Jump to content
The Wifcon Forums and Blogs

joel hoffman

Members
  • Content count

    3,046
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by joel hoffman

  1. No-Cost Settlement and Unsatisfactory CPARS?

    Frog leg 🐸 tacos?
  2. Parts received after Task Order PoP end date

    You appear to have said that the parts were ordered to support work on a task order but were not used. So, they apparently weren't needed to support work on the task order. Is that correct? You used the term "task order", which usually signifies that the order is for services, whereas the term "delivery order", is associated with products. Is that the context here? Can the parts be returned for a credit? Well, anyway, please clarify per H2H's request . Thanks.
  3. IDIQ Maximum Orders 52.216-22(b)

    Is $10 million the max order size or your contract limit?
  4. IDIQ Maximum Orders 52.216-22(b)

    Did you say that there is a maximum contract amount and that each of the six contract holders has an individual limit 1/6 of the total ???
  5. PP Neutral Rating

    That's why you have a separate factor for recent, relevant experience. No experience submitted - should lead to a low rating under a factor that addresses "experience". Unlike "past performance", lack of relevant experience can be reflected in a lower rating. AND - you don't limit the evaluation of past performation in the solicitation evaluation criteria to those confounded questionnaires. Ask for a reference for every contract or project submitted under experience - on YOUR form that they use to provide the information in YOUR format. If you don't otherwise have knowledge of their performance rating, call the reference for an interview - again, using YOUR format. If you intend to consider experience and past performance, then you will need to take the time to do it. I don't think it was that difficult when I was running source selections.
  6. PTA above ceiling price — how big a deal, really?

    Thanks, Don. Finally figured out how to find it. Under "Tools"
  7. PTA above ceiling price — how big a deal, really?

    Can someone provide a current, working link to the DOD Contract Pricing Reference Guides, Vol. 4, Ch. 1. ? I keep getting circular links to a page at " https://acc.dau.mil/AccessDenied.aspx?returnurl=https%3a%2f%2facc.dau.mil%2fCommunityBrowser.aspx%3fid%3d406579%26lang%3den-US "ACC has migrated to a new platform and can be found on the DAU.mil site at www.dau.mil/community-hub."
  8. Subcontract for Commercial Items - changes

    It appears to be "questionable" - I said from the beginning that if the KO questions the reasonableness, then require the contractor to justify it. I didn't "declare the cost to be unreasonable". We don't know the full context or the details. When I review claims, disputes, REA's, etc. I don't "declare" anything to have merit or no merit until I become familiar with all the facts and the full context of the issues. That has been a successful approach for 46 years or so.
  9. Subcontract for Commercial Items - changes

    I agree with H2H. I just used cost or price data as an example of a "benefit" associated with a acquiring commercial items under that acquisition method. It was you who said that 12.207 doesn't apply to subcontracts. If this were a FFP prime contract, I would agree to an extent. In that case, unless there was some government liability for the increased cost, the cost increase would be between the prime its sub.
  10. Subcontract for Commercial Items - changes

    Cost or pricing was simply an example of the differences between commercial item and noncommercial subcontract type. The argument presented in this thread appears to be that, since the government has no privity of contract with the prime's subs, the prime can define its subcontract's any way it chooses to and can define "FFP" its own way, regardless of the government's acquisition rules.
  11. Subcontract for Commercial Items - changes

    Vern, I agree that the basic issue is the reasonableness of the prime contractor's costs. In evaluating the reasonableness of those costs, I would question the contractor paying more for what was supposedly a firm fixed price subcontract, which should not be subject to adjustment for an open verrun of its actual incurred costs. The prime should justify why it paid more than the awarded subcontract amount - justify why the subcontractor is entitled to a price adjustment that the prime expects the government to pay.
  12. Subcontract for Commercial Items - changes

    Vern, the government is acquiring commercial items (services). It is acquiring those commercial services by means of a subcontract. If so, FAR 12.207 would seemingly apply to the subcontracting action. Cost or pricing data doesn't apply to a commercial item (service) purchase. Of course, we don't know whether the subcontract was awarded competitively or the amount of the initial award, either. If so, then C&P data would not have been required, regardless of the subcontract type for the acquisition. If the prime contractor can use any type of subcontract acquisition method and pick and choose how to administer or modify the subcontract, e.g., FFP commercial item, then allowing actual incurred cost, this would seem to allow the government and or its primes to essentially cowboy any subcontract, without regard to acquisition rules. If the modifications were for actual travel requirements. then I would think that the original subcontract probably should have had a separate line item for estimated travel but that may not be mandatory...
  13. PP Neutral Rating

    Don, I don't think that the definition of "penalty ", above, includes downgrading the confidence rating of a firm for not returning those questionnaires. And I don't think that a firm will be successful in protesting a rating based upon an unreasonable requirement to submit the form. Generally, the GAO will consider such types of protests untimely, right?
  14. PP Neutral Rating

    HA!! A good point for eliminating or at least reducing those @#$%&! questionnaires that the government loves to require the references or the proposers to submit, even for contracts or task orders where there are official past performance evaluations in the .Past Performance Information Retrieval System or other archives. See also Don's article at https://dap.dau.mil/cop/conmgtblog/archive/2014/03/04/do-you-have-an-omb-control-number-for-that-past-performance-questionnaire.aspx
  15. PP Neutral Rating

    The key is not to limit the evaluation of past performance in the solicitation evaluation criteria to those @#$%&! questionnaires that the government loves to require the references or the proposers to submit, depending upon the solicitation language. Provide for flexibility in what and how you can obtain the relevant past performance information to evaluate. We used a form for obtaining information concerning the proposer/offeror's* recent, relevant experience under that evaluation factor. We used a similar form for prospective key subcontractors. On design-build competitions, we also included a form, tailored for the design firm. There was an entry on each form for the applicable firm to indicate and describe how the owner or contracting agency had rated the firm, if any rating had been issued. We also required the firm to provide an owner's reference and contact information and reserved the right to contact and/or interview the reference, if necessary to verify or clarify the provided information. We stated that this information would be evaluated under the past performance factor and correlated with the recent, relevant project experience. We made no promise to interview the references. We often had other sources, such as the CPARS/ACASS/CCASS past performance rating systems (those are terms for past or present NAVFAC and USACE past performance rating systems) and the Past Performance Information Retrieval System to verify the ratings and the various facets of those ratings. We also often had seen the same information from the proposers in other source selections, so we had little or no need to re-contact the references, unless there were conflicts between the sources of information. We used a telephone interview format similar to the questionnaires that are now being sent in (or not sent in!) by the proposers or their references. We stated that we could or would query the available past performance databases. We stated that verifiable personal knowledge by the evaluator(s) could also be used. **I use the terms "proposers" and "offerors" interchangeably here because past performance is often used in task order competitions in addition to new contract source selections. Multiple Award Contract holders aren't necessarily "offerors'. They are already MATOC or MACC contractors, who are competing for award of a task order under FAR 16.505 procedures, not under new contract, Part 15 source selection procedures.
  16. Subcontract for Commercial Items - changes

    So, is the government acquiring commercial items? If so, FAR 12.207 would seemingly apply. Can the prime/sub pick and choose which terms of commercial item contracting would apply to the acquisition? No need for cost or pricing data or many other inapplicable requirements but - oh, lets switch from FFP to Cost Reimbursement, as we wish? That doesn't make sense to me.
  17. Subcontract for Commercial Items - changes

    "What are we teaching the kids?" A basic principle concerning the presumption of reasonableness, thus possibly affecting the allowabilty of incurred costs, backed up by a reference. You have chided many here before for not providing backup for "simple and direct answers" that are stated as opinions😜
  18. Subcontract for Commercial Items - changes

    Just guessing but how about an audit pursuant to FAR Clause 52.216-7, Allowable Cost and Payment? ...(g) Audit. At any time or times before final payment, the Contracting Officer may have the Contractor’s invoices or vouchers and statements of cost audited. Any payment may be -- (1) Reduced by amounts found by the Contracting Officer not to constitute allowable costs; or (2) Adjusted for prior overpayments or underpayments.
  19. Ok, that makes it clearer. I would agree with Vern. Simply looking at the bottom line price proposed to the government wouldn't satisfy the sub's needs. If you aren't willing to truthfully reveal to the sub how much will be included in the proposal, due to subcontractor negotiation reasons or leverage for further negotiations with the firm after award, then you probably won't be successful in negotiating a teaming agreement with that firm. If you are willing to divulge how much is included for the subcontract, then there may be ways to do that without having to show the sub the entire proposal.
  20. Subcontract for Commercial Items - changes

    I recommend, based upon your concerns, that you place the burden of proof on the Contractor to justify the additional cost to the government - before allowing it and preferably before paying it.
  21. Subcontract for Commercial Items - changes

    Yes, it may be appropriate to question the value of the price increase. See FAR 31.201-3 (a) -- Determining Reasonableness. How do you know it was a "fixed price contract" ? What kind of "fixed price (sub)contract is it? In addition to FFP, a fixed price incentive arrangement is a form of fixed price contract. You said, "The price proposal was a list of estimated costs by type of service." That doesn't appear to be a proposal for a FFP (sub)contract.
  22. Please provide some clarification, thanks. You are negotiating with a key prospective subcontractor and want some ideas on how to successfully close the deal to get through or around a sticking point. What is a TA? NDA = non-disclosure agreement? Between which parties? Who are you "exclusive" with? Is "we" you and this specific sub? What "final number" or other specific price proposal "info" is the sub insisting upon having access to? Details or overall bottom line? Why are they insisting upon having access to this information? Hard to propose alternative approaches or "language" (??) without understanding the sub's purpose or reasons for wanting to know the (?) information. Respondents here often go off numerous different rabbit trails when the initial post is unclear. That is a waste of everyone's time. If a proposed sub is insisting upon something that is not acceptable and you are seeking alternate approaches or "language" to include them, it is necessary or helpful to understand exactly what they say they need and their motivation or underlying needs. Also may be helpful to know what, if anything, the "NDA" has to do with the situation. Thanks.
  23. Court Order and the FAR

    It would seem to me that, if an acquisition is necessary to fulfill the requirements of the Court Order, then the FAR is applicable. This assumes that the agency's acquisitions are otherwise subject to FAR.
  24. Bob, I believe that Carl is simply comparing Vern's idea to what some current program for certifying Contracting Officer Representatives might look like, if it were fully implemented. He appears to like Vern's ideas.
×