joel hoffman

Members
  • Content count

    2,392
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

0 Neutral

About joel hoffman

  • Rank
    P.E., DBIA

Contact Methods

  • ICQ 0

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

17,225 profile views
  1. CONTRACTOR PARKING

    I don't know who's question the thread concerns but I agree with Vern.  In addition, if the government thinks that it is reasonable to pay for government employee parking at the duty site, why is it unreasonable to pay for contract employees' parking when you direct that they report to the same site? As a gov't employee, I had to pay for my own parking space at one District Office assignment.  At other PCS assignments, the government provided parking.  At most TDY downtown teaching assignments, I have to pay for parking and am reimbursed for parking expenses.  If the government, which is historically a miser with respect to its employee TDY's, will pay for my parking, why not pay for contract staff parking? If the government wasn't paying anyone for parking at the site in the first post to this thread, it might be different...
  2. DFAS- Contractor Owed Interest

    DFAS used to automatically pay the late payment interest, as stated above. I assume that is still the procedure. However, you said that DFAS has "kicked back" (refused to pay ? Returned? ) the invoice and receiving report "due to some errors". What type of "errors" are you referring to?  Were they errors in the invoice that rendered it "improper" as opposed to a "proper invoice"?  In theory, an invoice is not payable until it is "proper", depending upon the particular language of the prompt payment clause(s) in the contract. The "calendar clock" generally stops during the time before the contractor corrects an invoice.    
  3. Vern, I think that you may have meant to post your last comment under another thread. In "this case" this thread was discussing Congress making the "Test Case" permanent.
  4. Yes, I shouldn't have said "generally". For official verbal communications (oral or written), we were "often" told to include the prime. We did make shop inspections at fabricator/manufacturer's facilities, with or w/o the prime being present. At any rate, the OP's goverment customer might not want to deal directly with a sub or the prime might not want the government to know that they are dealing with a subcontract employee.
  5. In my experience as both government employee and as a subcontractor, the government would generally not directly correspond with or directly conduct oral conversations with subs. That might be the prime's reasoning...
  6. I have often wondered why the government doesn't just specify the same travel rules on contractors as they do for federal employees if they want to control travel costs. Government employees have been have long been treated like spendthrifts and crooks who must be reigned in and tightly limited. I remember priding myself as an Air Force Officer for being able to feed myself on the two dollar a day per diem rate on the early 70's. When I started with DoD as a civilian employee in 1980, I think the daily rate was about $3 per day. I remember being proud about pocketing about $0.10 to $0.50 per day on TDY, thinking how much money I was making for my family. Of course, I ate all my meals at Burger King and/oror stayed at LaQuinta Inn, which had a free breakfast. Our voucher examiner once denied my voucher claim for $0.50 for my wife to park the car for an hour to sit with me in the departure lounge at the airport before my flight. He called me long distance to chew me out, which probably cost at least $0.50. After that, I just showed the $0.50 as a parking fee on the return leg, which passed his muster. 😜
  7. Do funds expire if protest bridges FY end/start?

    Oh yes. Here is another reference for DoD organizations:
  8. Do funds expire if protest bridges FY end/start?

    By the way,in addition to FAR 33. 102 ( c ) appearing not being up to date, it doesn't appear to me like the 2004 version of the Redbook that I viewed on page 5-89 is up to date either. Paragraph ( a ) of Sec. 1558 doesn't reference "or other action referred to in subsection ( b )". The accompanying note 66 refers to an earlier version of paragraph ( a ) prior to being amended by PL 104-106. And the paragraph below on 5-89 doesn't cover "other actions" described in the current paragraph ( b ) of Sec.1558: And I believe PL 104-106 removed the reference in paragraph ( b ) to 40 U.S.C. § 759. While a good working knowledge of the Redbook is recommended and perhaps essential, this brings to mind questions concerning the appropriate use of available resources to the contracting officer or other contracting personnel before diving off into detailed research. I would say that a reading of FAR 33.102 ( c ) may have provided an answer to the general question here had there been a GAO protest. However, in addressing the second question that exceeded the coverage of the FAR regarding an agency protest, if an organization has a Finance and Accounting office and/or an attorney who is knowledgeable in appropriations law, why not use them? My perspective is from an organization which had such resources readily available. And, as I recall, when I was in the Air Force, my bases all had F&A offices, which I could call to ask various questions. Since this type of contracting action would involve both other offices, why not use the resources of other members of the acquisition team, if available? There are many threads in this Forum, in which contracting personnel seem to be complaining that they don't have time to do a proper job, as it is - without researching questions that may be readily available from other team members, who will possibly be reviewing whatever the KO does anyway. EDIT: Even though the Redbook appears to be out of date, it would answer both of Drew's questions.
  9. Do funds expire if protest bridges FY end/start?

    Vern, thanks for the reference to the GAO Redbook, Ch. 5, Part E, pages 5-88 and 5-89.
  10. Do funds expire if protest bridges FY end/start?

    Jamaal: I'm not a lawyer but I think that the FAR language at 33.102 ( c ) is probably outdated with respect to current wording at 31 USC 1558. I added the bold italics to clarify what I think was the legislative action that updated §1558 to include more than GAO protests. I read somewhere else under Title 31 that the definition of a protest under "this Title" (Title 31) isn't limited to GAO protests but cant find it right now plus I don't know if that statement is applicable here. Drew: Don't you have access to a lawyer in your organization who could answer your original question before asking here? I wouldn't expect an 1102 series employee to have to be proficient in legal research but FAR 33.102 ( c ) does at least address availability of appropriations due to GAO protests. Your lawyer should have been available to address your second question.
  11. FAR 1.102, Permissible Exercise of Authority

    And yes, I know that if the solicitation doesn't limit the period of consideration for past performance, if the proposer submits past performance information for a project older than what is in the Government's data base it (can?) (should?) (shall?) be considered. Depends upon the language in the solicitation.
  12. FAR 1.102, Permissible Exercise of Authority

    Vern, I don't know what the significance of the FAR Case is other than to delete language that requires? limits? use of past performance information in PPIRS that is within six years of the completion of performance of construction or A-E contracts. I assume that currently the date of the evaluation must be within 6 years of completion. At any rate, we considered completion or even the date of the evaluation for a contract (that often took several years to perform after award) which is up to six years old to be of little value to us. It could involve designs and contract awards many years old. As I said above, we limited consideration of past performance to "recent" projects, defined as projects that were underway or completed within 3 (or) 5 years of the date of the instant solicitation. The date of the evaluation itself was not relevant. I don't know what the exact language is being considered for the FAR Case.
  13. FAR 1.102, Permissible Exercise of Authority

    FAR case 2015-027 is to "Update[ ] FAR subpart 42.15 to identify "regulatory compliance" as a separate evaluation factor in the Contractor Past Performance Assessment System (CPARS) and [to] require agencies use past performance information in the Past Performance Information Retrieval System (PPIRS) that is within three years for construction and architect-engineer contracts." Status, as of 11 Jan 2016: "09/25/2015 Resubmitted to OFPP. OFPP identified draft proposed FAR rule issues. OFPP, FAR and DAR staff resolving issues." I have long limited the period of consideration of past performance in construction and design-build source selections to projects completed within either 3 or 5 years of the date of the solicitation in the submission requirements and evAluation criteria. We used 5 years in the Model RFP used for billions of dollars worth of design-build projects for the Army MILCON Transformation (MILCON and BRAC). The reasons? Rate of technology advancements, turnover of key personnel in the A-E and construction industry, mergers and acquisitions that greatly affect the character and composition of construction and A-E firms, bankruptcies and other past financial difficulties that have been overcome. Some construction contracts can take 4-5 years or more to accomplish after solicitation and award. That's could be a very old design and award. I was involved with contracts where the contractor, in one case was in the top 10 of the top 400 Contractors, declared Chapter 11 and couldn't obtain additional bond coverage for even a $5000 change. We had to reform one contract to cost reimbursable (no fee) or face several years delay in completing a Treaty mandated critical defense project. The firm emerged within a year or so after they sued Raytheon for not disclosing billions of dollars of cost overruns on certain projects when Raytheon sold Raytheon Engineers and Constructors to the other firm. Shay Assad, with Raytheon Engineers and Constructors at the time of the sale, was named in that lawsuit... Even the big boys have their temporary problems.
  14. Electronic Submission of data

    By definition, to "submit" means to present or give something (document, etc.) to someone for review, approval, etc. Allowing or requiring government personnel to sign up or register and obtain a password to view, act on, approve, review etc. isn't "submitting". The government should possess, control access to and maintain the integrity of submittals - after the contractor submits them.
  15. Electronic Submission of data

    Are you referring to official pre-contract submittals and submittals of contract deliverables? If so, the government should host, control and specify the software to be used for submittals in the solicitation and contract stages, in my opinion. Are you referring to contractor work products that are in progress that the government wants to be able to view and/or comment on? I developed performance specifications that have been included in standardized US Army Corps of Engineers design-build contracts for billions of dollars worth of Army MILCON and BRAC design-build projects, beginning in 2006 or so. We use the Construction Specifications Institute's MasterFormat in lieu of tthe Unified Contract Format (UCF) for D-B contracts. Spec section 01 33 16 "Design After Award" covers the development of the D-B team's design, based upon the government's design criteria and the contractor's contract design proposal. As part of the design development process, we offer to participate in a voluntary "Over the Shoulder Review" process using mutually acceptable processes that allow the D-B team to share and the government's technical team to view the design as it develops before formal deliverable submissions and the parties interact in order to facilitate a faster design development and to avoid surprises or conflicts during the later formal design reviews. We allow the D-B to post its design on the contractor's sites for reviews and communications by those registered government reviewers. We conduct telephonic meetings on a regular basis for the two teams to ask, answer and discuss design details, make suggestions, etc.