joel hoffman

Bottom line is, read the contract and BPA, read the task order and ask the applicable government KO(s).

I agree with this question.

The production orders for the KC-46 will be separately priced. LPTA was used to win the FPIF base contract. With the award at risk do you think for a minute that the proposal was “realistically” priced? I have no idea what the government price analysis team did.

What are the differences between key contract personnel and non-key personnel duties and job responsibilities ? What do they do that non-key personnel can’t or don’t do???

The statement that “Normally effective price competition results in realistic pricing…” isn’t necessarily true. Witness the convoluted, politically driven Air Force Tanker replacement debacle where the public was told that the contract would be fixed price with Lowest priced technically acceptable offer as the basis of award. What they didn’t say was that the initial award was going to be Fixed Price Incentive and that the winner significantly lowballed its pricing. I think that CPIF would have been equally or more ineffective. See, for instance, https://www.rand.org/pubs/research_reports/RRA1676-1.html The competition itself was cutthroat…

Depends upon the nature and type of work, contract pricing methodology (e.g.,Cost,FFP, FPI, etc), size, complexity, extent of specialization vs. routine employees and supervision, etc. Do you have a representative sample scenario? You said Level of effort - Cost plus fixed fee. Can many different persons qualify for the various technical or management positions? What are you evaluating regarding key personnel for and why? What is the purpose for designating and evaluating key personnel? Are they discriminators between firms? Etc.

I agree that an out of scope mod could use whatever funds are appropriate. Yes it matters where the funds come from. The Tzarina was asking whether they could use the leftover funding. Maybe, maybe not, depending upon the type of funds left over from the completed efforts for a new effort in a new fiscal year..

True enough…

Agree.

But if the bonafide need for the existing funds has been satisfied, are the surplus funds still available for a new purpose in a new fiscal year? It would seem that the next year funding, which would be available for the new year’s efforts, should be used if there is a delay in awarding the new contract for the same work that an extension of the existing contract will accomplish?? EDIT: As the Tzarina eventually explained , she wants to use leftover funding for work that was completed in the past fiscal year to fund a bridge effort in the next FY until a delayed new contract can be awarded.

But if the bonafide need for the existing funds has been satisfied, are the surplus funds still available for a new purpose in a new fiscal year?

Probably William Proxmire.

Depends upon the circumstances. Recommend reading, for instance, the WIFCON Legal pages for the Bonafide Needs Rule. Also appears that you are saying that this will be a bridge for period prior to award of or start of a follow on T&M services contract for similar efforts.

Of course not! Reread the clause; “…total extension of performance hereunder shall not exceed six months” means just that.

In a conflict of interest law suit? Sure it would. That’s not conflict of interest. And the contractor should be raising every issue of incorrect interpretation of contract requirements to the appropriate government personnel (e.g., the QA rep’s supervisors). If a contractor sued one of our QA reps without doing that, I can guarantee they would likely never again win a best value contract award. it could possibly become a responsibility issue and would also likely be reflected in the performance rating.

The contractor’s site safety and health position generally doesn’t encompass the quality assurance duties of the government QA position or (usually) the corresponding quality control duties of the contractor. However, all QA personnel in the USACE (Corps of Engineers), as well as any other USACE site personnel have the duty to enforce the contract safety requirements. If the QA person has knowledge of unsafe contractor practices, they can and should act accordingly. I don’t see any “conflict of interest” here, unless the QA person is treating the contractor unfairly, acting in bad faith, arbitrarily or capriciously, etc. (e.g., an obvious vendetta). If Boomer believes that the QA person is wrongly interpreting the contract requirements, Boomer should raise that and any other behavioral issues to the appropriate government representatives and/or the KO.

Proving purposeful intent can be difficult… It may just be lack of competence and/or inexperience in the job.

Boomer, I hope I didn’t incite you! 🤪 I think you meant “insight” 🤠 However, you believe that: They may or may not be attitude problems but could be performance issues. I recommend that you document and at least discuss the differences of fact or opinion with a COR or other government official orally plus formally in writing. Like you said, they government might be able to connect the dots. Good luck!!

What was the person’s “key personnel position” role and how does that relate to their current “key inspection position” role? The person wasn’t an employee of your company. Are they now unfairly treating your company? I had a friend who was the “office engineer” (contract admin role) in one of our ten Corps of Engineers Resident Offices on the construction of the Tennessee-Tombigbee Waterway, which was a major Civil Works Project in the 1980’s. He was previously employed on one of the several large construction prime contracts under that Resident Office. They weren’t happy. They later submitted a claim on the contract. He knew all the facts about the situation. Of course, he advised the KO during the claims review. The claim had no merit.

If your situation is real and if you have an attorney, this is pretty basic knowledge for anyone who reads protests. In particular, the attorney should easily be able to research the question, if non-attorneys here can provide it. I’m also aware of the scenario but didn’t respond as others already were providing the information.

In a cost contract you must be transparent to the government about the makeup of your rates and the details of your direct and indirect costs…

It’s negotiated contract pricing. I wouldn’t necessarily have a problem with the contractor proposing different salaries for the different persons, with separate pricing.

I didn’t understand your comment. In a cost reimbursement contract, what level of invoicing detail are you intending to provide the government??

The SCA rates are minimums, aren’t they? I don’t see why there couldn’t be multiple contract rates. Is this a negotiated contract or is there only one line/subline item for admin assistant positions in a solicitation?

My recommendation is to Ditch them. You can’t properly manage the cost reimbursement subcontract without cost or budget data, which would effectively require the government to do it.