure, including, among others, 'influence' by the "winner" and it's supporters. The Air Force evidently thought that the Airbus Tanker would have met their needs, because they initially selected it. It had already been sold and was flying at the time of the award to Boeing. It was a political decision, including the change in basis of selection from "Best Value Tradeoff" to "Best Value"Lowest-Priced Technically Acceptable". The media reported the re-compete after the GAO Protest of the initial award to EADS as "fixed price". In reality, the competition and award of the developmental contract was awarded as "fixed-price incentive". Massive overruns in cost and time, so far...
  12. Real Contracting Pros

    Here is the link to the Audit Report: https://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-18-353 Still no new USAF tankers to replace those that the Air Force stated many years ago were its top priority to replace. Meanwhile Airbus is STILL delivering its tankers... See, for example, this November 2015 article: Big Role In Mideast For Big Airbus Tanker https://www.ainonline.com/aviation-news/defense/2015-11-09/big-role-mideast-big-airbus-tanker The article began with the statement that the Airbus 330 Multi-Role Tanker Transport (MRTT) had already amassed 56,400 hours of flight, including sustained operations over the Middle East by the first four customers. It went on to say that eight more air forces had since selected the Airbus 330, including three in a European partnership...
  13. Fee on Negotiated Changes

    If the negotiations have taken “well over a year”, I would question an argument that the contractor didn’t collect or track any costs of a change or identify any impacts to the unchanged work.
  14. NAF Funding

    There should be Non-Appropriated Fund regulations for various Instrumentalities (“NAFI’s”), which should explain their contracting procedures. I know that there is one for Army NAF Contracting procedures.
  15. Limitation of funds notice requirements

    It appears that the contractor is aware of the fact that separate and distinct appropriations or separate funding is used for each line item “on a large contract”. It also appears that 2 bit is aware that funding is line item specific and might not be able to be interchanged between CLINs. Could there be a patent error or ambiguity that the contractor should have inquired about? i find it difficult to believe that the government would have never told the contractor to manage costs by the line item or why it has to manage the contract per line item or that the contractor isn’t managing by the line item.
×