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

22,266 profile views
  1. Might, true enough. She said they worked hard to make them veg free over the past year. And yes I understood that they were remote and couldn't all be inspected. No matter how they establish prices, there will have to be a way to verify the condition and the work necessary to be performed and that it was done. Due to the remoteness, one might not be able to pay for labor on a unit price basis. The travel to and from the sites and set up to clean up any small areas will probably far exceed the actual time to do the actual work, if they truly "worked hard" to keep them clean. Obviously, we don't know much about the whole scope of work, anyway.
  2. So you spray it all. Gonna have to do that anyway, periodically. Big deal.
  3. Seems like there could be a couple of issues here. Bonafide needs rule for supplies ordered in one year to be used in the next FY. In reading the JAG School discussion of Bonafide Needs rule for supplies, and assuming that an exception to the general rule applies, are the commodities on the Ability One Procurement List? Assuming yes, there are procedures under FAR 8.7 to obtain waivers or exceptions to be able to purchase the commodities from other commercial sources. Do you have to cancel the order from the vendor or can the vendor obtain the commodities elsewhere? Seems like it would be important to consider the reasons why the vendor can't fulfill the order.
  4. Regardless of the level of detail, it would seem to me to be necessary for the government to verify what reported work will be necessary and, if using T&M rates, how much EXTRA work time was used. is it too much trouble or cost for the government to select and inspect a sample representation of the sites before award? If these are missle sites, obviously there is activity present at every site.
  5. William, I'm not an expert on the Service Contract Act but I don't necessarily agree with the assumption that the contract is correct or that the contractors obligation is to merely comply with the contract. There might be a requirement to modify the wage decision after award, pursuant to 22.1009-4, if the KO discovers that a firm did not identify where the place of performance will be.
  6. Not sure what condition sites are supposed to be in. you said free of vegetation. Guessing some type of gravel surface that contractor is supposed to spray or otherwise groom to be smooth and kept free of vegetation? What type of remediation are you expecting? Killing existing vegetation? Pulling existing weeds? Cutting and clearing trees and/or brush? Regrading washouts ? If nobody can determine the existing conditions of each site, how can you verify the reported conditions and verify, let alone separate and determine what is EXTRA work effort? How do you verify that they are actually performing the required work and any EXTRA work ? Performance based contracting requires substantiation that the contractor meets the performance requirement doesn't it?
  7. Did you see FAR 22.1009 concerning place of performance? Did you discuss with your KO or with the Wage and Hour Division of DOL? Suggest starting with the KO. We don't know any specifics concerning the terms in the solicitation or what the services are for. There are possible retroactive actions that might be applicable to obtain and apply the correct rates.
  8. Matthew, yes please explain the mechainics of how CPFF rates would be established. Thanks.
  9. YOM, if you are asking if it is permissible to terminate efforts with the #1 firm without conducting meaningful negotiations, all you have to do is read FAR 36.606 -- Negotiations.. My answer would be that the firm would seem to have reasonable grounds for a protest, based upon the scenario you described. Tell the chief what the FAR requires. TWO YEAR process in evaluating the cost or pricing data? I doubt if the data is even current after that amount of time. I seriously suggest that you get some help. I know a retired USACE A-E contract negotiator who might be able to find you some help but I hope it wouldn't take your organization that long to contract for or have one of the USACE A-E contracting offices help you. The Mobile District office has used IDIQ A-E contracts for decades. If you want some USACE help, you can message me and we can talk about it on the phone. I am willing to get in touch with my old District and/or my retired friend.
  10. From your description, it appears to me that contract specialists are attempting to negotiate A-E contracts based upon contracting course training without the subject matter knowledge. I had the occasion to observe a few KOs or their contract specialists "winging it" in source selection technical and price discussions without expert input. They were not successful and probably looked like "rubes" to the contractors, (some of whom I personally knew from my own experience in conducting discussions and negotiations). They had no business leading discussions without knowing where or why the prices were questionable, whether the technical approach was sound or even if the government's requirements were reasonable.
  11. YOM, please provide a much clearer description of the process you are using to "work on a new A-E IDIQ award" . As Vern asked - what are you supposed to be negotiating? - Is it contract rates? Is it a proposal for a specific task order? Someone had to prepare a detailed government estimate per FAR 36.605. For instance, if it is a specific design task, does your organization have technical personnel with experience in A-E contracting and project management of A-E contracts to perform technical and cost analyses of design task order proposals? Someone needs to have a basic understanding of the scope of the design effort, the types of design disciplines involved, etc. A large business A-E firm (especially) will eat your lunch if you don't. And - if the organization doesn't have that expertise, I don't think that it (the organization) should be doing A-E contracting. There Is also a statutory fee limitation involved for the design effort as described under 15.404-4 (c) One must also be able to determine which part of the effort falls under the fee limitation. Note that the "fee limitation" is incorrectly described under the 15.404-4, "profit" paragraph, because the "fee" for A-E design services includes costs as well as markup. I didn't get a clear picture of the overall process you are using, what the specific problems are and what expertise is available within the organization. When you said "terminate prior to negotiations" in the thread's title, I can't tell if you are in the A-E selection phase or negotiating a task order after award of the ID/IQ contract.
  12. The only mistake the Navy made was awarding the second contract to this firm!
  13. If past performance is separate from the technical evaluation and technical approaches wouldn't necessarily be specifically distinguishable or self evident , how would bias or favoritism be evident or possible in the evaluation criteria and ratings, even with firms identified? Can the evaluation board not detect favoritism in the technical evaluation comments that aren't Germaine to the technical evaluation criteria? Just curious. From your description of the services being procured, it would seem that the level of performance quality provided is very important, though.
  14. I spoke with my Industry friend yesterday. He said essentially the same thing that our SME and your contact did - that the wire might be part of the system if specified by the manufacturer. I think that it may be related to what is part of the UL listing. But if the manufacturer identifies specific brands of wiring in the installation instructions, it should be part of the system, in my opinion. He agreed that a specific brand of conduit and fittings wouldn't be a "system" requirement. As an aside, DoD installation fire marshalls, engineers and COE engineers generally exceed the NFPA and DoD level requirements for conduit "because that's the way we've always done it". With looped, supervised fire alarm systems, there is not a necessity for conduit protection in most concealed locations. And studies by the Army indicated that many buildings are re-purposed, renovated, or otherwise altered every 25 years, resulting in tearout of those gold plated systems and the extraneous conduit any way. Oh, my S&S Sprinkler friend said that sprinkler pipe is definitely part of the fire sprinkler system, which is prolly obvious.
  15. I presume that you are discussing travel agency fees that are reimbursable under the contract in question, not part of a fixed-price line item. Am I correct? Thanks!