dwgerard

Any particular reason they do not know what labor categories they actually need? In my experience, that information was known, and many times the proposals had alternative categories based on the contractors reading of the solicitation package.

To me, it sounds like the Program Office is either lazy or simply not creative enough to figure out what they need. Both are likely to impact the solicitation in a negative way, and in other areas, so tread carefully whatever you end up doing.

In my workplace, several of the contractor personnel have been seeking government jobs as they perceive those jobs to be more secure.

In my case, the biggest effect of the current environment is that contractors that are seeking or have government contracts are MUCH more responsive and agressive in their communications. I have yet to face any protests or claims as a result, but I believe that all of us in general may begin to see such a trend should this environment continue for much longer, which is likely in my opinion.

No matter what they do in Congress, or from the White House, this environment will not change until the American people begin to trust business and government again. Nothing I see on TV or read in the papers does anything about that, and throwing money at the problem will make it worse.

One thing that came to mind when I read this new Executive Order is that the new adminstration is giving with one hand in this case, but taking with the other hand.

An example is something President Obama said in his inaugural speech: "The question we ask today is not whether government is too big or too small, but whether it works."

The Washington Post had an article today titled "Federal Contracting System in Serious Disrepair", an article which says "The solution to fixing the broken system is not wholesale contractor cutbacks to reach numerical targets, but making sure we know what contractors should be doing and a transparent way of determining whether we are getting true value."

How does rewarding the contractors who did not win a competition, or may not have even submitted a bid or proposal, fit into that what the President or the author of the Washington Post article proposes?

And for that matter, the Post had an article titled "The Federal Gov's Broken Hiring Process" published on December 9th. If the Government cannot hire its own employees properly and efficiently, how will it handle contractors any better?

At what point do we just trash the whole Federal system and start over again?

A cardinal change not purely defined by the change in price. Such a change is when the prospective change is outside of the scope ultimately presented to the contractors to bid/propose against, and was subsequently incorporated into the contract.

It is possible that the increase in price is not a cardinal change if it was contemplated in that scope of work. That could happen in cases where the work would be conducted in phases, where a small effort would eventually lead to a larger effort as the work progressed.

This information is in accordance with my understanding of the FAR and my study of the Government Contract Changes text by Ralph Nash (3rd Ed.)

In your case, it is possible that the Contracting Officer has determined that the scope used to award the contract has indeed been changed to the point that no contractor could have concluded that it would be changed in such a fashion, thereby becoming a cardinal change by definition. That the price went up so drastically is a symptom of such a change, but it by itself is not neccessarily the cardinal change.

The US Army ACA command and the Directorate of Contracting has a journeyman level of GS-11 as of a few years ago. That has created problems as those GS-11's often leave a year after they reach that level for GS-12 and GS-13 journeyman level positions.

I brought that up a number of times at DOC Ft. Benning and they pretty much ignored it. Now I am with DHS in Dallas and the journeyman level here is GS-13. Seems they would figure that out, but then again the only people at Ft. Benning who come to WIFCON have already left or are not in the 1102 career field to begin with.

Regarding the thread topic, I have heard of a few people refusing a warrant as they did not want to spend their days looking at other peoples work, choosing instead to produce their own work. Not a greatly career enhancing move in their cases, but if they did not want a promotion, career enhancement was not a big deal to begin with.

Personally, I do want to progress in my career, so I sought a warrant as soon as I was qualified for one. Yes, it is added responsiblities without added pay, but as with many investments, the payoff comes later when I am found to be worthy for promotions into leadership positions. A big way to prove that worth is to be a leader first, and a Contracting Officer can be a much greater leader than someone who is an unwarranted Contract Specialist.

So long as you have met the minimum requirement for that ID/IQ contract, you should be able to seek other contractors for that service or product. I have seen it where the terms of the contract guaranteed that the ID/IQ contract holder would have first opportunity, but if their cost was too high we could seek other sources.

And when the option year comes around for the ID/IQ contract, does your organization plan to execute the next option? Has anyone brought up the overly generous profit issue yet? And the time to prepare for a new solicitiation is alway now, regardless of when you will need a replacement contract.

The reason the MSMO contracts do not have the price for future options listed in the contract is that the contractor is allowed to inspect a vessel before work begins and then negotiate the price of the work based on the condition of the ship.

There is enough variation in each vessel that even similar work packages can have a wide variance in price. If the Navy tried to pre-price the work, it would likely result in even higher costs as the vendor would have to assume each vessel was as poor as the worst in order to protect his company from losses.

In addition, the actual MSMO work packages are not identical for each vessel in the class of ships that the contract deals with. One ship in an earlier phase of construction may not have the same equipment of a vessel constructed later in time. During the MSMO phase, which maintains a previously constructed vessel, equipment that was added or changed during the construction phase is updated in earlier vessels so that each ship's capabilities are equalized.

Work packages that are considered upon the award of a MSMO contract also change based upon how much funding is allocated to the contract per vessel. That amount sometimes changes based on various environmental and management functions, and of course political factors count too.

All of these reasons are part of why the amounts are not listed. When I worked for NAVSEASYSCOM in Code 024 on MSMO contracts, we only listed the prices for CLINS where we already had the vessel work package finalized and the vendor had inspected the vessel and agreed to the pricing. The balance of CLINS were left blank until they too were finalized and agreed upon. SUPSHIP is the organization that negotiaed the CLIN prices after the contracts had been awarded as the ACO organization.

I always thought that RFQ's and RFP's were somewhat synonymous in that they were offers, as opposed to IFB's which were bids. RFQ's and RFP's are from FAR 15 while IFB's are from FAR 14, so perhaps perhaps an "offer" can be either a "quote" or a "proposal". Otherwise, we might have something called an RFO, or Request for Offers.

I remember hearing that from one of my DAU classes, but I do not have all my course material here in my new office.

Another good reason to invest in the Cibnic and Nash books, as I am sure this discussion is somewhere in their writings. I just got my first; Government Contract Changes (3rd), and it is a gold mine!

How many protests do you see in the list below?

1. The Boeing Company, B-311344; B-311344.3; B-311344.4; B-311344.6; B-311344.7; B-311344.8; B-311344.10; B-311344.11, June 18, 2008

2. Lockheed Martin Aeronautics Company; L-3 Communications Integrated Systems L.P.; BAE Systems Integrated Defense Solutions, Inc., B-295401, B-293401.2, B-295401.3, B-295401.4, B-295401.5, B-295401.6, B-295401.7, B-295401.8, February 24, 2005.

Is it: a.) 2, b.) 16, c.) not enough information?

For help see wifcon.com.

I believe the answer is A.) 2, however knowing a little about the two companies, that answer may not be true in the future as continuing protests may beget more protests!

In my organization, the Program Office is responsible for writing the Advanced Acquisition Plan, but the Contracting Officer approves the document. I usually re-write at least a portion of the AAP's I receive, and the same goes for the Statements of Work, and just about anything else that comes in from the Program Office.

I take responsibility for the whole process once the request is submitted, and carry that through to contract award. Post award is more difficult as we do not even see the invoices anymore when they are submitted or processed. I would like to change that, but I am not having much success in my field office, let along the organization as a whole. Right now the Program Offices have way too much control over post-award adminstration, which may be a function of our office beinging centralized and not where the actual work is occuring.

The way we have always done it is the right way to do it. Substitute just about anything for "it", including solicitations, contracts, DO's, etc.

I often have said that anyone who uses that logic is guilty of felony stupid, but perhaps that is a bit harsh.