Jump to content
The Wifcon Forums and Blogs

C Culham

Members
  • Content count

    943
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by C Culham

  1. I had the same thoughts of h2h about who would adopt the "may" option and then I began thinking about the CO that does want take advantage of the "may" and played it out in my mind. Not sure I have it right but.... First scenario - The DoD does market research. It determines that there adequate small businesses to set aside the procurement. All small businesses are non-traditional defense contractors so the DoD decides to use Commercial Item acquisition procedures without having to do a commercial item determination. Offers responding do not have to provide Certified Cost or Pricing Data. Or another- – The DoD does market research. DoD determines not to set aside and it is a procurement that does not use Commercial Item acquisition procedures. The DoD also determines that adequate competition will not occur and includes DFARS Clause 252.215-7070. A small business responds and states it is a non-traditional defense contractor and states that it is not providing certified cost or pricing data. The CO treats the supplies/services of the non-traditional defense contractor as if they are commercial items and agrees that cost or pricing data is not required. In the first scenario I think I have it right but what about the second one? It seems that DoD has forgotten or has on purpose failed to give the “may” option to CO’s with regard to DFARS Clause 252.215-7010 as there is no exception available to the CO if the offeror is a non-traditional DoD contractor.
  2. Not saying this is spot on but may help. https://www.gao.gov/products/D12059#mt=summary
  3. Quick two questions to help - 1. You asked the CO but the PM replied? Might want to ask the CO if the PM's response is the official response. 2. Does the TO carry any extension language beyond that carried in the parent IDIQ?
  4. C Culham

    how to structure emergency service

    An honest man and a perfect example of how to achieve Platinum membership and brag about it, lordy!
  5. C Culham

    how to structure emergency service

    Well I see the Gang of Three is alive and well... Vern - You forgot one part of the scenario - possibility of a 5 year need so maybe 25 valued at $25,000 and 100 valued at who know what? This chief of contracting thinks it has bearing. .I disappointed that you want to invent what you believe my purpose is. I could care less on what you posted in the past as it relates to this thread. I use WIFCON as a primary research tool before I head other directions. My search has nothing to do with inconsistency it had to do with doing the research while at the same time remembering I had post in the past on the matter of competition, BPA's as an easy way to find Logan and Envirosolve. Nothing more nothing less. Don -But the hourly effort may be only part of the need and lots of variables too. It would be very interesting to see if the plumber down the street would in fact give a standing quote for the specific scenario being discussed here. My hands on experience is that they most likely would not. Matthew - I would appreciate it if you would hold off on any comments that are based on false impression and false information attributed to me. You are more than welcome to ask me directly and then fashion your posts based on my direct response. I think doing so would add value to the discussion rather than detracting from it. Thanks!
  6. C Culham

    how to structure emergency service

    Vern - Thank you. Not 100% convinced but see where you are going. On the urgency matter GAO did opine in the decision an "if" with regard to single source at least by my read. In the end if me I would compete (advertise in FBO)the need for the BPA's. Taking the time to do so makes sense to me and fits the rotational view better in my view. But, to each their own. I agree but still would offer that a firm contract would not be overkill if the OP wanted a stronger guarantee of a vendor to provide the service. Your ECO concept could work with such a procurement instrument. Lionel Hutz- Appreciate your heads up but what you note is the reason I specifically mentioned "competitively" in my question. Not that it matters but I might have been the first to bring both Logan and Envirosolve to the forefront of the WIFCON Forum (see below) based on issues I had to address when working at an agency that was called to task by GAO for having rotational BPAs that were issued without competition. This brings me to a thought that will probably be lost but folks like the OP in doing their research should consider the WIFCON Forum as a research tool, it is a great asset. If a Before Your Post would have been done the OP would have found these to help in the office "debate". http://www.wifcon.com/discussion/index.php?/topic/2349-competitive-far-part-13-bpa/&tab=comments#comment-20180 Joel - Not sure how your example fits and no need to respond but I am guessing local COE needs were not urgent and anticipate that the BPA's as established were not competitively (FBO advertised) established. All in all relationship to the specific needs, questions, and issues relayed by the OP leave me wondering. Great day to all!!!!!
  7. C Culham

    how to structure emergency service

    Vern - How does your overall suggestion that includes rotational use of the BPA's without competitively establishing the BPA's comply with the standard that competition to the maximum extent practicable is being obtained? Basis for my question is a full read of this decision by GAO - http://www.wifcon.com/cgen/2949744.pdf - wherein GAO states with regard to purchase orders issued against a BPA that - "Additionally, while DEA states that it plans to treat all competitors fairly by rotating the issuance of noncompetitive purchase orders among them, such action also does not comply with applicable competition requirements."
  8. C Culham

    how to structure emergency service

    It seems that these were the questions of the OP which have been attempted to be answered.
  9. C Culham

    how to structure emergency service

    Whether a competitive BPA as suggested or a requirements as suggested for the former what do you do with a contractor who refuses, once, twice or more, kick them to the BPA curb? For the latter if you want a guarantee that they will be available you will pay for it but you retain the unilateral right to order. Their failure to honor the TO would mean T4D for the contract. So you need to decide what you want an economical and simple tool where the contractor can always refuse at anytime and you have to start dialing for dollars for someone who will meet your need or a firm contract that requires performance. You insist on need to respond but how the heck do you do the dialing on Sunday or Midnight when multiple vendors just do not answer the phone? The ability of a firm contract (requirements or ???) establishes and provides a better guarantee that the contractor will set up an adequate response system. On the funding issue I do not get it. You either have money budgeted for the anticipated repairs or you do not and it should just be sitting there for the commitment when the BPA call or requirements TO is issued. If the money is really the issue, which again escapes me, but if it is then do a Time and Materials contract that demands the response. I have paraphrased the FAR below and added emphasis...... BPA - A blanket purchase agreement (BPA) is a simplified method of filling anticipated repetitive needs for supplies or services by establishing “charge accounts” with qualified sources of supply. BPAs should be established for use by an organization responsible for providing supplies for its own operations or for other offices, installations, projects, or functions. Such organizations, for example, may be organized supply points, separate independent or detached field parties, or one-person posts or activities. The use of BPAs does not exempt an agency from the responsibility for keeping obligations and expenditures within available funds. The following are circumstances under which contracting officers may establish BPAs: There is a wide variety of items in a broad class of supplies or services that are generally purchased, but the exact items, quantities, and delivery requirements are not known in advance and may vary considerably. There is a need to provide commercial sources of supply for one or more offices or projects in a given area that do not have or need authority to purchase otherwise. The use of this procedure would avoid the writing of numerous purchase orders. There is no existing requirements contract for the same supply or service that the contracting activity is required to use. Requirements - Application. (1) A requirements contract may be appropriate for acquiring any supplies or services when the Government anticipates recurring requirements but cannot predetermine the precise quantities of supplies or services that designated Government activities will need during a definite period. Time and Materials - Application. A time-and-materials contract may be used only when it is not possible at the time of placing the contract to estimate accurately the extent or duration of the work or to anticipate costs with any reasonable degree of confidence. See 12.207(b) for the use of time-and-material contracts for certain commercial services.
  10. C Culham

    how to structure emergency service

    By experience. The BPA route lacks the ability to unilaterally order the emergency services that either a indefinite delivery requirements or single award IDIQ contract would allow. The contractor under a BPA would usually respond but there were times when he/she would not and caused the need and extra effort to go beyond the BPA.
  11. C Culham

    Multiple Award Schedule

    Of course Vern's guidance is spot on but actually ContractSpecialistTJohn you have peeked my further interest.... You said So my bad I guess for assuming you meant a GSA MAS contract which from my experience and actual confirmation before my post contain the 52.216-18 clause. The term "Schedule" was my basis for going straight to the FAR clause. Now you say So what agency and what contract as I would be interested in seeing it for myself if available on a public facing website to read what clause they decided not to flow to the order level and how they stated the deviation to do so? Thanks
  12. C Culham

    Multiple Award Schedule

    Do you mean FAR 52.216-18?
  13. Joel - Agreed. Noting this here is my view. FAR 1.102-4(e) states ".........absence of direction should be interpreted as permitting the Team to innovate and use sound business judgment that is otherwise consistent with law and within the limits of their authority. Contracting officers should take the lead in encouraging business process innovations and ensuring that business decisions are sound.” FAR 36.602 provides direction for the steps for selection of an A-E firm and provides no direction with regard to securing price information from contractors during the selection process. A full read of either selection process (board or short) provides that seeking of price information begins after selection of the “most preferred” ( not necessarily the highest qualified) firm. FAR 36.606 provides that to start the negotiation process one is to follow FAR Part 15 processes which provides that an RFP would be issued at this point. Again the “selection process” has no direction to seek price information pursuant to FAR Part 15 the negotiation process does. Summarized A-E selection is a step process by direction, select first then seek pricing second. As there is no absence of direction in FAR subpart FAR 36.6 one can not spin their own to develop a new process. Further this step process as provided in FAR subpart 16.5 is to be followed in placing orders under multiple or multi-agency IDIQ contracts. In a different view in the OP’s process I even see a hiccup where it is stated that “All other price proposals remain confidential to include omission from the contract file.” This mere fact raises concern in that if they are in fact omitted from the contract file and successful negotiations fail with the most preferred firm how does one retrieve the next in line – its not a part of the contract file? Semantics maybe but does raise more question. All in all the OP’s agency process for selecting A-E’s for task orders may be seen as innovative but it carries several instances where it does not follow the direction of the FAR. At the very least I would have a deviation in the contract file to support the process being used at the most I would follow the step process, evaluate capabilities then seek pricing information through the FAR Part 15 process.
  14. Joel - I agree with your most recent post as it is my understanding too. So as I posed before - So why not ask for proposal/quotes from A-E offerors at the get go (when they submit 330's or revised 330's) for ALL A-E needs whether a standalone contract or for an IDIQ task order if you think the process that Rookie is using is both compliant with the Act and the FAR?
  15. Sorry that you feel that way, but you did ask this - And now state this - I guess your latest statement is based on the discussion in this thread. Thanks
  16. Ok I guess I am the rookie as I am confused. Let me try this. You agree that when selecting an A-E for a IDIQ parent contract you don't (aren't) considering price of the other firms, correct? And that such a process is in accordance with FAR subpart 36.6, correct? Next do you agree when selecting a contractor under an A-E IDIQ multiple award contract you must follow FAR subpart 36.6? If yes, then why is it any different than awarding the parent contracts in that you do not consider price to make the selection of the contractor? In either case you are not to consider price of "the other firms" correct? I guess I just don't get it when you say in one case (parent IDIQ) you "aren't considering price..." and in the other case (task order) you imply you are. Seems to me you are gaming FAR subpart 36.6 to read any old way you want it to read. Bottom line I agree with what has been stated in this thread, that the Brooks Act does not prevent the government from asking for A-E's to submit pricing with their response to a public announcement for an A-E project. As noted doing so is highly out of the ordinary. However to me both the Act and FAR 36.602-1 are clear that ANY contractor selected for a A-E contract (and a task order is a contract) that such selection is based on technical qualifications only and not "price proposals/quotes". Once the A-E is selected as the most qualified the only consideration with regard to price is whether you can reach "a mutually satisfactory" contract with that firm. "Satisfactory" would not only be fair and reasonable price but other stuff (competence and qualifications) that the A-E will bring to the contract effort. Again you really have confused me with the above quote as it implies you are considering price to determine who gets a task order award?1?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?
  17. Here is my uneasy feeling as this discussion continues.... It seems clear from all the FAR references provided that FAR subpart 36.6 processes apply to selecting an A-E off of a multi-agency or multiple award IDIQ contract for a task order. If my read is correct and based on further comments the question raised by OP and responses provided goes further than just IDIQs nd specifically to this..... When conducting any procurement pursuant to FAR 36.6, can the Government request pricing proposals from all A-E firms responding to a specific need? It seems this thread is saying YES to this question which creates for me that uneasy feeling and if it was ok to do (yes I understand innovation so do not throw that at me) why not just have A-E proposals submitted in the same manner as proposals are submitted with regard to FAR Part 15 and as quotes are submitted for FAR Parts 13 and 12. Could be another place has been found to reduce the volume of the FAR, or maybe not!
  18. Matthew - Sorry for my delay I was fighting winds in Denver and endless flight delays, yep for two days. I guess your crystal ball is better than mine as my read couldn't figure out one way or the other whether they were multi-agency contracts. Thank you Rookie and Vern for the clarification.....
  19. Vern - Did your response consider FAR subpart 16.505(a)(9)?
  20. C Culham

    Bid Protests: GAO or the Courts

    Fashioned after the "Vaccine Court", maybe?
  21. Well I wasn't but now I am........... I would like to see the entire contract or at least the publically issued solicitation please before I respond further. I know, pipe dream but all the same I have seen several threads like this that always do not provide all the facts. Is this a new requirement or a contract that has been in place for lets say several years? Not saying right or wrong yet but if for some reason what is occurring has been so then maybe, just maybe, there is a legit reason why it is so. And no ill will intended p5tMike but exactly what is your position in the acquisition hierarchy. CO, contract specialist, inspector, interested program person, new to the procurement, been seeing this for days, months, years, or contractor employee as I am not sure what you mean by "my COR"? Overall from my point of view it seems there is a lot missing to provide a reasoned response. I can guess like others and my guess might be good advice and might be the same as others but then there is......oh well I can only dream!
  22. Adopt FAR subpart 12.6 as the standard.
  23. CF - You may want to wade through this website as it may assist as well.... https://www.dol.gov/whd/govcontracts/eo13706/faq.htm#IOLPTO4
  24. FAR coverage is adequate.....adding one more Act to require contracting entities to make responsibility determinations or otherwise determine if a contractor can deliver is a waste of pen and ink. PS - I wonder if the Press Release is click bait as the letter it references and links to is about immigration! Lordy!
×