joel hoffman

Are you referring to the performance record (how well the firms performed)? Or are you referring to previous experience performing relevant efforts? “Past performance” with respect to FAR 15.305 refers to the record of how well the firm performed ( the quality of performance) as distinguished from the amount of experience a firm has in performing the same or similar work. See 42.15. The courts and boards have upheld the government’s right to require a minimum, reasonable amount of previous, relevant experience where deemed necessary and/or to use comparative ratings for the amount of experience. Try this Google Search: “wifcon experience vs. past performance” for instance.

It depends upon the type of acquisition, if the acquisition is an action under an existing contract or if this is for a new contract, which agency is awarding the contract or action under an existing contract and who the ultimate user agency is. Can you provide any clarification? Please clarify what you mean by “serve at”.

For routine acquisitions, the Air Force has preferred using price and “past performance” as evaluation factors. The “past performance” incorporates recent, relevant experience as evaluation criteria. I agree with the “very convincing advocate” that “the east way[s] of having the contractor contact references or the government sending the survey to references is mostly a waste of time” and ineffective. My preference was to use standardized forms for prime, key subs (and for design-build, the design firm’s) project experience and having them provide customer references. We reserved the right to contact and interview the references, using a standardized question format to verify the claimed experience and claimed past performance quality for those recent, relevant projects.. We also used CPARs as a reference and reserved the right to consider other sources, including personal knowledge of project experience and performance. i hate requiring references to fill out and return the information especially when it was repetitive for multiple acquisitions. I found the best information was gained by TELEPHONICALLY INTERVIEWING the references. Never had any protests concerning such reference INTERVIEWS. We kept the written record of interviews for future project SS references where necessary and applicable. Of course, using documented, TELEPHONIC, ORAL COMMUNICATIONS isn’t “the easy way”…

Ah so… thanks

Agreed.

@Seeking2Award, what didn’t you understand in reading this earlier thread at You said that the schedule extension would not benefit the government. This implies that there may be some. Additional cost, undesirable delays or other damages to the government. Does the KO simply want to waive the default and establish a new delivery date? Or does the KO want to obtain some consideration for extending the delivery date due to damages or other impact to the government for the delay? EDIT: The OP posted the following comment while I was posting this comment. Original. Post is resolved.

The KO should send the technical portions of the winning proposal applicable to contract performance to the contract admin office/team along with the consensus evaluation minus any ratings. This is for construction**, design-build construction** and certain service contracts. In addition, we identified any proposed betterments which exceeded the solicitation requirements and which were accepted and incorporated at award.** ————————————————— Footnotes: **We normally incorporate applicable portions of the technical proposal into the contract award for construction and design-build contracts. It usually corresponds to proposed key personnel, specific proposed material or equipment, building systems etc. for construction. For D-B, it also includes proposed design features. There was an order of precedence clause. Not the FAR Order of Precedence clause, which is only applicable to and appropriate for the UCF format. The Army Corps of Engineers uses the Construction Specification Institute, CSI format for construction and design-build construction contracts.. The CSI format is more suitable for Federal construction and design-build construction contracting than the UCF. The UCF is suitable for service and supply contracting.

Is this a service contract?

Construction multiple award ID/IQ’s can already be set up for price completion at the task order level rather than require FP at the contract level. That was implemented years ago.

Sorry but these are questions to ask the IRS and/or any tax advisors that you employ…

How about a Freedom of Information Act request to the agency for the applicable registration details? You mentioned the contract ombudsman…

Protest isn’t necessarily the only avenue applicable to allegations of misrepresentation of business size/status.

Yes- and the government and some commercial customers may have different quality, cost, budget and schedule goals and objectives than other commercial customers. Many commercial clients will tradeoff higher initial cost (and probably not be overly concerned about travel costs) vs. shorter time to start or resume production, get their products to market, and/or quality and reliability, for instance. Return on investment. Many commercial customers often have continuing relationships with their vendors, I.e., little or no competition involved. True best value…

Retreadfed, I agree that 52.212-4 Alt I does not incorporate the cost principles from FAR Part 31. Z said that “travel [is] a reimbursable ODC on a T&M Line Item” in a fixed price contract. And Z said “ Business Class jumped [off] the screen when the CO looked at the proposal's travel cost estimates”. In other words, the KO analyzed the basis for and/or amount of the proposed flying cost. That constitutes cost analysis, which is addressed in subpart 15.404 and is applicable when requiring and/or evaluating data other than certified cost or pricing for commercial services in 15.403. Per 31.103 (a), The cost principles and procedures in subpart 31.2 and agency supplements shall be used in pricing negotiated services contracts whenever cost analysis is performed as required by 15.404-1(c)” [“Cost analysis”]. As I mentioned above, 31.103 (b) (ii), addresses using the cost principles and applicable procedures in Part 31 for cost reimbursable aspects of time and materials pricing.

Have you tried contacting the SBA? If you think that there is evidence of misrepresentation of small business status involved in a contract award, I would think that you could discuss it with the SBA and/or the contracting agency, without filing a protest.. it See for instance, this link from the WIFCON.com homepage: https://www.justice.gov/usao-edva/pr/government-contractors-agree-pay-39-million-resolve-claims-misrepresenting-women-owned i googled “Department of Justice misrepresentation of small business status”. This was was one of several hit that came up https://www.insidegovernmentcontracts.com/2022/06/doj-settlement-underscores-the-significance-of-incorrect-small-business-representations/ Here is another one referring to the SBA’s Code of Federal Regulations at 13 CFR 121.108: https://www.law.cornell.edu/cfr/text/13/121.108

@Retreadfed, you don’t have to protest in the event of such criminal activity.

Retreadfed, there was evidence… Michael Sears — chief financial officer at Boeing. Negotiated Druyun’s post-retirement employment with Boeing. Convicted for role in the scandal, served a four-month prison sentence. Phil Condit — chief executive officer of Boeing. Forced to resign as a result of the deal. See https://sites.tufts.edu/corruptarmsdeals/the-boeing-tanker-case/#:~:text=The case stemmed from a,Department of Defense (DOD).

Thanks for the clarifications, General Z. So, some costs were indeed analyzed (“cost analysis”) for the reimbursable aspects of the Time and Materials portion. See 31.103 Contracts with commercial organizations. “…(b) In addition, the contracting officer shall incorporate the cost principles and procedures in subpart 31.2 and agency supplements by reference in contracts with commercial organizations as the basis for- (1) Determining reimbursable costs under- …(ii) The cost-reimbursement portion of time-and-materials contracts except when material is priced on a basis other than at cost (see 16.601(c)(3));” Edit: However, see also 12.301: “…(d) Other required provisions and clauses. Notwithstanding prescriptions contained elsewhere in the FAR, when acquiring commercial products or commercial services, contracting officers shall be required to use only those provisions and clauses prescribed in this part. The provisions and clauses prescribed in this part shall be revised, as necessary, to reflect the applicability of statutes and executive orders to the acquisition of commercial products or commercial services.“ But also: 12.213 Other commercial practices. “It is a common practice in the commercial marketplace for both the buyer and seller to propose terms and conditions written from their particular perspectives. The terms and conditions prescribed in this part seek to balance the interests of both the buyer and seller. These terms and conditions are generally appropriate for use in a wide range of acquisitions. However, market research may indicate other commercial practices that are appropriate for the acquisition of the particular item. These practices should be considered for incorporation into the solicitation and contract if the contracting officer determines them appropriate in concluding a business arrangement satisfactory to both parties and not otherwise precluded by law or Executive order.

it also depends upon who the customer is. A commercial customer may have other priorities than quibbling about the cost of travel and/or may not have strict travel protocols/policies. Many commercial customers place priorities on getting their products and services to the market with less emphasis on the initial cost of associated services or development costs. There may or may not be competition involved in providing services to non-government, commercial customers. The government generally does have policies and is mindful of travel costs. Has been at least since 1980, when I joined the Civil Service. Travel costs comprise a major Federal cost. The federal government isn’t necessarily bound to adopt every commercial practice, as some here have suggested. It is important to consider some principles regarding reasonableness of costs or prices, including commercial products and services. Such as the definition of commercial services in 2.101 and whether they were priced competitively, 31.201-3 Determining reasonableness and 15.4 regarding commercial services. In addition, many companies have direct, overhead or G&A rates that may include costs that are not necessarily illegal, but unallowable on Government contracts.

“LIKE”👍

And one should realize that non-government customers might not have any or have fewer policy restrictions on travel. The government has an established policy for travel for its employees and for many government contract personnel. The government doesn’t have to simply accept paying for upgraded travel status for contractor employees. This may sound like a broken record. The government can define conditions for travel reimbursement and/or can negotiate terms if a vendor includes upgraded travel as the basis for other direct costs or otherwise for travel.

So, as it turned out the government didn’t agree that business class fare was reasonable. And the job still got accomplished, I assume. Im guessing that the proposal or quote described the basis of travel. Thus - you or somebody else analyzed that COST aspect of the proposal. Was this agreement made during the contract negotiations? Edit - added: Or was it after a contract award? Was this a competitive or was it non-competitive acquisition? “Cost analysis” can extend to evaluating the basis of reimbursable travel costs… Edit: Whether competitive or non-competitive its a negotiable aspect. If the government doesn’t want to pay for upgraded travel it has the right to negotiate it.

@General.Zhukov, Did I miss where you asked how travel costs were treated on the contractor’s other government (DoD?) commercial and non-commercial contracts? Did your market analysis of government contracts show that reimbursable business class travel for similar services was predominant ? If there are examples of the same or similar type of government travel that didn’t allow the additional cost of business class fares, then it would appear that, even if they didn’t like it, they still performed their jobs. Since travel costs and travel policies affecting the eventual contract cost are significant enough for you to inquire about here, I would think that a prudent KO or acquisition professional would evaluate the proposed basis for employee travel especially If it varies from the otherwise predominant government travel policies

Do you mean government travelers too, performing official business? Fat chance. Or government contractors performing business for the government? If it’s a commercial services contract, especially a quote, it should be negotiable. But I forget…that’s too much effort and one might actually have to speak to the vendor.

So, is it reasonable for the taxpayers to pay extra costs for contractor employee “perks”? I flew on several flights that AL Senator Shelby was also on, between Washington DC and Huntsville, AL. Richard Shelby is a very tall man. He flew in a coach, non-exit row, window seat each time.