Jump to content

joel hoffman

Members
  • Posts

    7,054
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by joel hoffman

  1. Also consider this. If the A-E firm is logically and practically the only choice for the follow on design phases*, you could issue separate follow on task orders using an exception to the fair opportunity requirements in 16.505. But that would be a clunky way to accomplish the same purpose and wouldn’t produce any different result or method of pricing the follow on A-E work. *it should be obvious, for continuity in accountability and responsibility for design, warranty of design, familiarity with the basis of design and the initial developed design, not to mention the cost and time involved to substitute another firm .Follow on phases would likely depend on the initial design. If they don’t and if the integrated program schedule permits, then you could consider separate task order using fair opportunity. I’m guessing not though, here.
  2. So, they are basing their reasoning on a 1986 GAO report that discusses options on service contracts that were competed with price as a factor and that would now be subject to 17.207 (not applicable to A-E contracting). How is that applicable to an AE contract,? And here, the follow on phases can’t be definitized up front. There are some controls on the cost of A-E design services , most notably the 6% statutory limits, plus negotiating a fair and reasonable price for any follow on work. If the firm won’t reasonably negotiate follow on prices, technically, you could replace them. I never heard of our organization being held hostage by an incumbent A-E firm. By and large A-E firms want to maintain good designer-owner professional relationships. Relationships are critical when future work is based upon QBS and client satisfaction, which is expressed in past performance, as well as personal experience of those often on the A-E selection boards. “17.200 Scope of subpart. This subpart prescribes policies and procedures for the use of option solicitation provisions and contract clauses. Except as provided in agency regulations, this subpart does not apply to contracts for (a) Services involving the construction, alteration, or repair (including dredging, excavating, and painting) of buildings, bridges, roads, or other kinds of real property; (b) Architect-engineer services; and (c) Research and development services. However, it does not preclude the use of options in those contracts. [61 FR 41469, Aug. 8, 1996]”
  3. The price should be of no concern to other A-E firms. None of the firms will prepare price proposals at the time of response to the task order request. The concern would be whether or not the work is within the scope of the task order competition. I don’t think that the base ID/IQ contract has to specifically address the possibility of options for follow on phases of a task order project, as long as the project to be designed is within the scope of the multiple ID/IQ base (“parent”) contract. The fact is that the situation here apparently precludes being able to definitize pricing or the specific design parameters of follow on design phases at the outset. Ive seen an A-E umbrella single award ID/IQ contract, which included follow on designs to be based upon a pilot plant , site adapted and updated to include lessons learned and engineering change proposals, etc. as the pilot plant design matured and construction, systemization, pilot testing and operations progressed for that first plant.
  4. Based upon what?You’re going to have to make them justify their position. In order to price and option one must know what the scope of work for the option will be. Same with all phases
  5. Of course, “some” know that 17.207 isn’t applicable here, correct? Edit: The scope of services for any options would have to be within the scope of the original A-E or task order A-E competition. But the fact remains that this is a qualifications based selection (QBS) not a priced based or Best Value based selection.
  6. Based upon what source for the requirement? FAR 17.2? As for timing, are “some” saying that this is supposed to be priced during the negotiations for the task order price? There are no prices at the MAC -pool level.
  7. 16.505 (d) The statutory multiple award preference implemented by this subpart does not apply to architect-engineer contracts subject to the procedures in subpart 36.6. However, agencies are not precluded from making multiple awards for architect-engineer services using the procedures in this subpart, provided the selection of contractors and placement of orders are consistent with subpart 36.6. Ask the “some” in your agency that justify their position that you must price A-E task order proposals or price base award A-E contracts. Price is not a factor in the task order selection, unless you are unable to reach agreement on a fair and reasonable price with the most highly rated firm.
  8. Task orders for A-E services on multiple award A-E contracts are not competed on the basis of price. You use the QBS procedures to select a firm, then negotiate the price to perform the task.
  9. Yes, I agree that JTR per diem rate limits themselves don’t directly apply to contractors. Having said that, I’ve found that, when I travelled along with contractors, some companies had better hotel rates than the government rates. And, depending upon the timing and circumstances, contractors sometimes paid less airfare than the government’s all-season, fully refundable rates, when they used non-refundable fares. I chose the wrong term in the phrase “firm’s travel costs fairly well conform to the JTR limits”. I meant “compare reasonably well in comparison with the JTR limits. And yes, one could use the criteria in 31.205-46, Travel Costs as a guideline for an estimate of reasonableness in the evaluation criteria. But keep in mind that, for an FFP competitive proposal, “allowable cost” limitations aren’t directly applicable. It’s more a yardstick for evaluation purposes, subject to application of judgement.
  10. https://oversight.house.gov/legislation/hearings/government-shutdowns-contract-killers Hearing by House Committee on Oversite and Reform was held on May 6,2019. See Contracting News, posted 8 May 2019 on the WIFCON Homepage.
  11. Sorry but your question is VERY broad and not well defined or described. You said "there is additional work that is requested" What do you mean by "additional work"? How is it "additional" - additional to what? And how is it "requested"? How is the work "not planned"? Or to put it another way - How is the work "planned"? Not "planned" by whom? By the contract? By you? What specifically do you mean when you said "[the work] is determined to be in scope". For instance, is the type of work to be performed the same type of work described and required to be performed? We don't know what you mean by "the customer has more work [than] originally anticipated". What do you mean by "more work" and "originally anticipated" Is the work in addition to work that was described in the performance work statement or other contract requirement? Who or what originally anticipated the quantity of work? How is the amount of work to be performed identified or to be identified by the contract requirements? All of those points matter as to whether or not additional fee is warranted on a CPFF environment. Generally speaking, the fee is fixed, unless there is a change to the actual contract requirement. What the actual contract requirement is, of course, sometimes subject to the rules of contract interpretation. That is why we are seeking clarification of your scenario.
  12. I don’t disagree that FFP is likely a good way to go when the scope and costs are reasonably determinant . But if they include an FFP travel CLIN, which might be useful for contract admin purposes, they could evaluate the reasonableness. That seems to be a concern of the customer and was the essence of the original question. As for a price advantage due to location, it wouldn’t matter whether travel is paid for as FFP or cost reimbursement.
  13. The distinction between this thread and the earlier thread cited above, is that the amount of travel is determinate in the current original post. If the OP wants to reassure the client that the selected firm’s travel costs fairly well conform to the JTR limits, the OP you can evaluate and compare with a government estimate for that firm’s location. And if the reasonableness of travel cost is a concern to the Customer, state in the evaluation criteria that the government may (will?) evaluate the Reasonableness of the proposed Travel CLIN, in comparison with JTR rates, as applicable to that firm. Of course, you’d need to know where the employees would be traveling from. If that can’t be tied down, discussions could consider that. At least you’d understand the basis of the proposed price. Which might reveal that FFP isn’t necessarily the most economical pricing method . When you make the contractor responsible for covering all their costs in a bid item, they are going to cover their risks.
  14. It appears that the requirement is known but customer wants to use cost reimbursement with JTR limit. Im with the others - it should be FFP and competed. It would appear that the customer would be concerned about the cost of travel if they were no limits on it. To evaluate reasonableness, you could look at the travel line item prices of those offers that are overall most competitive considering cost and non-cost. Then - knowing the location - develop your own estimate with the JTR rates for each location and compare to each offer, as applicable. Sounds like a lot of work but the only variable would be airfare from the offeror’s location, right? Otherwise, the local costs can be estimate - theoretically same for everyone. Then if the offered price or prices seem high, you could conduct discussions and tell them you think the travel cost CLIN is too high. If otherwise conducting discussions, you can include that as a discussion item.
  15. I agree that the government can determine that the cost is unallowable because the contractor failed to comply with the contract. What I don’t know is how closely the DCAA auditors review the incurred cost type invoices. They generally used broader “sampling” techniques on proposals for new contracts much to my chagrin. Our USACE civil works contract auditors were generally more thorough on civil works projects. However, USACE eliminated the internal CW auditors in the early 2000’s. After DCAA took on those audits, the quality of the audits decreased significantly.
  16. The consumables might be of low visibility. The stuff to become gov't property might be more prominent and could be returned and replaced if someone made a big deal out of it...It is helpful that you are addressing the issue for future purchases.
  17. Were the materials and supplies directly furnished to the government or were they consumed during contract performance?
  18. The government could deny payment for non-compliance with the contract, I suppose. Yes, the DCAA could question such costs, if they are aware of non-compliance.. Are they significant costs?
  19. Please describe the circumstances . For example: Competitive action? Non-competitive action? Original contract? Modification to the contract? If for new contract, how are bid and proposal costs normally accounted for by the company ? If for modification, who is preparing the proposal ? If it is the same person or persons preparing bids and proposals- and if those person(s)’ costs are charged to an overhead or G&A pool, they are already covered. For a modification, If it is prepared by employees already being paid under the (FFP) contract, and if there are no additional costs involved, my position was “no”. If it is a proposal for a claim, “no”.
  20. I said early this morning * [bracketed word added here for more clarity] The cited AVIS Jordan GAO Decision (B-417248: Apr 23, 2019) concerns a commercial acquisition for issuance of a purchase order under a request for quotations for rental cars. The original subject of this thread ("this matter") involves a rather cryptic description of some type of an LPTA acquisition under the topic category "Schedules, GWACS, MACs, IDIQs" , The original poster has offered no further explanation and long ago checked out of participating in the discussion.. That’s not necessarily a rub. Probably was satisfied with an answer or two or three, long ago.
  21. Those are specifically Part 15 procedures but they aren’t the only possible bases of award for Part 15. “15.100 Scope of subpart. This subpart describes some of the acquisition processes and techniques that may be used to design competitive acquisition strategies suitable for the specific circumstances of the acquisition.” In fact Part 15 only specifically mentions LPTA and Tradeoffs. “15.101 Best value continuum. An agency can obtain best value in negotiated acquisitions by using any one or a combination of source selection approaches. In different types of acquisitions, the relative importance of cost or price may vary. For example, in acquisitions where the requirement is clearly definable and the risk of unsuccessful contract performance is minimal, cost or price may play a dominant role in source selection. The less definitive the requirement, the more development work required, or the greater the performance risk, the more technical or past performance considerations may play a dominant role in source selection. “ A Part 12 competitive commercial acquisition doesn’t even have to use Part 15 procedures. “12.203 Procedures for solicitation, evaluation, and award. Contracting officers shall use the policies unique to the acquisition of commercial items prescribed in this part in conjunction with the policies and procedures for solicitation, evaluation and award prescribed in part 13, Simplified Acquisition Procedures; part 14, Sealed Bidding; or part 15, Contracting by Negotiation, as appropriate for the particular acquisition. The contracting officer may use the streamlined procedure for soliciting offers for commercial items prescribed in 12.603.” *I added the bracketed words for more clarity. “13.106-2 Evaluation of quotations or offers. ...(b) Evaluation procedures. (1) The contracting officer has broad discretion in fashioning suitable evaluation procedures. The procedures prescribed in parts 14 and 15 are not mandatory. At the contracting officer's discretion, one or more, but not necessarily all, of the evaluation procedures in part 14 or 15 may be used.”
  22. No basis of award was stated. The KO “anticipated” doing it as LPTA in its declaration but the RFQ, as written, didn’t limit it to that specific method. It was a CHA/SBA... Edit: oops, I may have mixed up two GAO decisions that I read yesterday. Hold the presses! I’ll go back and reread as soon as I get the time to do it. Sorry. Over and out New edit: Nope. It was the Decision that I was referring to. The Raytheon reference confused me for a moment. That involved the government’s decision to amend an LPTA solicitation to seek revised proposals to break a tie rather than cancel and reissue a new solicitation. I’ll stand by my previous comments.
  23. That was AVIS Jordan’s viewpoint. If it was an LPTA, why did the protestor offer multiple prices and vehicle ages? The government ended up taking a “Clark Howard Approach” (CHA). Clark is an admitted cheapskate, who won’t pass up a good deal. “Savvy Buyer Approach” (SBA)?
  24. It was, in reality, a variant of best value with price as the most important factor, but where better quality is the tiebreaker. Government wasn’t willing to pay more for better quality but is allowed to obtain better value for the lowest price that meets or exceeds the customer’s minimum needs. Very similar to every day shopping experiences. You could call it an LPTA with quality tiebreaker, I suppose. That would more clearly emphasize low prices - to have your cake and eat it, too.😃
×
×
  • Create New...