Jump to content
The Wifcon Forums and Blogs


  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

0 Neutral


About ji20874

  • Rank
    Contributing Member

Contact Methods

  • Website URL

Profile Information

  • Gender
  • Location

Recent Profile Visitors

26,198 profile views
  1. If there is an error in the parent IDIQ contract, that error should be corrected by modification (either unilaterally or bilaterally, as appropriate). The "maximum" in para. (b) of the clause at FAR 52.216-19, Ordering Limitations, is very different from the "maximum" in para. (b) of the clause at FAR 52.216-22, Indefinite Quantity. The former refers to the maximum for any individual order or series of orders, and protects the contractor from orders that are too large to swallow -- there is no scope concern here. The contractor can waive this protection by accepting an order tha
  2. Would simply giving contracting officer warrants to attorneys solve the alleged problem?
  3. You can always try. But if you did, would your prime record it as a bad in a past performance evaluation such as under cost control? Is it worth the risk?
  4. I don't think sending the notice contemplated by FAR 16.505(b)(1)(iii)(B)(1) or (iv)(A) would constitute a breach.
  5. Okay, then don't go to the IG. Best wishes!
  6. Reduce the task order price to reflect the reduced value of the goods or services. Talk to the contractor. Terminate for cause. Issue a cure notice. Talk to the contractor. Memorialize the conversation by email later in the day. Reject the work and require resubmission. Record the facts for past performance, and use that adverse past performance against the contractor in the next order opportunity. Talk to the contractor to find out what the problem is, and discern whether the problem is yours or the contractors. And so forth. Note: These are not liste
  7. Well, do you want the business? If so, participate in the process in good faith. Best wishes! Perhaps you might consider sharing any evidence of agency malfeasance with the agency's inspector general.
  8. Agreed. I acknowledge that many contracting officers would be unable to interface with a service secretary or a general on the secretary's or general's terms while providing value to them, whether in person or in writing. That is part of our problem.
  9. Maybe. But one can be hopeful, and one can continue to share good ideas.
  10. I hear you, Vern -- but it is possible. My operative verb was "try" so I am okay with my recommendation. It might be as easy as a statement at the end of an initial briefing to the SSA where the contracting officer says something like, "This concludes my presentation on the center's proposed acquisition strategy -- if you have any guidance for us, we are open to receiving it." Right.
  11. Please do not re-create the past. Please do not whitewash by creating documents today and pretending like they were created a long time ago. Please be honest. Tell the truth -- if a historical document doesn't exist, that is the truth. Just close out these contract files.
  12. MDFBWU, I did a multi-billion dollar source selection many years ago for a satellite system -- all the satellites, all the sensors on the satellites, all the ground stations, and all the data processing for an eighteen-year period of performance. We had two offerors, both very big names. We did a two-week oral presentation at each offeror's facility -- ten working days with evaluators from DoD, NASA, and Commerce. And we allowed for multiple sessions at any given time. As the contracting officer, I could only attend one session at any time, but I allowed other sessions to happen witho
  13. Vern, I agree with your disdain for essay writing contests -- but I didn't suggest such as approach. I just hope that the selection decision is not made on the basis of price alone. Factors such as I suggested could be helpful, and can be done right. For example, imagine an oral presentation with robust two-way dialogue where an offeror explains how it arrived at its price, the assumptions it made, and so forth -- the confidence the agency gains as a result of that dialogue could certainly be a valuable part of a tradeoff decision, and could help the original poster get away from a me
  14. govt, I'm not sure I agree with your analysis the REEL case, but okay, so don't share the notice with both A and B -- share it only with B. If B gives you a good price, or you have to negotiate to get to a good price, is there a problem? Award the task order.
  15. Anyone who uses low price (rather than tradeoff) to award FPIF contract might also be an ass. If you set up an arrangement where offerors can game it, they just might. Possible tradeoff factors: your confidence in the offeror's understanding and approach, as well as your confidence in the offeror's pricing approach. You can look at past performance in cost estimating and cost control. In your scenario looking only at ceiling price, you would award to offeror to offeror C ( not offeror B ). A = target cost $10000 + target profit $1500 = target price $11500; ceiling = $13000
  • Create New...