C Culham

21 minutes ago, CuriousContractor_22 said:

Thank you for the input, @General.Zhukov! When working with IHEs with LH and T&M MAS contract orders , have you run into any issues remaining compliant with time keeping due to the issues I alluded to above? Or have they found a way to remain compliant despite not being required to record time daily in a time keeping system?

It would seem that the associated payment clauses in the T&M cover your question.

For commercial service see 52.212-4 (ALT 1) which states this at (i)(i)(D) - "When requested by the Contracting Officer or the authorized representative, the Contractor shall substantiate invoices (including any subcontractor hours reimbursed at the hourly rate in the schedule) by evidence of actual payment, individual daily job timecards, records that verify the employees meet the qualifications for the labor categories specified in the contract, or other substantiation specified in the contract." (emphasis on the "or")

For non-commerical service 52.232-7 at (a)(5) - 

"Vouchers may be submitted not more than once every two weeks, to the Contracting Officer or authorized representative. A small business concern may receive more frequent payments than every two weeks. The Contractor shall substantiate vouchers (including any subcontractor hours reimbursed at the hourly rate in the schedule) by evidence of actual payment and by-

(i) Individual daily job timekeeping records;

(ii) Records that verify the employees meet the qualifications for the labor categories specified in the contract; or

(iii) Other substantiation approved by the Contracting Officer."

(emphasis again on the "or")

Conclusion - Timekeeping records are not necessarily required.

11 hours ago, CuriousContractor_22 said:

If this is true, is anyone aware of a compliant solution for GSA MAS contractors that want to use a university as a subcontractor?

Have your "peers" provided reference that substantiates what they are telling you?

In light of the wording of FAR 16.601 and the provisions pursuant to FAR 16.601 that are placed in a Time and Material solicitation that address how "hourly rate" is defined for both the prime a subcontractor I suspect what you heard is not correct.  Based on the wording I would think that any prime would demand that the subcontractor, no matter who they are, provide a hourly rate that the sub can prove.

3 hours ago, formerfed said:

Since the hypothetical is done using FAR 8.4, an easier approach and alternative to two-phases is conduct market research upfront.  Only solicit sources with known experience.

Keeping in mind FAR 8.405-2 which may provide for further action beyond just market research depending on the specifics of the acquisition.

12 hours ago, govt2310 said:

FAR 15

12 hours ago, govt2310 said:

Well, what happens if the agency, using FAR 8.4,

Just repeating.....they are different!

12 hours ago, govt2310 said:

How do you think GAO would decide?

In a post award scenario I believe that if the agency adhered to the evaluation criteria idenfifed in the RFQ GAO would not sustain the protest.   

On 1/12/2024 at 5:43 AM, APS29 said:

Could anyone provide information on how to calculate the Average Labor Rate Discount off GSA Schedule Labor Rates or recommend a resource or expert who could assist me with this?

Copy

 

I am sure this does not answer your question directly but have you seen this tool?   It will at least assist in comparing rates that contractors have as their base rate.  Might give an idea of what further discounts might make a contractor competitive.   

 https://www.buy.gsa.gov/pricing/qr/mas?query_type=match_all&page=1&page_size=20&histogram=12&experience_range=0,45&price__gte=15&price__lte=500&sort=current_price

21 hours ago, william.hill said:

Hi,

I’m wanting to brush up on all subcontracts/contract's information such as processes, compliance, proposal process, definitions, etc. I know the FAR is a great starting point (specifically parts 6 & 15) for compliance information but is there any other book or website sources that will help me review a lot of this type of stuff? I appreciate any recommendations.

Thank you!

Just in case, but I imagine you have, but have you done a deep dive in the "Recommended Reading" topic of this Forum?   It might give you some possible ideas.

1 hour ago, LOML said:

Can we extend the POP for OY3 by less than 12 months (current OY 3 PoP is ending in early March 2024) and not exercise OY4?

This is a SIBR IDIQ CPFF for labor. If we exercise OY 4, we are obligated to see it through until the end of the PoP.

Random thoughts as more details would be helpful....

By any chance is FAR 52.217-8 in the parent IDI!Q contract?  If so I would think one could extend the services of OY 3 for whatever the length that is stated in the -8 clause without having to excercise OY 4.

You say IDIQ.   If the parent IDIQ is the basis for your question why not exercise OY 4 and just ride it out to the end?   I say this as typically the parent IDIQ obligates nothing including the requirement to issue task orders during the option period because generally it is the governments unilateral right to issue a task order.  Heck I might even tell the contractor what I am up to for the sake of good communication and fairness.  Example - We are exercising OY 4 but our plan is that no task orders will be issued after the first month of the new option.  

You also say SBIR.   Was it a sole source SBIR?  If so then then you might even consider just modifying by mutual agreement with the contractor the last optioin period (OY 4) of the contract.   Of course things like maintaining the same cost structure, fee adjustment, and a bunch of other stuff comes into play.  Remember any contract can be modified by mutual agreement of the parties.   

16 hours ago, On to Consulting said:

Do you have a specific line of thought?

16 hours ago, here_2_help said:

The rates must be trued-up for all contracts but whether the customer sees the impact of the true-up depends on the individual contract terms

Would have been my "thought".     

22 hours ago, here_2_help said:

at least annually

Based on a cost account period that is the entites established fiscal year unless the government agrees to another annual period that is consistent with the contractors practices?

15 minutes ago, joel hoffman said:

The contractor can charge whatever it wants and the owner can agree to, when applicable,  for G&A for commercial market contracts or contract actions that aren’t subject to the cost principles in FAR.

Ah yes but it seems the OP is referring to contracts subject to the FAR (by example references to DCAA, government and supply schedule) but that is just my read.

After all is said does not this reference basically support the discussion in this thread and answer the OP's question - FAR 31.203? 

17 hours ago, Vern Edwards said:

"The Federal Acquisition Regulations are set up in the chronological order of a typical acquisition activity.

I don't like "chronological". Try this instead:

The FAR presents the rules of acquisition in an order that, to some extent, corresponds with the sequence of activities in a typical acquisition.

Sequence for "aspect"?  Remove "typical"?

@DrewIn an attempt to offer clarity.   My view.....and in a different order of your questions because they conflict, in my view, with each other.

On 1/2/2024 at 12:25 PM, Drew said:

Are the FFP TOs in or out of the CPSR population?

In. 

A CPSR is already determined to occur.  The CPSR is not contract specific even though in your case it seems the GSA contract is driving the review.  FAR 44.302 " Generally, a CPSR is not performed for a specific contract."  

Your company per your post receives TO's (aka contracts - FAR 2.101) that are not competitively awarded.   Some are even T&M.  You have not stated they are determined to be for commercial supplies/services or not.   Therefore  based how the TOs are being awarded I am guessing a conclusion was made by somebody that a CPSR was determined to be necessary. 

On 1/2/2024 at 12:25 PM, Drew said:

Since the TOs are not competitively awarded FFP TOs, their subcontracts and purchase orders would be subject to a CPSR. 

The TO's are not the decision point your subcontracts that support your government prime contracts (aka the TO's) are.  FAR  44.303 subcontracts that support a prime contract that are "competitively awarded firm-fixed-price, competitively awarded fixed-price with economic price adjustment, or awarded for commercial supplies and commercial services pursuant to part  12." are excluded from the review.   Also supported by https://www.dcma.mil/Portals/31/Documents/CPSR/CPSR_Guidebook_091021.pdf at page 85.  Therefore any subcontract (including purchase orders FAR 2.101 as provided by FAR 52.244-2) that is competitively awarded FFP or FFP with EPA or is awarded for commercial supplies and services would not be included.  

All considered since the CPSR is of your system (P&P) and the CPSR team has some discretion in determining that the P&P is being followed.  As such I suggest the team will ask you for a list of all subcontracts awarded.  I also suggest they will request the subcontract information something like this - 1) That were specific to support of a Government prime contract (again the TO's), and show the type of contract awarded, and how it was awarded and whether it was a commercial contract.  See page 4 of the Guide.  Based on this list they will then stipulate what they want to look at.  At the CPSR entrance briefing further clarification on "what" can be and should be clarified.

All considered the basis for my earlier suggestion that most especially the CPSR team will guide you on what they want to see. 

PS - Working on this when @Neil Roberts replied and sending anyway.

5 hours ago, C Culham said:

Details out of context?  Your assertion is only applicable if over the SAT by my read.  FAR 13.106(a)(2)(iv)((A)(1).  Has not under SAT been stipulated for this thread?

Thanks.  The OP did not, I did, should have clarified my post.  

A further read notes it is an exception only available to DOD, NASA and Coast Guard as further clarity on my part.

I will attempt better clarity in the future.

1 hour ago, Jamaal Valentine said:

A price or cost evaluation factor is not always required. See FAR 13.106-1(a)(2)(iv). The subdivision is the original post seems to simply say keep SAP simple. Has not  SAT been

Details out of context?  Your assertion is only applicable if over the SAT by my read.  FAR 13.106(a)(2)(iv)((A)(1).  Has not under SAT been stipulated for this thread?

On 1/5/2024 at 4:59 AM, ContractingGuy said:

What contract type would you use for conducting a variety of lab tests (e.g. drug screening, Covid testing, other blood tests, etc.) with fixed unit pricing?

A firm fixed price contract.   Basis for my reasoning....

18 hours ago, Linda1 said:

The way I read this, it seems to state that a price or cost evaluation is not required when you doing something under Part 13. 

Has anyone had any experience in this??

 A little different twist but I think I am saying the same thing as previous responses.   

Yes you do a price or cost evaluation for a procurement using Simplified Acquisition Procedures that are under the Simplified Acquisition Threshold for the purpose of determining prcie reasonablness.   That evaluation is a comparative evaluation to other costs or prices received from other quoters or offerors per the reference you have cited.  The exception is if you have stated something otherwise in the solicitation ( see FAR 13.106-2(a)(2).   

5 hours ago, Drew said:

Are the subcontracts and purchase orders for TOs that are firm, fixed-price subject to the CPSR? 

Would not the ACO along with the CPSR Audit team help you make this decision?  Reference FAR 44.3?  I pose the question in part not only based on Don's response along with a two fold thought.  One - you say T&M for TO's and Two - sole source TOs where I suspect an ACO would want to see what's going on.

12 hours ago, Don Mansfield said:

I answered "yes" because it was a better answer than "no".

Same.

I have read the article a couple of times to digest it fully.  Thanks to Vern for sharing and Bob for posting.

19 hours ago, old51C said:

Sorry if i intimated the RA was afoul here.

With the clarification a thought occurred to me that I believe would be beneficial with regard to Beginners Forum.   Especially noted as in some cases questions are posed by other than a procurement official, say a contracting officers representative or another individual wondering why procurment did not do such and such.

The thought.   Once the RA's (Requesting Activiity) requisition goes to the acquisition office it makes good business sense that the RA's efforts do not stop there.   The RA should be initmate with the resulting solicitation, evaluation and award no matter how simple to sophisticated the procurment is.  A shared effort in my view by both the RA and procurment office.   The basic example - here is what was requested by you (RA) and here is what we (procurement office) are doing to get it for you (RA).   As boring as it may seem a read of the Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) 1.102-1 through 5 is the reference.

It could be a concept that is known and practiced and this one just missed the mark for some reason, but offered as a thought all the same.

Yes, Happy New Year!

1 hour ago, Joe Bernier said:

Would just need to switch quoters back to offerors if going the RFP route.

Consistent with FAR 15.503(b)(2))?  Reference FAR 13.106-3(d).

My point being if RFP then FAR part 15 is a must to some degree.

49 minutes ago, Joe Bernier said:

In addition to the references to soliciting offers in FAR Part 13, I think that the definition of solicitation clears up that SAP can use either: "Solicitation means any request to submit offers or quotations to the Government. Solicitations under sealed bid procedures are called "invitations for bids." Solicitations under negotiated procedures are called "requests for proposals." Solicitations under simplified acquisition procedures may require submission of either a quotation or an offer."

Regarding how to set-up the solicitation, you could certainly borrow from FAR Part 15, but could also just use the streamlined processes outlined in FAR 13.106 which states it is for both quotes and offers. I think the example of soliciting from a single source in the thread you linked could be a situation where requesting an offer makes more sense than requesting a quote.

We do not disagree but avoided is how do you craft a RFP under FAR part 13?  Using a simple example do you place any language in the RFP regarding debriefing and if so where do you grab it from?

23 hours ago, Joe Bernier said:

There are differences regarding when the contract becomes binding but requesting proposals (or other offers) can still be done under FAR Part 13. Of course, you could use some FAR Part 15 procedures in a SAP solicitation (FAR 13.106-2(b)(1)) if you wanted, but it wouldn't be required.

Subtle and a long standing topic of discussion.  I have always wondered what one would put in a RFP conducted under FAR part 13 if not some salient stuff that either was from or mimics FAR part 15 stuff.

FAR part 2.101 "Offer means a response to a solicitation that, if accepted, would bind the offeror to perform the resultant contract. Responses to invitations for bids (sealed bidding) are offers called "bids" or "sealed bids"; responses to requests for proposals (negotiation) are offers called "proposals"; however, responses to requests for quotations (simplified acquisition) are "quotations," not offers. For unsolicited proposals, see subpart 15.6."

https://www.wifcon.com/arc/forum54.htm#:~:text=Although the normal procedure is,soliciting offers instead of quotes.

13 hours ago, GABE said:

Thank you for all the replies. I have one additional question, which is relevant to topic. Is there anything written (law, regulation) that would preclude the head of contracting agency to also be designated as the advocate for competition? Seems doing so may be deemed a conflict of interest?

FAR 6.501 sets the sideboards.