Jump to content

joel hoffman

Members
  • Posts

    7,041
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by joel hoffman

  1. 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.
  2. 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.
  3. 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.
  4. 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.
  5. I misread the initial post. It said that an agency is using the FSS to establish multiple BPA’s (blanket purchase agreements).
  6. 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.
  7. deleted. This is apparently a BPA action under established FSS under 8.404 and 8.405.
  8. 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?
  9. 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.
  10. 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.
  11. I’m not sure how “established capped rates” will apply to orders other than as a ceiling. Will you be billing for orders using the capped rates or your most currently available rates, if they are lower? You said “Retreadfed, the indirects proposed by each offeror will be the established capped indirect rates for proposal and billing purposes on task orders should the offeror be awarded a contract. “ If billings will be based upon most currently available rates, then you have to decide what you are willing to limit your future cost recovery to, since your recent rates were actually slightly higher than your most currently available rates. Then it would seem that you are free to propose a cap that you can live with, also considering the fact that you are competing with other firms for the contract.
  12. For your Reference: From “Government Contract Associates” LIMITATION OF COST AND FUNDS CLAUSES. https://govcontractassoc.com/limitation-of-cost-and-funds-clauses/
  13. I’m not arguing that it is necessary to identify the relative importance of all the factors. I think I explained to a professed “beginner” what is practically necessary. i also disagree with someone telling a beginner to “keep in mind the ideal of minimal”. What the heck does that mean????? You give them enough information to know what to do to meet or exceed your objectives.
  14. It may not be “required” but some indication, for instance, as I have described above, is likely needed for the transaction to make sense. As I said, “best value” in both federal and non-federal contracting has a similar meaning. It involves both price and non-price considerations. You don’t have to explain your rationale for determining what is the best value to you in a store or catalog. You might well explain it while speaking with a sales rep or tech rep, though. However, when you are a public body conducting a competition - with little or no oral or other two way interaction- you need to give some idea of what is important to you (or to your customer). You can’t operate on an “I’ll know it when I see it basis”. You leave the service providers or suppliers clueless. If you are looking for a cookbook recipe, subpart 16.5 won’t provide it. One has to use some business judgement. There is a difference between how a clerk and a business person conduct business transactions.
  15. The OP needs to provide more information in order to intelligently respond.
  16. Then, if it isn’t affordable or where there is an insignificant difference in quality, or if it is not worth paying more, you aren’t locked into selecting a higher priced offer/quote. at least the firms aren’t left in the dark about your requirements owner’s desires. To me you have to apply some common sense approach to purchasing services or products. If you walked into an office or called someone providing services, you would certainly give them an inkling of what you are willing to consider, even if it is after they make you an offer. They would probably ask you anyway. When I go into supply houses, if they have more than one solution to my needs, they offer me choices. Ya gotta give them enough information to connect the dots. Acquisition ain’t Rocket Science.
  17. Streamlined for sure plus this is under the SAT. I’m just saying that you can give them a clue of how they can win - what is important to the requirements owner. “Best value “ means that both price and non-price are considered. How will they be considered? If this WAS a source selection under Part 15 and IF you dont identify any relative importance between factors, they are considered equally important, GAO has said. You already mentioned it. So, I suggest that you figure out a simple way to phrase it to the fair opportunity competitors. If you want to “ reserve the right to pay a bit more (within your budget) for higher qualifications, provided that you consider it to be worth the difference in cost”, that should be adequate. You defined your idea of “best value”. How hard is that? To me, that simple language says to me that both price and quality are important to the requirements owner. Where prices are essentially the same, differences in the quality to be provided might make the difference. Where the quality to be provided between firms is essentially the same, then price would make the difference.
  18. So, nkd9, you don’t think that you should explain to your contractors that, depending upon the price, you “might be willing” to pay [a little more?, some more?] than the lowest priced acceptable offer for one with more “ability to perform the work specific to this SOW including specific experience in the state where the work is to be performed”, if the higher capability is deemed to provide additional value to justify paying the difference? Seems to me that it would be fair to let the firms know what is important to the customer/requirement owner , as a basis for them to know how to compete. How important is the quality of the service to be provided to your requirement owner? My advice to you as a beginner is to look past the bare minimum FAR requirement and look at it from the viewpoint of someone deciding whether or not to compete for your requirement. If they are going to have to spend the time and resources to submit a quote or proposal, your expectations should be clear enough for them to try to meet and to compete with others. If the basis of selection is ambiguous, then they might not bother. Believe it or not, many firms want to know how to satisfy their customers. This is not a situation where the wares or services are displayed in a store setting where you simply pick and choose what the customer and you alone consider to be the best value. This a two way transaction where you define what you are looking for and commercial firms package their responses to fit your stated needs, for both quality and price.
  19. Hopefully, the ID/IQ doesn’t use the term “source selection”. The term “best value” may or may not be explicitly defined in the contract. However, in commercial and many other government circles, it simply means that both price and other factors are considered, vs., for example, qualifications based selection, publicly opened bidding, etc. The term isn’t limited to Part 15, unless you specifically tie it to Part 15. I did not say that I didn’t have access to the FAR. I said I didn’t have time to read FAR 16.5. And my sweet wife is on my case for using too much data on our plan. There is no WiFi in the woods.🦌 I’ve been following WIFCON and the Forum for years during hunting season from tree stands at three different hunting Clubs. I used to actually work my government email and other tasks from tree stands on days off and weekends back up in the Huntsville, AL area. The Paint Rock (River) Valley was part of the end of the Appalachian Mtns. chain. Could only get a Verizon signal at a couple of my stands. 🦌
  20. Thanks, ji. And thanks for the clarification concerning “trade-off”. I’m in a tree stand this morning. Didn’t take the time to read 16.5.
×
×
  • Create New...