ji20874

Thanks, Don, for writing and expressing the thoughts I was having in my mind but hadn't reduced to words!

I never call my request a RFP, even if it is for a multi-million dollar task order. FAR 8.405-2( c )( 2 ) calls them RFQ under the simplified acquisition threshold, and 8.405-2( c )( 3 ) calls them RFQs above the simplified acquisition threshold. So I always use RFQ, never RFP, when ordering services under Federal Supply Schedules. I don't want to introduce any Part 15 wording.

(5) stands for the proposition that services in support of a commercial item (such as installation, maintenance, repair, and training services) are also commercial items for FAR Part 12 purposes; provided, they are commonly sold to the general public under similar terms even without established catalog or market prices. It is limited to these support services. (6) stands for the proposition that services sold in substantial quantities in the commercial marketplace with established catalog prices are commercial items for FAR Part 12 purposes. It is covers a far broader concept of services than (5). Certainly, there is some possibility of overlap with (5) and (6). The drafters of FAR Part 12 and the definition of commercial item did not want EVERY service to be a commercial service, such as those "consulting" services offered by retired generals and colonels and so forth who often get (or who are perceived as getting) sweetheart deals. If those services aren't sold in the commercial marketplace, they aren't commercial. So commercial services reaches typewriter repair and equipment installation and maid service and even professional services that are commonly sold in the commercial marketplace -- but it doesn't reach personal service contracts for retired generals and colonels and sweetheart multi-million dollar sole-source T&M contracts for companies they own whose only customers are the organizations where they once worked. You should ask yourself why the subcontractor cares about (5) versus (6). Is it for honest reasons? or nefarious reasons?

Generally, a task order's period of performance can extend beyond the ordering period of the parent IDIQ contract. You need to take this basic principle and apply it to your situation. Then, you'll have your answer.

I tmay make little difference, but I'll say my piece. The question is not whether the person traveled. The question is whether the contractor reasonably incurred the cost.

Which does your solicitation specify? (1) a LOE (in terms of hours, for example); or (2) a period of performance, with mandatory start and end dates? Maybe there is a third possibility -- (3) both? If you are responsible for making the LOE spread across the entire period of performance, then you need to manage that and make it happen. When a Government program/contracting office buys something like you're describing using CPFF term and other similar arrangements, it usually wants a partner who will MANAGE the effort rather than quickly spending and running out. If I were evaluating proposals, and based solely on my past history and what you write in your original posting, I would be much better impressed by an offeror who promised to MANAGE the effort and make the LOE last the entire period of performance rather than one who said up-front that it will want more money as soon as it runs out. That said, you shouldn't need a caveat in your proposal. You're proposing a LOE. When the LOE is expended, the contract is over. A purchase of additional effort is a new action that might be done by sole-source modification to your contract, but you will be able to negotiate it at the time. Perhaps you're asking the question because of some prior experience with the Government program/contracting office? For the benefit of readers (found using a google search)-- From http://www.onvia.com/b2g-resources/article/the-basics-of-cost-reimbursement-contracts: Cost-Plus-Fixed-Fee (CPFF) Contracts The contractor receives reimbursement plus a predetermined fee that is negotiated when the contract is finalized and will not change based on the actual contract cost. However, the fee may be revised if the work required to complete the contract also changes. This type of contract is useful in situations where the risk to the contractor might otherwise outweigh any non-financial benefits. There are two types of CPFF contracts: Completion: A goal or product is identified and the contractor must deliver the product in order to receive the fee. If the costs exceed the original estimate, the government will continue to reimburse for cost but won't increase the fixed fee. Term: The scope of work is less specific, but the contract states a time period and level of effort expected of the contractor. When that time period expires, the fee is paid after the agency approves the work completed and level of effort. Any further work that's necessary will require a new agreement.

mrbatesville, Vern is right. However, the notion that the Government normally self-insures is wholly IRRELEVANT to the matter at hand. Also wholly IRRELEVANT is whether the contractor's insurance will or will not cover the damage. It seems to me that your basis for action is being nice to the contractor. That's the wrong basis for action when administering a contract.

Really, you should look at the bachelor's degree as important -- you might qualify for a waiver for now, but you will want to get a degree for the sake of future opportunity and advancement. And even if you're eligible, the lack of a degree might work against you in a competition. It's hard to justify calling the 1102 series a professional series if we always allow for waivers and exceptions. YES, you can apply for civilian jobs while you are still active duty if you are within 120 days of honorable discharge. See the OPM letter dated June 15, 2012, at http://www.chcoc.gov/Transmittals/TransmittalDetails.aspx?TransmittalID=4881. I understand some agencies and personnelists are not aware of this policy (statute, really). On November 21, 2011, President Obama signed the VOW (Veterans Opportunity to Work) To Hire Heroes Act of 2011. The VOW amends chapter 21 of title 5, United States Code (U.S.C.) by adding section 2108a, “Treatment of certain individuals as veterans, disabled veterans, and preference eligibles.” Section 2108a requires Federal agencies to treat active duty service members as veterans, disabled veterans, or preference eligibles for purposes of appointment in the competitive service when these service members submit a certification of expected discharge or release from active duty under honorable conditions along with their applications for Federal employment. A certification is any written document from the armed forces that certifies the service member is expected to be discharged or released from active duty service in the armed forces under honorable conditions not later than 120 days from the date the certification is signed. Agencies must accept, process, and consider applications for appointment from any service member who submits a certification in the same manner as they would consider other preference eligibles. Prior to appointment, agencies must verify the veteran is eligible for veterans’ preference in accordance with 5 U.S.C. 2108, unless the service member is appointed under the provisions of 5 U.S.C. 5534a, “Dual employment and pay during terminal leave from uniformed services.”

No one has to defend the policy -- we just have to implement it as best we can. I see this as a challenge -- a challenge where we can excel, if we try -- our political masters are asking us to use 2010 rates as the starting point for our negotiation objectives -- an objective is something we TRY to achieve -- our agencies have to do something to lower our contract prices, and harder negotiations by contract specialists should be part of that solution.

le01102, You could put a memo (or better yet, a copy of the e-mail) with your HQ instructions not to comply into the contract file.

In Forest Service construction contracts, we normally specify in our contracts that we will pay the bond premium from the mobilization line -- we require evidence of actual payment to the surety, and we make payment for that exact amoount. The remainder of the mobilization line is paid as the contract directs (usually 50% of the mobilization line when 5% of the contract work is completed and 100% when 10% of the work is completed). We pay the exact amount of the premium the contractor paid to the surety. This is also the FP-03 method for federal highways projects. We don't reimburse for normal insurance.

What I found most interesting in the case was the Court's reminder that the Anti-Deficiency Act only reaches to Government officials -- but a contractor still has a right to payment... The remaining counterarguments are unpersuasive. First, the Government suggests that today’s holding couldcause the Secretary to violate the Anti-Deficiency Act, which prevents federal officers from "mak[ing] or authoriz[ing] an expenditure or obligation exceeding an amount available in an appropriation." 31 U. S. C. §1341(a)(1)(A). But a predecessor version of that Act was in place when Ferris and Dougherty were decided, see GAO Redbook, pp.6–9 to 6–10, and the Government did not prevail there.As Dougherty explained, the Anti-Deficiency Act’s requirements "apply to the official, but they do not affect the rights in this court of the citizen honestly contracting with the Government." 18 Ct. Cl., at 503; see also Ferris, 27 Ct. Cl., at 546 ("An appropriation per se merely imposes limitations upon the Government’s own agents; . . . but its insufficiency does not pay the Government’s debts, nor cancel its obligations").

Saying that a price is based on adequate price competition if only one offer is received is covered by FAR 15.403-1( c )( 1 )( ii ). Underneath ( ii ), there is an ( A ) and a ( B ), and there is an "and" connecting them. FAR 15.403-1( c )( 1 )( ii )( B ) requires the determination to be approved at a level above the contracting officer. The FAR doesrequire approval of the determination that a price is based on adequate price competiton in the matter we're discussing (only one response when more were anticipated) -- we're in ( ii ) -- the FAR does not require higher-level approval for ( i ) or ( iii ).

I looked on the DPAP memo as being an internal matter to the Defense Department, but I appreciate the perspective in the above posting. The FAR already requires approval of the detemination "at a level above the contracting officer" (FAR 15.403-1( c )( 1 )( ii )( B )), and the DPAP memo puts that approval at the HCA level consistently across DoD. The burden of the memo is on contracting officers and HCAs, as it seems to me that an offeror has no claim or right to an affirmative determination under 15.403-1( c )( 1 )( ii ). Perhaps DoD contracting officers and their superiors were overstretching the elasticity of the principle and DPAP had to do something for the sake of better control of the taxpayer dollar. But I don't like rule by letter, either, and I tend to think that the DFARS is the better place for DPAP to define "at a level above the contracting officer"..

Hold discussions with some or all of the offerors -- you can throw some out of the competitive range if you want to. With those offerors that you keep in the competitive range for the purpose of discussions (some or all, a contracting officer or SSA decision), you can do some analysis to see if there are particular places where the offeror prices were higher if you have some price or cost proposal information. If you have some price or cost proposal information, and if your analysis shows areas where there is a real difference between offeror prices and the Government's estimate, then you might use the approach described in FAR 36.203( c ) where you "identify a specialized task and disclose the associated cost breakdown figures in the Government estimate, but only to the extent deemed necessary to arrive at a fair and reasonable price." Sometimes contracting officers are reluctant to do hard price negotiations -- but I believe that is an important part of our skill set.

The answer you seek won't be in the FAR -- it will be in your subcontract -- does your subcontract require you to deliver before definitization? You have to be true to your subcontract; otherwise, you and your prime might end up in state court in a contract dispute where the FAR is irrelevant. If you were a prime contractor, with a contract subject to the FAR, you might look at FAR 16.603-2( c ) where you see words suggesting that definitization should occur within 180 days or before completion of 40% of the work, whichever occurs first. Two units out of twelve is 17%.

Thanks. For DoD, an attachment does not require contractor deliverables, but an exhibit does. I left DoD several years ago...

Does anyone have a working definition that will differentiate between a contract exhibit and a contract attachment? I don't, and I'm intersted in hearing how others approach this matter...

Can the solicitation require it? Yes. Yours does. Perhaps you're thinking of filing a protest challenging use of the SOFARS provision in the solicitation? You will want expert legal advice. But you might ask yourself whether a weighted guidelines form rises to the level of "breakouts or supporting rationale for [a prospective contractor's] profit or fee objective" -- I tend to think it doesn't. The information on the weighted guidelines form can be used as an aid to help the contracting officer analyze profit/fee, but it does not divulge your firm's rationale for your profit/fee objective. I wonder if the expectation is that a sole-source contractor will use the weighted guidelines approach to develop its profit/feeobjective. Would it be okay to submit a weighted guidelines form supporting a 10% fee along with a proposal actually asking for a 20% fee? Probably. You know, you can just claim the high end of the range for every category and let it be a matter of negotiation. Since this is probably a sole-source acquisition, you may have a great deal of leverage to shape the outcome.

I took it, too, but my first inclination was to ignore it. Too busy doing real work was first thought, and second though was that nothing good will come out of all the effort.

As a follow-on to Formedfed's comment #8, I'll add that competition is not required for contracts for arbitrators or mediators -- see FAR 6.302-3( b )( 3 )( ii ). So likely, if you have an agency/union agreement, the answer will be just to issue a purchase order or write a convenience check or do a purchase card payment.

I don't think you'll find a FAR reference -- nothing says a subcontract SOW has to match a prime contract SOW; indeed, one might reasonably think that EVERY subcontract SOW will differ from its prime contract SOW.

Try 3. FAR 15.404-1( a )( 1 ) says the contracting officer is responsible for evaluating the reasonableness of the offered prices.

Retreadfed -- Visit http://www.acq.osd.mil/dpap/policy/policyvault/USA007183-10-DPAP.pdf and do a search for "non-government" you'll see all the agency procedures you need to see -- this link is to the March 4, 2011, letter from the Director of Defense Procurement and Acquisition Policy. Using contractor personnel to support a source selection in DoD is permissible.

If you're in agency X and agency X has a hammer in its inventory, you should go get it. That's 8.002( a )( 1 )( i ). You might be able to do this with no requisition, no money, just follow agency procedures and ask for it. If your agency X doesn't have a hammer, you should try to get one from another agency's excess -- the other agency isn't supposed to buy products for your agency, but it can give you its excess. That's 8.002( a )( 1 )( ii ). If you're in DoD, you might think 8.002( a )( 1 )( i ) is identical to 8.002( a )( 1 )( v ) with regard to military inventory control points, but they might not be -- the military inventory control points might require requisitions and money (or internal budget transactions) -- but for a civilian agency, there is a real difference between ( i ) and ( v ). The FAR is written for both defense and civilian agencies. To directly answer your question, I would say acquiring a hammer from DLA or a military inventory control point is from a "wholesale supply source" 8.002(a)(1)(v). Getting the hammer from your squadron's or brigade's or ship's supply locker or other source is 8.002( a )( 1 )( i ).