Jump to content

ji20874

Members
  • Posts

    3,737
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by ji20874

  1. _KB_, a salaried employee, or an hourly-rate employee?
  2. Fixed-price, cost-reimbursement, or T&M/LH? What is the nature of the work?
  3. Sometimes, the contracting officer has to determine... Sometimes, the contracting officer has to determine in writing... Sometimes, the contracting must prepare a D&F... Only a dim-witted or poorly-trained contracting officer or procurement analyst would require all of the above in a D&F format.
  4. Joel, The original poster isn't talking about using a IFB and isn't talking about construction. Please re-read the original posting.
  5. This seems to be the case, from what I have read here. I think that a grossly improper award will be self-evident and fact-specific. If you [with access to the entire file] are not seeing any impropriety, then I'm not, either. We cannot second-guess every award decision beyond the reviews and controls already in place.
  6. If you won't say the award was improper, then why are you even thinking about a T4C and a re-evaluation? Whether or not the protester can still file a protest is not your concern -- that is between the vendor and the GAO. According to the GAO, an inadequate debriefing is not generally a basis for a protest. Are you wondering about an uncompleted debriefing? It doesn't sound like it -- the former contracting officer already and promptly provided "...information as to why the vendor didn't qualify..." (the basis for the determination, right?). It seems to me that any required debriefing has been done. As far as I can tell, there is no obligation for you to reply to the unhappy vendor's letter requesting re-evaluation. Why are you wringing your hands over this matter? Is there something else you haven't shared?
  7. Oh, no -- now the discussion is being clouded even more with talk about task order competitions. The original poster is talking about FAR 15.3 source selections. Any talk here about task order competitions is inapt, as the crucial citation from FAR 15.3 is wholly irrelevant to task order competitions. The answer to the original poster's question is a simple YES -- a contracting officer may waive the evaluation of past performance in a FAR 15.3 source selection under the circumstances described in the original posting with an appropriate determination. All the demurring going on is not contributing support or clarity and is clouding the simple YES answer by trying to change the YES [the contracting officer may waive...] to a NO [the contracting officer should not waive...]. Voyager, the FAR says what it says. Do what is right for your circumstances. Do not be afraid to prudently and appropriately use the flexibility the FAR gives you.
  8. My thought: Forget your questions 1 and 2. Instead, the question the new contracting officer and his or her managers need to answer is whether the award was grossly improper. Was the award grossly improper? If NO, then leave it alone. If YES, then you might think about a T4C along with other measures (including leaving it alone). In your opinion, was the award grossly improper? This is a YES/NO question. The process works best when all players follow the rules. Your unhappy vendor could have filed a protest which would have forced a timely resolution -- but the vendor did not, which indicates it is not pursuing the matter. I have little sympathy for vendors who won't file protests but still want to beg for reconsideration.
  9. formerfed and Joel, I think you are clouding the discussion. The original poster wanted to know if it would be possible to not evaluate past performance in a particular situation, and the answer is a simple YES. You might choose to evaluate past performance in that situation, but that was not the question. I make this note because I want to support the original poster in his or her seemingly new discovery that past performance evaluation in a 15.3 source selection may appropriately be waived -- he or she likely already has plenty of office co-workers, reviewers, and policy people who are saying past performance must or always should be evaluated. Vern shared the case law that a contracting officer's decision to waive past performance evaluation has never been overturned on protest. So I want to support the principle, and encourage contracting officers to appropriately use the flexibility they are given.
  10. Voyager, You said you wanted a discussion, but you haven't said peep since the original posting. What is your own answer to your question?
  11. If you're conducting a FAR 15.3 competitive source selection, and you are limiting participation to a short list of companies with known good past performance, then YES, it may make sense to not use past performance as an evaluation factor. Whether or not the procurement is for "systems contracting" is irrelevant. Now, why don't you answer your own question and ask if anyone agrees with you? You have an opinion, right?
  12. First, let's make sure your facts are clear... (1) You do not include the NAICS code in solicitations for subcontracts. (2) You do include the NAICS code in your awarded subcontracts. Is this right?
  13. Guardian, Since you agree these vouchers are commercial items, what has your market research told you about what other buyers and sellers in your market segment are doing for T&Cs? You want to do the same thing they're doing, right? Are you purchasing a fixed number of vouchers, with each voucher redeemable by the Government within a certain period for 50 hours of IT support?
  14. Are the vouchers being offered as commercial items (or commercial services) under FAR Part 12? If YES, could you do some market research to learn what other buyers and sellers in your market segment are doing? But yes, please explain.
  15. The question of consideration seems irrelevant to everything. Please, why are you asking about consideration? The question of the protest clock depends on when you provided notice to unsuccessful offerors, or when they may otherwise have learned. Did you provide notice to unsuccessful offerors close to the "CO signature date" or are you waiting until the "next FY effective date"?
  16. If this is true, it seems you should have said it a long time ago. An earlier post of yours recommends the use of professional engineers for such work, and construction phase services are included in the definition of A-E. Anyway, Joel, help me out a little -- is there a citation or case that prohibits use of A-E procedures for total building commissioning? Inquiring minds want to know...
  17. If you are the contracting officer, and you made your YES answer based on the definition, then full speed ahead. I think you will be glad you can use the A-E procedures instead of FAR Part 13, 14, or 15 -- if you use them vigorously, those procedures are powerful and almost certainly will result in the best possible contract and contractor. Once you make a decision, you might learn some new things from others. Those new insights may or may not cause you to change your mind. But, it sounds like you already released a solicitation -- you might have to cancel it if you want to re-start as an A-E procurement.
  18. You need to ask the contracting officer for that procurement.
  19. One thing I have done is to reply to the contractor saying that I am seeing the recent letter as a REA and not a claim (or vice versa), and asking for the contractor's confirmation.
  20. You should easily be able to do all fifty past performance evaluations in a single week. Best wishes!
  21. No. And regardless, that is the wrong question. The right question is whether building commissioning services are A-E services. That is a YES or NO question. How do you answer that question?
  22. I agree that a modification that includes an "otherwise" performance agreement should be bilateral, but that isn't what we're talking about. The original poster says nothing else is changing, and my comment was clearly premised on nothing else changing -- so if nothing is changing except the funding, then certainly yes to unilateral.
  23. Noob, You need to read the LoF clause, and then do what the clause says. It really is that simple. Are you (I assume you represent the Government) going to allot additional funds to allow completion of the contract's unchanged terms, including unchanged performance period? That is a simple YES or NO question. If YES, will you allot additional funds to cover all or just part of the projected overrun? Make your decision, and do the unilateral modification. Yes, unilateral. If the contractor insists on an extended performance schedule, you may terminate the contract now, maybe for the contractor's [anticipated] default.
  24. Having both FFP and LH CLINs on the same contract is legal, but it is problematic. If done, it should be done carefully and with some pre-thinking to pre-address questions of this sort.
×
×
  • Create New...