AgencySpecialist

soboco - i guess I am interested in what you did in the interim, if you don't mind sharing?

GIven the requirements for holding my position, I never would have dreamed, once on the other side of the wall, the amount of clerical data entry required.

Also, have not dealt with a dictatorial management style before, as a professional - perhaps they are used to govt employees who work in govt for life...but when you don't have many years in - some of us who came from other environments, may be working for insurance benefits or life balance - not for promotion or pension...

I am seeking a change, but appreciate the comments here.

Thanks...I think, lol. I am in a civilian agency where grade seems to be very important to the culture and I know that those just one grade below, receive far less stressful assignments...hence my question.

The Govt has invested a great deal to get me to this particular spot in terms of credentials...it would almost seem a crime to head back to the private side...but I have to look out for myself.

Thanks again.

These are the kinds of thoughts that sometimes keep me awake at night.

I have only a few years into federal service as an 1102, after years in the private sector.

I have about 5 years left to work until I retire, possibly sooner once I decipher the new health care exchange options resulting from the ACA.

I am concerned about the impacts to my health if I remain in this position for another 5 years. I don't have any background as to what's typical or unusual in federal employment, but I am tossing around the idea of seeking a position one grade lower just to relieve the stress...I am topped out, my next move after this one, is to pasture.

It seems to me that I all I need to do is appy for lower positions - or ask my boss to place me in one as it becomes available? Will this seem an odd request? I have received good performance evals, my guess is they might want to keep me, if this is what it takes...but still in the speculation stages. Any thoughts on this situation? How would it generally be viewed if a person applies for a job that is one grade lower? Thanks

Stole this from Almond2020's similar post, he described it best here:

Vern, I know you're aware of the many pitfalls of working as a present day 1102- the overly burdensome admin work, the shoddy procurement systems, the 200 databases everything has to be entered into, the filing, the feds retiring in droves while inexperienced COs fill the void, just to name a few. I think I underestimated the monotony that goes along with the position while overestimating the amount of actual thoughtful analysis whether financial or legal that is required for the position. To make matters worse, you have a workforce that is constantly battered down and used as a political pawn.

My experience is the same, so I can vouch. My position requires a masters degree to fill, but only a grade school education to maintain. It's discouraging. I am still seeking a related position, they're not easy to find. I can see why COs are retiring in droves...

AS

Thank you for the replies.

Maybe I have a unique observation point, having spent quite a bit of time on the private side before joining the federal force, but it seems to me that compensation (in the higher ranks) on the federal side is not commensurate with the overall skills required for the job, along with the associated accountability and responsibilities. I work alongside peers who only remain because they have a length of service which will entitle them to a reasonably decent pension in less than 10 years. That doesn't apply to people like me who crossed over in mid-to-late career. So while this may be a good position during a time of economic instability (say the last few years) and while the learning opportunies have been tremendous (and I am thankful for that)...I am having a hard time swallowing what the future holds. Stress goes down easier with a spoonful of sugar.

That said, I enjoy federal service and that's why I am investigating a switch (even at lower pay) to a different type of position.

Thank you, again.

We have a difference of professional opinion in our office. We are evaluating the price reasonableness of commercial services in a business arena where the contractor is obligated to file public tariffs. This is a sole source situation. That said, we know (based on our knowledge of the market) that no sales are actually ever made at those tariff prices - much like the analogy that very few, if any, new cars are ever sold at the publicly available MSRPs.

Some believe we can use the tariffs as valid bases for comparison because they are prices set by law or regulation. Others believe the tariffs are not valid since there is no history of sales at those prices.

By the way, many times we find examples where the proposed pricing is 50% to 70% lower than the tariff, which causes the second camp to crow even louder that tariffs are not valid comparisons.

Can both camps be right in this scenario?

AS

Hello,

I am a new 1102 Contracting Officer, GS-14...coming to federal service after many years on the private side.

I am fairly confident this career is not going to work for me for very much longer. I am not thrilled about returning to the private sector, would prefer to stay in federal service.

Being a relative newcomer, I am not familiar with the inner workings and nuances of federal employment, but I would like

to know if there are other federal career tracks that may be amenable to hiring a former C.O. - for example, a price analyst position, etc.

Although not a math wiz, I do enjoy and am highly skilled in market research, price analysis and negotiations, among other areas of expertise...

I am not opposed to moving into a GS-13 spot as I am less interested in building pension credits than I am about other benefits since I am hoping to retire altogether inside 5-7 years.

Thanks and appreciate all input.

The contract is silent on the issue of how disputes will be handled at the task order level. As I mentioned above, of concern to our office is that none of the hundreds of other agencies using the same service has cited a problem, only one agency.

Thank you.

Good afternoon,

I am a contract specialist administering a large contract utilized by agencies across the government.

One agency has made allegations of noncompliance toward one of the contractors for quite some time. The allegations stem from performance under a particular task order issued against our contract.

At first, as the administrator of the overall contract, our office interceded in an attempt to mediate the dispute. We were able to whittle the list down somewhat, then our management issued a strong directive to the contractor to work more closely with the agency to resolve the remaining items.

These open items have not been disputed by any of the other agencies receiving the same services, only one particular agency.

It appears the parties (contractor and ordering agency) are now back to square one and we are being drawn in once again.

What is the proper role of the agency holding the contract when a dispute arises under a single task order?

Thank you.

one last comment - the new work is most often not incidental and quite often substantial.

Perhaps the real question is whether the evaluation and selection process under the Fair Opportunity guidelines meets the same test as a full and open competition - in terms of price reasonableness determination. If you don't later modify the parent contract, those items are considered to be outside the contract and not billable using customized contract driven systems.

Again, I now realize how odd this looks to the rest of the contracting community.

Thank you again.

The fact that this scenario appears muddy just on the face of it suggests an unusual and unique contracting practice and perhaps that answers the question all by itself.

AgencySpecialist, I don't understand either. If your question is whether some form of cost or price analysis is required, the answer is YES in my mind. Adequate price competition might establish price reasonableness, and your price analysis might be a comparison of the prices you received in the competive environment. One would reasonably expect this analysis to be done by "the using agency" before it issues the task order.

An after-the-fact cost or price analysis by "the awarding agency" makes no sense to me. The idea of modifying the parent IDIQ contract also doesn't make sense to me. I'm imagining a task order that is substantially premised on the contract's line items with the additional non-conforming work merely incidental -- a task order that was otherwise might be improperly issued as an improper avoidance of full and open competition.

I apologize for any confusion. Please allow me to clarify.

I am referring to a scenario where there was an initial competition for a large, Fixed Price, IDIQ type contract

for a wide range of IT products and services. The awarding agency made multiple awards. (Hereafter known as the "awarding agency")

The contract is intended to be wide in scope and to offer a dynamic "catalog" of ever changing products and service.

All federal agencies and certain other authorized users (hereafter called "user agencies') are allowed to issue orders against this IDIQ contract.

In many cases, the user agencies (for various reasons) do not order directly from the line items on the contract. They require customized solutions, often consisting of existing line items and new line items - not already on the contract.

In these cases, the user agencies are required to follow the FAR guidelines, using the Fair Opportunity process. Often, this includes the release of a SOW and subsequent competition among the contract holders. An awardee is then selected from this group.

The user agency issues a task order to the contractor. If that task order includes any line items not already on the contract, the awarded contractor must then submit a contract modification to the original awarding agency.

As backup support for the proposed contract modification, the contractor provides the awarding agency with a copy of its proposal to the user agency.

Question - does the awarding agency have an obligation to perform cost/price analysis on this proposal? this proposal that was already submitted to the user agency in a competitive environment?

Thank you.

You haven't received many responses because your post is written confusingly. I'll take a shot.

The FAR uses the term competition mainly in three ways, two of which are specific and involve official definitions, and one of which is not informal and does not involve any official definition.

1. "Full and open competition," or "other than full and open competition." This has to do with whether and to what extent the government gave responsible firms a chance to compete, but has nothing to do with whether anyone actually competed. See the official definition in FAR 2.101. This use does not apply to the fair opportunity process. See FAR 16.505((1)(ii).

2. Adequate price competition." This use has to do with whether firms actually contended with one another for the contract or were expected to do so. See the explanation/definition in FAR 15.403-1( c)(1). This use might apply to the fair opportunity process if the CO is required to get certified cost or pricing data. See FAR 16.505((3).

3. "Competition" or "Competitive." This use is informal and non-technical. It means something like "get proposals from more than one awardee/contractor" or "give all awardees/contractors a chance to submit a proposal." This use does apply to the fair opportunity process. See FAR 16.505((1)(ii)(A).

I don't know if that explanation will help you, but it was the best that I could do on the basis of how your post was written.

I've not been successful finding any training modules anywhere to assist me in becoming familiar with entering past performance data and understanding the rules and ramifications.

If anyone is aware of anything current, please advise.

Thank you.

Scenario:

A large, IDIQ contract for IT products and services, with multiple awardees.

The awardees then compete for user agency orders via the Fair Opportunity process, using bundled pricing, where price is a significant evaluation factor.

Later, the selected contractor must then submit a contract modification to the umbrella contract to the agency holding the umbrella contract, for any individual

line items included in the bundled proposal to the user agency, but not already included on the umbrella contract.

Assumption - there is a need to do a price reasonableness examination on the individual line items since they were not submitted individually to the user agency for evaluation - the user agency only looked at bundled pricing, i.e. - does the Fair Opportunity process meet the same definition of competition as a negotiated procurement...not certain.

Thoughts, comments, suggestions all appreciated.