Jump to content
The Wifcon Forums and Blogs

joel hoffman

Members
  • Content count

    3,047
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by joel hoffman

  1. LPTA Question

    For design-build construction contracts, where the accepted proposal is incorporated into the contract at award, we use an order of precedence clause. In the event of conflict, the order of precedence is: any betterment in the accepted proposal, the solicitation requirements, any other aspects of the accepted proposal, and the final design deliverables, which are not part of the contract but must meet the contract requirements. A "betterment" is defined as any feature in the accepted proposal that both meets and exceeds the solicitations minimum requirements. Has worked well for over 20 years. However, the government must perform reasonable proposal evaluation during source selection or task order competition to determine proposal compliance. That doesn't require the government to perform proposal engineering design reviews before award but would encompass patent design errors in a proposal. The government cannot rely on the clause if it was negligent in proposal review or knowingly overlooks proposal flaws, errors or deviations. We don't use the FAR Order of Precedence clause, as it prescribed for use with the Uniform Contract Format. USACE use the MasterFormat for construction and design-build contracts. Government doesn't pay extra to obtain the minimum solicitation requirements if the proposed design doesn't work. Of course, where contractor meets the minimum solicitation performance or prescriptive requirements and it doesn't work, that generally becomes the government's liability under the Spearin Doctrine.
  2. LPTA Question

    I agree. Technical approach is often an evaluated proposal aspect. Since a TEP is going to perform the evaluation, y'all ought to be able to develop criteria, as Vern described, some details of what they will consider.
  3. LPTA Question

    Thanks, Napolik.
  4. LPTA Question

    They would not have to use a pass/fail rating system. They may be able to establish some minimum technical approach requirements for an "acceptable"rating. Then use a rating system that allows the evaluators to discern strengths, weaknesses, degree of risk, etc. - like other trade-off competitions . Then make a comparative analysis between offerors. This provides some flexibility in selecting the winner, if the government justifies why it would pay some more for better performance capability or technical approach. Unless one can use mechanical distinctions to rate the strength of a factor, there will often be some subjectivity in the evaluation when using a sliding scale rating system rather than simply pass/fail. The government wouldn't necessarily have to go through the SBA's Certificate of Competency procedures if it doesn't select a firm where it doesn't have reasonable confidence that the firm will accomplish the tasks in the PWS within the specified timeframe. I didn't and don't intend to have to fully describe or justify the differences between go/no-go LPTA and trade-off processes, when making it clear to industry that price is the most important factor. I was simply suggesting that they might consider using the trade off process.
  5. LPTA Question

    If price is apparently the most important factor, how about using a trade off with price being significantly more important than the non-price factors? You can then use a technical capability/ risk rating scale(s) in the evaluation. You will stress price but then may be a bit more subjective in the capability rating and comparison.
  6. Voting member of a source selection board?

    Agreed, Retread
  7. Voting member of a source selection board?

    The policy coverage in FAR 7.503 of inherently governmental functions was added by FAC 90–37; FAR Case 92–051 Item I, published in the Fed Register on January 26, 1996. It implemented the policies of Office of Federal Procurement Policy (OFPP) Policy Letter 92–1, Inherently Governmental Functions. The applicable language came straight from APPENDIX 5 of Office of Federal Procurement Policy (OFPP) Policy Letter 92-1, "Inherently Governmental Functions", September 23, 1992. The term "voting member" was in that document. Nobody translated the OFPP language to FAR 15 language, which was then in 15.6 - and FAR 15.6 didn't discuss the evaluation process or source selection boards. Sorry that I cant specifically answer your question but I think that the FAR simply adopted terms from OFPP "speak" dating from at least as far (no pun intended) back as 1992.. edit: Ok, the above is essentially repeating what Retreadfed said earlier.
  8. Voting member of a source selection board?

    For DoD, "Voting" by source selection evaluation team voting members means essentially to adjudge by general agreement the ratings of proposal factors and subfactors for individual proposals and the underlying basis for them. That is consistent with one definition for "vote". One must "read between the lines" . Like I said, the evaluation process has evolved over the years. When I started in the late 80's, our organization had been adding up individual "numerical scores" for each factor, which I would say constitutes individual "voting.
  9. Voting member of a source selection board?

    Forr the Army, there is an ARMY SOURCE SELECTION SUPPLEMENT (AS3) TO THE DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE SOURCE SELECTION PROCEDURES at http://www.spd.usace.army.mil/Portals/13/docs/Small_Business/Army Source Selection Supplement (Dec 2012).pdf See Chapter 3 "EVALUATION AND DECISION PROCESS" for a general description of the "voting" process. As for why FAR discusses "voting", when DoD and Army don't use the term, I know that the source selection process has evolved over the years plus different agencies do things differently. When I started leading SS processes in the late 80's and early 90's, I had to read what I could find. For the DoD level and Army, there were no DoD-wide or Army-wide SS manuals. The Army Material Command had one that was eventually incorporated into the Army SS Manual. I also read every protest that I could find. I forget exactly when the guidance first mentioned reaching "consensus" and documenting any dissenting opinions for the SSA. I read "voting" to mean that each voting member has a voice in providing input and discussing the findings and conclusions of the evaluation team. Non-voting evaluation team members don't.
  10. Voting member of a source selection board?

    For DoD, "Voting" by source selection evaluation team voting members means essentially to adjudge by general agreement the ratings of proposal factors and subfactors for individual proposals and the underlying basis for them.
  11. Voting member of a source selection board?

    From the definition of the verb vote from Merriam-Webster: See 2a, regarding your comment that the outcome of a vote is not a consensus. Yes, it can be. For DoD, the objective is for the members of the evaluation team is come to a consensus opinion on the evaluation (or "to adjudge by general agreement" the results of an evaluation) of a particular proposal. The DoD document that I am to assume you read explains what to do when a team cant reach a consensus on what they are assigned to evaluate or report on. I already answered your question regarding WHAT they "vote" on and it is stated in the DoD source selection procedures that you said to assume that you know. An evaluation team may or may not develop rankings, depending upon the agency procedures. The evaluation board doesn't perform trade-offs When there is a Source Selection Advisory Council for a trade-off type SS, the SSAC may perform a tradeoff and make recommendations, obviously through some type of consensus procedure. If you read the documents that you referred to above, you would be familiar with the general roles and responsibilities of the different source selection team members for DoD acquisitions. If you read the documents and various protests, you know the answers to questions regarding who does what. I've been personally involved in approximately 90 source selections - it wasn't rocket science. It is a systematic process. It wasn't very difficult to come to a consensus on ratings and the underlying basis for those ratings for the source selections that I led or otherwise participated in. I also participated in writing the model proposal submission requirements and evaluation criteria and the general source selection procedures that were used on several hundred projects and contracts totaling tens of billions of dollars for Army MILCON design-build contracts used in support of the "Army Transformation" process between 2006 and 2013 or so. The key to "rating" each rated factor or subfactor is for the TEAM to agree on and document the underlying basis, such as strengths, weaknesses, compliance or deficiencies, uncertainties, risks, etc. Then the TEAM assigns a rating that corresponds with those documented comments, based on the rating scheme..
  12. Voting member of a source selection board?

    The term "voting member" refers to those persons assigned to evaluate proposals and determine or assign factor and sub factor ratings to proposals. Depending on the agency, the rating might be a numerical score or an adjectival rating. Also, depends on the agency whetheror not the team makes a recommendation for award. The "team" may be supported by technical experts or other subject matter advisors on technically complex evaluations who provide input to the "voting members". Depending upon the agency, the "voting team" might also consider and/or evaluate pricing.
  13. Read this. Read it NOW!

    I think General Lemay was barrel chested and stocky but not fat. "BUFF" isn't a reference to Lemay. It is an acronym for the B-52's nickname. It is "Big". I think it is a pretty plane for its time, not "Ugly". It is somewhat "Fat". It is definitely a "Frightening" experience for iits intended targets on the receiving end of a B-52 bombing run. Gen. Lemay prevailed over the Air Staff, who thought that the B-52 wasn't needed and who almost killed the program. Frank Lovejoy portrayed a look-alike, "General Hawkes", in the 1955 film, "Strategic Air Command", complete with the famous cigar that Lemay was noted for smoking/clenching. Jimmy Stewart - perhaps my all-time favorite actor- starred in the lead role, as Col. Dutch Holland. He was actually a Col. at the time in the Air Force Reserve, who flew Bombers in WW2 and in the Reserves. He was later a BG. It's one of my all-time favorite Air Force movies. At the Air Force Academy between 1967 and 1971, we probably saw it each year. I still watch it when I see it's showing on cable TV. I spent five years active duty in SAC at two SAC Bases with H-Model BUFFs. My nephew was a B-52H Navigator at Minot AFB. Nephew and I love BUFFs.
  14. Read this. Read it NOW!

    I'm guessing that it was Gen. Curtis E. Lemay or Gen George Kenney. Likely - Lemay
  15. paystubs

    Retread, good luck with getting a clarification. I'm not interested any more, unless the Specialist or KO used that specific term.
  16. paystubs

    I would want to see a redacted copy of the factual payroll record, not something newly created. I believe that is possible. As for (formerly known as) TINA vs non-TINA, untruthful statements or claims may have consequences (if the government cares enough to pursue) under the laws as applicable to the situation, e.g., False Statements, False Claims, fraud, "TINA", etc. EDIT: construction contractors routinely furnish redacted payroll info for hourly employees under their contracts and I have also seen partial info included for salaried employees.
  17. paystubs

    However, if the contractor is basing the price on actual costs for specific persons, which is factual information, then the facts must be verifiable and the names should be available to match the claimed costs. SSN and addresses are likely not necessary to verify.
  18. paystubs

    I will modify my earlier statements regarding construction contract requirements. Contractually required payroll information doesn't cover salaried, non-hourly paid workers that aren't covered by D-B wage rates. However, here a contractor or proposed contractor is apparently proposing a cost for negotiations that it maintains is reasonable because that is what it is paying an employee(s). Pursuant to FAR 31.201-3 (a) -- Determining Reasonableness and 15.402 (a) and (b), and 15.403-3 concerning requiring data other than cost or pricing data, if the KO needs additional data to determine that this is indeed a current cost for forward pricing or a claimed cost, then I think that the contractor should have to show that it is an actual cost. I don't think that it has to be certified cost or pricing data.
  19. paystubs

    Pat has apparently checked out of this discussion thread. I'm guessing that he got his answer.
  20. paystubs

    So, if there is no contract, you are saying that the KO is not entitled to information to verify what the contractor claims or states "on a proposal" that it is actually paying. I don't necessarily agree. If there is a service contract, the contract requires that the contractor allow access by the DOL to payroll information but not specifically access by the KO. However, if there is a proposal for a contract action under an existing service contract and the contractor is basing the proposed labor cost on what it states it is currently paying, I'd say that the KO might be entitled to information to verify the basis of the proposal. If the proposal is for a contract action under an existing construction contract, the answer is that not only is the government entitled to the information, the contractor must submit payroll information, including employee names, anyway. If there is no service or construction contract and the proposer is proposing pricing on the basis of stated current hourly rates or salaries, the KO might be entitled to information to verify the basis of the proposal. Pat did not say whether or not there is an existing contract - only that he/she is a contractor.
  21. paystubs

    Another good question. I hope Pat will provide the full context of the situation. It is impossible to provide a definitive response based upon the scenario described in the "Original Post". Years ago , when I was the construction "professor" for DAU's "Ask a Professor", I almost always had to contact the questioner to fully explain the context of their question. if I could actually discuss the question with the questioner orally, I would. As an "old fart", I have a fundamental problem with the tendency these days to communicate in "sound bites" and to carry on conversations as though they are text messages.
  22. paystubs

    Vern, I'm not sure if there is an existing contract or if this is a new contract proposal. Pat should clarify that and what he/she means by "pay stubs".
  23. paystubs

    Construction? By "pay stubs" do you mean "payroll" records? If this is a construction contract, see Contract clause 52.222-8 , Payrolls and Basic Records. You should already be submitting the information that the specialist needs, on a weekly basis per paragraph b. Paragraph c. of the clause requires you to provide access to all the payroll records that you must maintain under paragraph a. of the clause to the KO or its authorized representative. EDIT: oops I misread the original post. Are you referring to a proposal for a change or for a new contract? If a new contract, please clarify how payroll records would apply to the new contract. Thx
  24. Read this. Read it NOW!

    When was "Contracting great" Gordon? To me, "again" implies to me that "Contracting" or "the Contracting profession" was once great but isn't now. I DO know and have known some great individual KO's. When was Contracting largely, overall great? I assume that you are using an informal definition of "great", referring to "the contracting profession" as, for instance, "impressive" or "grand". Otherwise, some definitions of "great" are comparative to the "average" state or condition, e.g, "better than average". If so, when was or is the Contracting profession "average"? Just wondering what you mean by "MAKE CONTRACTING GREAT AGAIN"...😀
×