C Culham

Going just a little further noting Bob's post and Vern's detail remember as well that some DoD agencies also issue their own supplements - by example the AFARS and AFFARS. And then there are the power agencies - by example Bonneville Power Administration and their Bonneville Purchasing Instructions that appears to be in excess of 571 pages.

I echo Don’s comments, noting that I had extensive experience with A-E contracting prior to retirement. ji's comment raises an important thought in how it could be proven that such a switch would provide the benefits of less cost, less time consumed and result in better contracts? In an honest attempt to not derail to another contracting topic but to support my answer I offer a process that I believe is similar - 8(a) sole source contracting. When done right in my view contractor selection is much like A-E in that an agency reviews a portfolio of 8(a) firms and determines what firm might best fit their need. With firm selected the agency then moves to contract negotiation. If negotiations look to be unsuccessful then the 8(a) program could force the firm of sorts on the agency but this seems rare with effort pointed at attempts by the 8(a) program to offer an alternative firm to keep the effort 8(a). Noting this similarity I then offer that as an SBA 8(a) CO in the days that SBA had such positions I tracked 40 some 8(a) firms and their contract awards and completed contracts over a 1 year period. I cannot recall the number of awards but believe they numbered close to the number of firms, 40 or so. For those awards the contract award amount averaged 15%+- above the agencies IGE as revised during negotiations. Final contract completion amount was 1% +- above the contract award amount. Yes very unscientific and anecdotal support but by experiences in both A-E contracting and 8(a) contracting my conclusion has always been that having the ability to select a firm that best fit the need, then discuss and negotiate technical approach and costs leads to a better understanding with regard to contract performance and in the end no need for a bunch of contract modifications. So again Yes A-E I believe would be less costly, less time consuming and produce better contracts. As to problems Don has given the 30,000 foot view but getting into the weeds just a little two thoughts. Agency training would be needed but would need to be supplemented with knowledgeable mentors who could assist the inexperienced on use of the A-E or equal process. The other quick thought is how would such an approach interlink with commercial item contracting?

Admittedly little experience with cost reimbursement contracts so just offering this thought - FAR 16.4. I see no mention of a CPFF begging the question does a CPFF provide incentive as anticipated in performance based contracting to provide for potential reward for above the contracts baseline expectations for performance in cost control, timely performance, technical quality?

Vern - Poor editing in the first place, should have been written by me as .....I would add that "to me" is thrown out for us all when it comes to the doing a Federal acquisition, it is instead is "to the FAR it means". It was in reference to your response to my post where you stated "To me". I was attempting to relate that it does not matter what you, me or others might believe evaluation means to each of us, it what the FAR says is evaluation is for a Federal acquisition. PS - My Chevrolet 1Ton dually, 4 door, 4X4 is of great value to me as the trailer and the livestock it hauls cost more than the truck!

Vern - I agree. I would add that "to me" is thrown out for us all we it comes to the doing a Federal acquisition, it is instead is "to the FAR it means". Consider further FAR 15.002 and the result of a competitive acquisition being best value as defined by FAR 2.101 - “Best value” means the expected outcome of an acquisition that, in the Government’s estimation, provides the greatest overall benefit in response to the requirement.

Vern – How about a GAO view rather than a FAR view as to the value function. “In a "best value" procurement, it is the function of the source selection authority to perform a tradeoff between price and non-price factors, that is, to determine whether one proposal's superiority under the non-price factor is worth a higher price. Even where, as here, price is stated to be of less importance than the non-price factors, an agency must meaningfully consider cost or price to the government in making its selection decision. e-LYNXX Corp., B-292761, Dec. 3, 2003, 2003 CPD para. 219 at 7. Specifically, before an agency can select a higher-priced proposal that has been rated technically superior to a lower-priced but acceptable one, the award decision must be supported by a rational explanation of why the higher-rated proposal is, in fact, superior, and explaining why its technical superiority warrants paying a price premium. ACCESS Sys., Inc., B-400623.3, Mar. 4, 2009, 2009 CPD para. 56 at 7.” (Reference - Coastal Environments, Inc., B-401889, December 18, 2009)

No doubt making this too simple but it means we are going to follow the process to apply the procedures stated in the FAR regarding a review of proposed pricing to award a contract. Many of the thoughts posed in further posts such as doing price realism or cost analysis may come into play in doing so but it seems the guiding principle, and dare I say definition, of what is price evaluation is contained in FAR 15.305(a)(1).

Michael11 - "task order", "underlying agreement", "rfp"? So is what you are saying is there was some type of indefinite delivery solicitation/contract RFP, which you responded to, and received award on (agreement) and now you are responding to a request to price/propose on a specific task and the quote you have provided is in the request you have received to price/propose on the task? Matter? Yes, to a point as it is a prime example of the fractured info that causes for responses that may be misleading. If the above representation of the situation is true even more cause for the question being posed TO THE CONTRACTING OFFICER. Yes, ask the CO this question - Can you provide me an example of the content you expect to see for "a performance based payment schedule based upon tasks completed, submission of approved deliverables and task order milestones achieved within each period" and if possible point me to some best practices guides regarding the creation of such a schedule.

Todd Davis's post is important in part as related to a previous post in this thread made by Farparts. There is no need to determine responsibility of a GSA FSS contractor, GSA does that at the contract level. By example, most GSA FSS contracts are IDIQ contracts and like IDIQ contracts responsibility is again determined at the contract level and not the order level. Determining award is based on the ordering instructions for the IDIQ. So as Todd Davis has indicated use the ordering instructions, FAR Part 8.4, for GSA FSS orders, not the rest of the FAR.

So what is wrong with this? No consideration given to agency specific regulations. Need is over $25,000 and under the SAT. Not brand name. The needs notice inclusive of the fact that a single source (FAR 13.106-1)is being solicited for pricing is posted in FBO. Solicitation is posted and indicated as “for information only”. I send the “solicitation” to the single source and no one else. Again reference FAR 13.106-1 which says I can solicit from a single source along with FAR Part 2 definition of “solicitation”. Others might respond with an actual response to the solicitation or indicate that they want to respond to the solicitation yet , I react as I wish (and as supported by my documentation) but there is no requirement to include the others that did respond. In effect the posting was just complying with FAR Part 5 with nothing in FAR Part 5 saying I must consider their responses. If I have made a good case through file documentation for my reasoning to “solicit” a single source, and it withstands what the posting in FBO might produce, then so be it. Stated another way yes I post the need in FBO and the fact that it is a single source procurement but follow the FAR that says I can solicit from ”one source”. http://www.wifcon.com/pd13_1061b.htm

And Joel the legacy of Umatilla (which is essentially in my back yard) continues. It ain't over until it is over..... The Umatilla Army Depot land is now scheduled to return to local control in 2017. East Oregonian Published on April 4, 2016 12:01AM The Army’s latest schedule has the former Umatilla Chemical Depot land in local control by May 2017. The Columbia Development Authority was supposed to receive the land in 2015, but it has twice been delayed — first until Nov. 2016, and now until the May 2017 date. On Monday, the authority’s executive director and board agreed that progress was still being made, but also expressed frustration that it has taken so much longer than promised. “The length of time in the transfer is costing us opportunities,” board chair and Umatilla County commissioner Bill Elfering said. After the Army conveys the former depot land along Interstate 84 east of Boardman, part of it will be used as a National Guard training facility. But the rest will fall under the control of the development authority for a wildlife refuge and industrial development. The authority has repeatedly stated that it is not taking the land off the Army’s hands unless it is “free, clean and has water.” In October executive director Greg Smith said that the Army’s initial proposal to give the authority approximately 25 percent of the site’s water was not nearly enough to support the scale of economic development needed to make the site worthwhile to acquire. On Monday he said water rights negotiations were slowly moving along, with the Army agreeing to give two wells to the Columbia Development Authority, three to the National Guard and have two wells split between entities. “It comes down to well number one,” Smith said. He said the Pentagon insists it needs the water rights to that well, but has also said it is open to leasing most of those rights to the authority if they worked together to put in infrastructure needed to get the defunct well working again. “I genuinely think they want to reach a good resolution,” Smith said. “But their dilemma — and I think they’re sincere on this — is that they have a national security issue.” That issue is wanting to make sure they have the infrastructure in place, should the water be needed once again to support a war effort. They also want to have the water on hand for fire suppression. Those issues were discussed when Smith and board members Kim Puzey (Port of Umatilla) and Gary Neal (Port of Morrow) met with Defense Base Closure and Realignment Commission (BRAC) officials in Washington, D.C. in March. Puzey said the atmosphere of the meeting started off “bristly” and “prickly” but Smith did a good job of practicing the principle “seek first to understand, then to be understood” and the tension in the room lowered considerably as things went on. Puzey said even though the water discussion was taking a long time, he believed that taking the time to negotiate was, in the end, going to be mutually beneficial for both the development authority and the National Guard. Smith said he felt that another trip to Washington, D.C., in the next couple of weeks while Congress is going through the appropriations process would be highly productive for moving things along. The board agreed. At the beginning of the meeting the board heard from a potential client. Taylor Steele said her employer, One Energy Renewables, a Seattle-based company specializing in utility-scale solar farms, was interested in leasing a section of depot land for a solar panel installation. “I’ve been out there and saw some sites we think are absolutely phenomenal,” she said. When asked how big of a project they were looking at, she said things could change but they would consider somewhere in the ballpark of 20 megawatts. The solar array Umatilla Electric Cooperative just brought online in Umatilla County is 1.3 megawatts and puts out enough energy for 112 homes. Puzey said he thought One Energy Renewables would be a good example to take to the federal government and show them the types of projects that are being held up because the conveyance process was taking so long. The Columbia Development Authority is a partnership between Umatilla County, Morrow County, Port of Umatilla, Port of Morrow and the Confederated Tribes of the Umatilla Indian Reservation.

No intent to derail the discussion regarding required notices regarding synopsis and solicitation but to keep this discussion clear it would appear that the procurement is with regard to a single source (FAR 13.106-1) and not a sole source.

JL....Did you check out the "Legal" tab that has Protest decisions by FAR? Those referenced in this thread and others about bid bonds by JVs can be found in the FAR 28 section

Jamaal – Did you see this thread, not exactly dead on to your question but does discuss use of non-standard clauses. http://www.wifcon.com/discussion/index.php?/topic/2934-sexual-and-other-harassment-provisions-or-clauses/&page=1

I do not know why but this thread reminded me of this blog. Applicable maybe yes, maybe no, but might be a good read for many an OGC. http://www.wifcon.com/discussion/index.php?/blogs/entry/3042-the-governments-duty-of-good-faith-and-fair-dealing/

Service or Supply? – these might help. https://dap.dau.mil/aap/pages/qdetails.aspx?cgiSubjectAreaID=14&cgiQuestionID=108481 http://www.gao.gov/assets/520/510646.pdf And just because Jamaal proposed a great idea on how to solve the PSC question itself as posed by the OP…..confirms that 7030 as the correct code it appears. https://www.gsaadvantage.gov/ref_text/GS35F0598S/0PDAL3.3A0VJT_GS-35F-0598S_ACESGSAPRICELISTMARCH102016.PDF

This took me five minutes, will leave it to anyone else to do the rest. Per this a SF-182 is not a FAR related transaction – http://www.acq.osd.mil/dpap/pdi/pc/docs/DoD_Government_Purchase_Card_Directives_Session_Denise%20Reich_2014.07.29.pdf As supported by this – https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/5/4109 And this – http://www.dtic.mil/whs/directives/corres/pdf/140025v410.pdf And this – http://farsite.hill.af.mil/reghtml/Regs/Other/Afars/Appendix%20EE.htm?zoom_highlight=sf-182 and most of all this – https://www.cnatra.navy.mil/local/docs/instructions/4200.3.pdf Think of it this way. The SF-182 is the order/obligating document that allows for use of the GPC to pay the cost of the training that is off the shelf. It is not a FAR covered transaction unless the training being discussed is tailored or over $25,000. If tailored or over $25,000 then the application of “unauthorized commitment” as defined by the FAR would apply otherwise it does not.

Ah the SF-182….. First the answer as to unauthorized commitment is first determined as to whether the agency considers the authorization and use of the form to be a matter covered under the FAR or not. If not then the definition and application of unauthorized commitment would not apply. Suggested reads – Do a search of the WIFCON forum regarding the SF-182. Then do further research regarding your agency procedure regarding use of the SF-182 and what methods of payment are used to for training authorized by the completion and submission of an SF-182.

Shall7 - Yes a good question left to the legal scholars to sort out but in reading the discussion my thought was this…. The question might better be “What program should a person choose if they know that they were born a man but identify as a women?” In such a case such a person may be able to offer evidence to qualify for the 8(a) Program (see references below). Where the finally falls with regard to SBA’s programs will be interesting to say the least. 15 U.S.C. 637 “Socially disadvantaged individuals are those who have been subjected to racial or ethnic prejudice or cultural bias because of their identity as a member of a group without regard to their individual qualities.” 13 CFR 124.103 “§124.103 Who is socially disadvantaged? (a) General. Socially disadvantaged individuals are those who have been subjected to racial or ethnic prejudice or cultural bias within American society because of their identities as members of groups and without regard to their individual qualities. The social disadvantage must stem from circumstances beyond their control. (b) Members of designated groups. (1) There is a rebuttable presumption that the following individuals are socially disadvantaged: Black Americans; Hispanic Americans; Native Americans (Alaska Natives, Native Hawaiians, or enrolled members of a Federally or State recognized Indian Tribe); Asian Pacific Americans (persons with origins from Burma, Thailand, Malaysia, Indonesia, Singapore, Brunei, Japan, China (including Hong Kong), Taiwan, Laos, Cambodia (Kampuchea), Vietnam, Korea, The Philippines, U.S. Trust Territory of the Pacific Islands (Republic of Palau), Republic of the Marshall Islands, Federated States of Micronesia, the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands, Guam, Samoa, Macao, Fiji, Tonga, Kiribati, Tuvalu, or Nauru); Subcontinent Asian Americans (persons with origins from India, Pakistan, Bangladesh, Sri Lanka, Bhutan, the Maldives Islands or Nepal); and members of other groups designated from time to time by SBA according to procedures set forth at paragraph (d) of this section. Being born in a country does not, by itself, suffice to make the birth country an individual's country of origin for purposes of being included within a designated group. (2) An individual must demonstrate that he or she has held himself or herself out, and is currently identified by others, as a member of a designated group if SBA requires it. (3) The presumption of social disadvantage may be overcome with credible evidence to the contrary. Individuals possessing or knowing of such evidence should submit the information in writing to the Associate Administrator for Business Development (AA/BD) for consideration. (c) Individuals not members of designated groups. (1) An individual who is not a member of one of the groups presumed to be socially disadvantaged in paragraph (b)(1) of this section must establish individual social disadvantage by a preponderance of the evidence. (2) Evidence of individual social disadvantage must include the following elements: (i) At least one objective distinguishing feature that has contributed to social disadvantage, such as race, ethnic origin, gender, physical handicap, long-term residence in an environment isolated from the mainstream of American society, or other similar causes not common to individuals who are not socially disadvantaged; (ii) Personal experiences of substantial and chronic social disadvantage in American society, not in other countries; and (iii) Negative impact on entry into or advancement in the business world because of the disadvantage. SBA will consider any relevant evidence in assessing this element. In every case, however, SBA will consider education, employment and business history, where applicable, to see if the totality of circumstances shows disadvantage in entering into or advancing in the business world. (A) Education. SBA considers such factors as denial of equal access to institutions of higher education, exclusion from social and professional association with students or teachers, denial of educational honors rightfully earned, and social patterns or pressures which discouraged the individual from pursuing a professional or business education. (B) Employment. SBA considers such factors as unequal treatment in hiring, promotions and other aspects of professional advancement, pay and fringe benefits, and other terms and conditions of employment; retaliatory or discriminatory behavior by an employer; and social patterns or pressures which have channeled the individual into nonprofessional or non-business fields. (C) Business history. SBA considers such factors as unequal access to credit or capital, acquisition of credit or capital under commercially unfavorable circumstances, unequal treatment in opportunities for government contracts or other work, unequal treatment by potential customers and business associates, and exclusion from business or professional organizations. (d) Socially disadvantaged group inclusion—(1) General. Representatives of an identifiable group whose members believe that the group has suffered chronic racial or ethnic prejudice or cultural bias may petition SBA to be included as a presumptively socially disadvantaged group under paragraph (b)(1) of this section. Upon presentation of substantial evidence that members of the group have been subjected to racial or ethnic prejudice or cultural bias because of their identity as group members and without regard to their individual qualities, SBA will publish a notice in the Federal Register that it has received and is considering such a request, and that it will consider public comments. (2) Standards to be applied. In determining whether a group has made an adequate showing that it has suffered chronic racial or ethnic prejudice or cultural bias for the purposes of this section, SBA must determine that: (i) The group has suffered prejudice, bias, or discriminatory practices; (ii) Those conditions have resulted in economic deprivation for the group of the type which Congress has found exists for the groups named in the Small Business Act; and (iii) Those conditions have produced impediments in the business world for members of the group over which they have no control and which are not common to small business owners generally. (3) Procedure. The notice published under paragraph (d)(1) of this section will authorize a specified period for the receipt of public comments supporting or opposing the petition for socially disadvantaged group status. If appropriate, SBA may hold hearings. SBA may also conduct its own research relative to the group's petition. (4) Decision. In making a final decision that a group should be considered presumptively disadvantaged, SBA must find that a preponderance of the evidence demonstrates that the group has met the standards set forth in paragraph (d)(2) of this section based on SBA's consideration of the group petition, the comments from the public, and any independent research it performs. SBA will advise the petitioners of its final decision in writing, and publish its conclusion as a notice in the Federal Register. If appropriate, SBA will amend paragraph (b)(1) of this section to include a new group. [63 FR 35739, June 30, 1998, as amended at 74 FR 45753, Sept. 4, 2009; 76 FR 8254, Feb. 11, 2011]”

Two quick thoughts from my first read which are spin-offs of those already offered. The example is an easy read and would be useful but I wonder what the view/document might look like when you get to another FAR Part that has a significant amount of DFAR/PGI/Class Deviations? Not sure if my personal experience is completely up to date and this thought varies from office to office but have visited some where folks have two screens from which they view the FAR and an agency's supplement side by side. Understand the DoD has the PGI as well but with this thought in mind I am having some difficulty in wrapping my mind around how the proposed idea would work for the two screen folks.

I wonder if the confusion is also due to the reference of a document as proper noun versus that of wording just to identify a needed document that is a plan to approach quality assurance for a Government contract? Consider the definition at FAR 46.101 for “Government contract quality assurance”, inclusive of the title of FAR Subpart 46.4. The FAR and DFAR does not define “QASP”, the AFFARS does, the DAR references it is used as related to performance based contracting and the EPAAR refers to it with regard to a Award Term Incentive Plan. When used as a full term and capitalized the references are only in FAR Part 37, not capitalized in any DFAR use, with other supplements going back and forth and when capitalized no definition is provided suggesting strongly that the term has a confused definition with conclusion that one must revert to its plain meaning especially when use of the full term is not capitalized. As a proper noun the Quality Assurance Surveillance Plan (QASP) is defined as a document related performance based contracting (ref. an internet search of the term) , informal use of the term “quality assurance surveillance plan” is just a reference to any plan created to monitor the performance of a contractors quality. Probable synonyms – COR Work Plan, Government inspection system.

Some hints in your read of FAR 22.4.........prescription and wording of FAR Clauses 52.222-6 and 52.222-11 along with FAR 22.406.

Your inclination is correct, the contract terms and conditions apply, the FAR has no bearing.

Vern – Your questions do not matter as a winner was determined but as a courtesy I will respond….I do not need (or would) define anything my statement does through its plain meaning…. al·co·hol·ic ˌalkəˈhôlik/adjective adjective: alcoholic . containing or relating to alcoholic liquor. al·co·hol ˈalkəˌhôl,ˈalkəˌhäl/ noun noun: alcohol; noun: ethyl alcohol 1. a colorless volatile flammable liquid that is the intoxicating constituent of wine, beer, spirits, and other drinks, and is also used as an industrial solvent and as fuel. gam·ble ˈɡambəl/ verb gerund or present participle: gambling 1. 1. play games of chance for money; bet. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Game_of_chance frat·er·nize ˈfradərˌnīz/ verb 1. associate or form a friendship with someone, especially when one is not supposed to. so·cial·ize ˈsōSHəˌlīz/ verb 1. 1. mix socially with others. "he didn't mind socializing with his staff" synonyms: fraternize, I will now go wallow in internal shame.

First question - In formulating your question was consideration given to FAR 15.403-4?