Jump to content
The Wifcon Forums and Blogs

C Culham

  • Posts

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by C Culham

  1. Could be....below is from the reference I already provided. I had this thought from the get go. What does the CO say about the situation? Per the OP we have one COR talking to another. It would seem the CO is the one that has the say. c. Administrative property typically does not meet the definition of GFP; however, the terms and conditions of the contract may dictate otherwise. Before establishing formal GFP records for administrative property when no previous accountable property record has been established, the responsible APO must determine, in coordination with the contracting officer or legal counsel, if the property can be designated as “incidental to place of performance” as defined in Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) Part 45.000(b)(5). When administrative property can be so designated, a formal GFP record is not required. If the property does not meet “incidental to place of performance” criteria, the responsible APO must establish a formal GFP record.
  2. Alternative #1 - Oh what the heck tell your other COR not to worry, after all the leaders of Forum think it is a trivial matter and are hung up on ASPR and where to find it. No big deal that some contractor employees are running around with official government laptops which allow access to who knows what, just move along. Especially when the leaders give off the cuff responses without reference. Alternative #2 - Don't get hung up on typos everyone including me , make them in Forum. Do some due diligence as the property you are talking about is very important to the security of the United States and maybe talk to somebody at MICC. Or do some reading, it is advocated in Forum, and figure out that there is guidance and that guidance is found here - https://www.esd.whs.mil/Portals/54/Documents/DD/issuances/dodi/500064p.pdf. And most importantly the guidance provides this ( I added the emphasis) - a. Accountable property records will be established in an APSR for: (5) Property of any value provided to a contractor as government furnished property (GFP).
  3. Good advice. @brian1970 I do like doing initial research on questions posed in Forum. I found this that might help you, not specifically, but to wrap your arms around the whole of TAA.
  4. Yep but all the same...cherry picked quotes from a Department CLP memo....one I am familiar with but I am willing to bet there are others! It might be dated yet demonstrates a viewpoint that I do not think has changed. "...Monitoring progress and completion of continuous learning (CL) is a joint effort between an employee, their Supervisor, and the Bureau CL Manager (typically the ACM designated in the USDA agencies (ACMD))..." "...FAITAS will indicate when employees complete the required number of CLPs for maintaining certification. The employee must then submit a CL Achievement Request for their supervisor’s approval; once approved, the request will be reviewed for approval by the Bureau CL Manager (BCLM). The BCLM is the final approver for accepting CL events and their associated CL points (CLPs). CLPs will not be accepted for attending duplicative events (courses, seminars, conferences, etc.) within a four year period...."
  5. Agreed but by experience the OFPP guidance is just that and agencies have adopted the government centric view even when the supervisor suggests strongly to approve the CLP's. One more nail in the coffin for OFPP effectiveness.
  6. The quotes I have picked are not to dwell on each but to further an element that is missed in the discussion with regard personal commitment. Directing my comments towards the civilian side of the house I have always wondered why what I will call "life experiences" do not count for much. I agree that to an extent life experiences are noted such as being an avid and broad reader but if one looks at the FAI certification and what is noted as core competencies there is a whole world where they can be achieved. Yet when it comes to CLP's to support "continuous learning" the professional is solely directed to knowledge and assets with emphasis that are government centric. Some how personal commitment should be acknowledged and a persons outside interests acknowledged and given credit. Being a professional does not stop at the door of the Federal building. To quickly try to get to my point why isn't doing things like achieving a USCG Captains License, meeting qualifications standards and having experience in court mediation programs , participating substantially in civic activities such as serving on a planning commission, a city's budget committee, being an officer of the board and otherwise active with an NGO, acknowledged as ways to achieve competencies? If acknowledged officially maybe doing so is a measure of personal commitment as well?
  7. Or maybe, based on most recent discussion the need for OFPP?
  8. This makes me wonder......while not completely during my professional career yet during most of it I have found WIFCON to be of great use. I could be biased when I read the quote but made me wonder what the age is of those posting questions in Forum....the 7% or ?
  9. So what does one of the CLINs for the contract look like? I am use to seeing them for food services to indicate meals, snacks, or something like the following.... ITEM NO SUPPLIES/SERVICES MAX QUANTITY UNIT UNIT PRICE MAX AMOUNT 0001 Breakfast FFP Breakfast as described at paragraph 5.14 of the Performance Work Statement.. 68,000 EA $___________ $______________
  10. Have you visited here - https://gsaschedule.com/reporting-compliance/novation-change-of-name/
  11. The how and implied why to evaluate a simplified acquisition (both non-commercial and commercial) is stated in the FAR. The very "Purpose" of which is to promote efficiency and minimize burden. "(T)two TEP's" for a "Quote" for mowing and sprinkler maintenance is not efficient and is burdensome on contractors and the agency and therefore questionable exercise of authority. Heck the very fact that there was a post regarding the hypothetical proves the point. If the OP wanted to simply ask if a CO can do anything they want when it comes to establishing TEP's that is whole different story, and yes that question has been answered and one which I do not disagree with and have stated same in this thread. The OP did not do that, their hypothetical subject for asking was a quote. You know where you did! At the above quote I did not utter a word. I did when you started with your subsequent posts and you know which ones. So to be clear I saw the Hear Hear post, read it, did not respond to it and appreciated it. The extreme was started by you after I responded, again respectfully, to your question.
  12. It is not extreme. In this thread I have simply suggested that for a hypothetical whose very subject is a simple commercial item procurement that the CO should have two TEPs. They can but I disagree on the basis of the following and the rest of the guiding principles of the FAR which suggests doing so is not commensurate with the guiding principles and possibly not a permissible exercise of authority. "The Federal Acquisition System will- (1) Satisfy the customer in terms of cost, quality, and timeliness of the delivered product or service by, for example- (i) Maximizing the use of commercial products and commercial services; (ii) Using contractors who have a track record of successful past performance or who demonstrate a current superior ability to perform; and (iii) Promoting competition; (2) Minimize administrative operating costs; (3) Conduct business with integrity, fairness, and openness; and (4) Fulfill public policy objectives."
  13. Darn it Vern you bait and bait and bait. Read the posts, read them! You do hedge your bets just like editing your most recent post. You see I screen shot what I see and that makes me react. You changed it and you know it but you still left it worded to bait me. Overall it is the third in a line of snide remarks made to others but aimed at me when all that I did was politely answer your question and then you started with the crap. Reading the posts will clearly show the trail. Your gamesmanship is backhanded and I just won't just sit by and let the stream at me. There are a million ways to contribute to the pool and I have done so!
  14. Now, now I think you have forgotten history. I was swimming with whales, inclusive of you and many others, in the early years. Your migration was admittedly far reaching but that does not mean that the route I took was any less. You want to deem it so but in the end I was in the pod whether you acknowledge it or not. And by the way I think there are many in my pod that would acknowledge that appropriate credit to you was acknowledged in my migration. Too bad you feel a want to stomp on it being so every chance you get. Swim on!
  15. Come on Vern, jump in the pool you will like it. After all you hedge your bets all the time. In truth every darn contracting question is " it depends". When the question hits adjudication neither you or I have the last word, the courts or equal do, and for them it even depends on facts not hypotheticals.
  16. Or better market research, or sealed bidding, or no TEP......it just depends! Life goes on!
  17. Difference of opinion. For clarity what I am saying is the TEP is not required by the FAR for a quote, or even a RFP ( team yes but not panel). Agency supplement or policy might require a panel but it is not required by the FAR. I do agree the CO can do anything they want including establishing a TEP for any procurement, even a micro-purchase. So what is too far? The very reason the Federal procurement process is in disarray is because the general rule of simplified procurements has been so distorted into being like FAR part 15 procurements. Won't count for much but the best interest of the Government is to keep it simple, the FAR echo's this strongly. I appreciate the view but as it goes I am settled in mine.
  18. Yeah I know but I struggle as usual as you all are saying go for it because the CO says so but is the CO doing so a proper exercise of authority? I really question that it is. Could it not be that the strategy for two TEP's for a quote (commercial or not) is not in the best interests of the Government and using a TEP for a quote (commercial or not) is addressed in the FAR (regulation) as not required therefore doing so is not a permissible exercise of authority? Dumb hypothetical!
  19. Are you sure? FAR 12.205 "(a) Where technical information is necessary for evaluation of offers, agencies should, as part of market research, review existing literature generally available in the industry to determine its adequacy for purposes of evaluation. If adequate, contracting officers shall request existing product or service literature from offerors of commercial products or commercial services in lieu of unique technical proposals." The idea of a TEP for a commercial service akin to mowing and sprinkler servicing is dumb. I will agree the FAR gives the CO authority to have two TEP's YET FAR references and dare I say agency supplements on the subject places the imperative or the expected course of action for a TEP and I would submit that for a RFQ, noncommercial or commercial that expected course of action is no TEP. As with any the thread unless the CO/KO is in violation of statute or regulation they can do anything they like but in some cases what they do is dumb!
  20. Quotes.....quotes! My view no TEP whether one or two, no FAR part 15. Simply get the quotes determine the best alternative as the overall best value and make the dang award. Even though hypothetical if the work is really not complex but akin to mowing grass and servicing a sprinkler system and the solicitation is really an RFQ the KO is making the whole process unnecessarily complex. FAR 13.106-2 and lots of Forum threads on how to evaluate quotes says so!
  21. Regarding CPARS there is the below standard. "...Agency evaluations of contractor performance, including both negative and positive evaluations, prepared under this subpart shall be provided to the contractor as soon as practicable after completion of the evaluation. The contractor will receive a CPARS-system generated notification when an evaluation is ready for comment. Contractors shall be afforded up to 14 calendar days from the date of notification of availability of the past performance evaluation to submit comments, rebutting statements, or additional information. Agencies shall provide for review at a level above the contracting officer to consider disagreements between the parties regarding the evaluation. The ultimate conclusion on the performance evaluation is a decision of the contracting agency...." Ref FAR 42.1503 and CPARS itself If evaluation was not carried out through CPARS or the agency does not allow the contractor rebutting statements then remember the contractor has this opportunity - (emphasis added) "...At a minimum, the contracting officer must, subject to paragraphs (d)(5) and (e) of this section and 15.307(a), indicate to, or discuss with, each offeror still being considered for award, deficiencies, significant weaknesses, and adverse past performance information to which the offeror has not yet had an opportunity to respond..." Ref. FAR 13.306(d)(3)
  22. I think your case was made in the OP's first post...
  23. Vern Edwards has provided an answer that I agree with. By example what sets the extent of government obligation in a FFP contract at award? The price. So applying the same concept to a T&M, once you have contractor rates and costs on the time and materials you would set a ceiling price. I have handled this in my experiences by placing wording in the solicitation that a not exceed ceiling will be placed on the work at time of award based on rates for labor and anticipated actual costs of materials at award. At award absolutely as again it sets the government obligation. It is a "depends". Why? I have seen it done both ways but again I subscribe to the approach Vern Edwards has suggested (at award). You are questioning, as evidenced by your comments, due to a concern regarding that at solicitation it will lead the the contractor to offering higher than expected labor rates. Competition, actual experience in the labor force, cost or price analysis all will be used to determine whether the labor rates offered are acceptable (fair and reasonable) so from my view, and my initial comments that expressed wonderment of sorts, I believe your concern is misplaced. If you actually have a specific objective to be accomplished with the T&M contract then state it if you want the contractors to consider the possible scope of the work in offering rates and costs. Examples I have used in the past - Intent of this contract is to remove this land slide on this road to have it open by X, intent of this contract is evaluate the extent of the environmental damage caused by the oil spill, etc. How does estimating the labor rate and anticipated materials skew the pricing to be high? You are not releasing the estimate, right? Your very question goes to a comment like that posed by Vern Edwards. You have chosen T&M, which by its very nature requires that for you, and dare I say your program people, it is only to used as a contract type "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." The conflict? You can estimate a labor rate based on market research and guess at need materials but for T&M extent, duration and what is really needed in material can not be with confidence, right? Yet, the basis for your concerns is that it seems you have confidence in the extent, duration and anticipate costs (labor rates) so quite directly if so then why T&M? I hope the entire thread has helped you answer this question and give you pause to consider type of contract and more importantly if T&M is what it will be you have a better understanding of use from solicitation, award, to administration to accomplish the objective of the contract.
  24. Some how, some place I think some regulatory direction has been forgotten.... FAR 1.102-2 (c) "An essential consideration in every aspect of the System is maintaining the public’s trust. Not only must the System have integrity, but the actions of each member of the Team must reflect integrity, fairness, and openness. The foundation of integrity within the System is a competent, experienced, and well-trained, professional workforce. Accordingly, each member of the Team is responsible and accountable for the wise use of public resources as well as acting in a manner which maintains the public’s trust. Fairness and openness require open communication among team members, internal and external customers, and the public." FAR 1.102-4 (c) "The Team must be prepared to perform the functions and duties assigned. The Government is committed to provide training, professional development, and other resources necessary for maintaining and improving the knowledge, skills, and abilities for all Government participants on the Team, both with regard to their particular area of responsibility within the System, and their respective role as a team member. The contractor community is encouraged to do likewise."
  • Create New...