Desparado

Sadly, it is not, but I appreciate the offer!  I feel that if this were USACE, I wouldn't have this problem.

That was one suggestion as well.  But, like you, I find that clunky and unnecessary.  Sadly, my lack of A&E knowledge puts me at a disadvantage in these discussions with the HQ peeps.

They don't argue that there can be options... but insist they much be priced.

They are really just going with the basic concept that any award has to have a negotiated cost/price (even if a ceiling) to be legal and binding.

Agree on all points.  They state we do not have the authority to issue a task order without pricing for all phases and options.

Oh believe me, I have...  They are sticking to the article in the original post that these equate to unpriced options and are therefore illegal.

We are making selection based solely on technical, then reaching agreement on a fair and reasonable price for the first phase of work (there are several phases but the latter phases are undefinable at a level low enough to facilitate getting a cost proposal), but their contention is that we still have to get a full cost proposal for all phases upfront.

Joel - 100% agree, but we have some in our agency that state that we still have to get a full cost proposal even though the nature of our A&E work contains several unknowns that make it impossible to price upfront.

BTW - I have this in Contract Administration because I am discussing task orders on multiple award A&E contracts.  The underlying contracts are silent on this issue.

20 hours ago, Don Mansfield said:

The use of options in A-E contracts is not regulated by the FAR. Nothing says you can't do it, so you can (FAR 1.102(d)).

So if we do use options and the FAR does not apply, how does that affect the idea of unpriced options?  Since cost is not a competitive factor in A&E selection, is the taboo on unpriced options applicable?

So does that then mean that we cannot have ANY options in an A&E contract??  Seems pretty restrictive.

Would it make a difference if it was A&E work where we award to the most highly qualified and cost is not part of the competition?

I've utilized unpriced options in the past but recently a co-worker has raised that these were determined by GAO back in 1986 ( https://www.gao.gov/assets/150/144237.pdf ) to basically be sole-source contracts.

Does anyone else use them?  If so, what additional documentation do you include, if any?

I was reading this below and a thought came to me.

http://smallgovcon.com/gaobidprotests/price-reasonableness-vs-price-realism-the-gao-explains-the-difference/

I then did some cursory FAR research searching the term, "price realism" and found zero results.  Plenty about "cost realism" but no mention of "price realism".  Obviously it's a thing as you can see in the link as considered by GAO.

I'm just curious if anyone knows where the term came up and if it is rooted in policy somewhere that I just can't find.

Ashley - Like others here have said, it is extremely rare that a waiver would be granted.  Many civilian agencies have different education requirements (some only require 24hrs of management/business courses through GS-12) so that may be of some help.

Regarding pay, have you looked at your current pay and compared it to the GS pay scale where you live?  If you are trying to come over at a lower GS level it will be much easier than if you are trying to come over as a GS-13 or something like that.  

In some agencies all 1102s are Contract Specialists that are warranted (aka, KOs) but a check-and-balance system exists in that their work is peer-reviewed prior to release and if the acquisition is high enough ($10M as an example) a "level above" review is required.  

On ‎3‎/‎14‎/‎2019 at 11:52 AM, napolik said:

If you do this under LPTA and if you determine a small business has unacceptable past performance, you must go to the SBA for a CoC. See FitNet Purchasing Alliance; B-410263; Nov 26, 2014.

Agreed.

On ‎3‎/‎14‎/‎2019 at 2:29 PM, Don Mansfield said:

Assuming that whoever you award to will meet the responsibility standard at FAR 9.104-1(c), what's the point of making past performance "part of the TA"?

 

You can set a higher standard for past performance than the simple responsibility standard.  For example, for a particular acquisition, you can set that all Past Performance must be at a level higher than "Satisfactory" in order to be considered technically acceptable.  The TA is whatever the government sets it to be.  As long as offerors meet that standard (no matter by how much), price then becomes the only discriminating factor.

15 hours ago, formerfed said:

LPTA is overused.  I have a hard time visionalizing why it is used under an IDIQ arrangement, especially for services.  Considering past performance as a minimum should be factored in.

I actually think the opposite.  I think it is underused.  There's no reason why past performance cannot be part of an LPTA competition.  Part of the TA could be that the contractor must have acceptable past performance based on XX. It would be a pass/fail criteria as with the technical factors. 

59 minutes ago, C Culham said:

How about that even in a selection of LPTA  a narrative regarding the technical capability of each firm in meeting the evaluation factors would surely determine at least one difference that could be used as the support to direct award to that firm.  Nothing is absolutely equal and one firm had to have exceeded a factor where another only met it.

I would think that you would have to specifically call out in the solicitation that in the case of a tie, technical superiority would reign... 

I would lean more to the idea of having exchanges with offerors.  Odds are that they won't both lower the price to the exact same amount and at least one of them would lower it a tad, which is all that would be needed.

I did have this happen to me once doing a GSA delivery order.  We pulled a name out of a hat (documented, with witnesses).

The GPC is primarily used for micro-purchases, although some agencies are using it as the payment method for larger purchase orders or contracts.  This is an unusual method and it will be interesting to see how well it works down the road.  Getting that large a sum of money to pitch something (or at least that's what it looks like) could be viewed as innovative, or wasteful...  depending on the actual results

I saw this article on WIFCON's front page and found it confusing.  I am curious what others' thoughts are on it.  Pay a company $158,000 on the day of award?  For what?  I thought services or supplies should only be paid when the government receives the service/supply?  I must be missing something but I'm not sure what I overlooked.

Thoughts?

https://www.af.mil/News/Article-Display/Article/1779609/inaugural-air-force-pitch-day-new-contracts-new-partners/

FedConnect is a service that many agencies use.  It not only connects with FBO but also interacts with Prism (another COTS) and loads communications, offers and other documents submitted by offerors and contractors directly into the acquisition software.  So, although separate from FBO, if you want to do business with the agencies that use it, FedConnect is required. 

34 minutes ago, ji20874 said:

I don't think you need any precedent cases -- if both parties (Government and contractor) are okay with a belated (or defective) option exercise, well, no one else matters, right?

Sadly, not correct.  Our OGC and Office of Acquisition Management matter...  and right now they are of the opinion that when the PoP ends, the contract is dead (their words).  I was looking for some cases that I could use to point out that may not necessarily be true (unless of course, it is)

Don - I read those decisions I have a question that I couldn't find the answer to in any of those cases.  When does a contract "expire"?  Clause 52.217-9 reads:

Option to Extend the Term of the Contract (Mar 2000)

(a) The Government may extend the term of this contract by written notice to the Contractor within _____ [insert the period of time within which the Contracting Officer may exercise the option]; provided that the Government gives the Contractor a preliminary written notice of its intent to extend at least ___ days [60 days unless a different number of days is inserted] before the contract expires. The preliminary notice does not commit the Government to an extension.

(b) If the Government exercises this option, the extended contract shall be considered to include this option clause.

(c) The total duration of this contract, including the exercise of any options under this clause, shall not exceed ___________ (months)(years)

(End of Clause)

So when does the contract "expire" as referenced in ( a )?  Is it when the contract is closed out?  Is it when the period of performance ends? As this shutdown goes longer and longer and COs are not able to exercise options because the contracts are excepted, this will become more and more of an issue.  Are there any cases (I couldn't find any) that would set a precedent on the legality (or lack thereof) of exercising an option after the PoP ends?

My agency considers the contract "dead" if an option is not exercised timely.  I don't necessarily agree, but I don't have any legal decisions that I know of to cite to convince our OGC otherwise.  There is going to be a lot of problems if this goes a couple of weeks longer and we have to do a bunch of bridge or sole-source contracts.

On 12/5/2018 at 9:45 AM, napolik said:

I have always liked debriefings for 2 reasons.

First, the pain-in-the-ass contractors spend a lot of time and effort preparing essays and submitting offers for the Gov't's benefit. They're entitled to know why they lost.

Second, it gives contracting officers the opportunity to demonstrate that they know the procurement inside out and to explain clearly and directly why one contractor won and the other contractors lost. This debriefing deters a protest.

If those were the true reasons, I would agree.  However in practice it has been my experience (and all other 1102s that I have spoken with) that the unsuccessful offerors use debriefings as a way to try to find a loophole so they can submit a protest (which statistics show they will more than likely lose anyway).  Written debriefings is the only way to go, imho.