Jump to content
The Wifcon Forums and Blogs


  • Posts

  • Joined

  • Last visited

About mm6ch

  • Birthday November 14

Profile Information

  • Gender
  • Location

Recent Profile Visitors

5,722 profile views
  1. Sounds like your legal office is saying that -8 price should have been considered at time of initial sole source award and issuance of J&A not that the actual clause itself be included or referenced in the J&A. Regardless, you have to draft a new J&A. I would just draft it. In "1)" change "it" with "price" then the statement makes sense.
  2. I may have missed this on the wifcon.com homepage or in the forums. Wanted to share. The link below is to a 214 page report released by the Senate Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee’s permanent subcommittee on investigations regarding the acquisition workforce. It's a compendium of views cobbled together and released as a report. This is larger than contracting but former contracting leaders opine. I scanned the report but haven't read the beast. http://www.hsgac.senate.gov/subcommittees/investigations/media/senators-mccain-and-levin-release-permanent-subcommittee-on-investigations-psi-report-on-defense-acquisition-reform And here is a govexec article discussing the report: http://m.govexec.com/defense/2014/10/trouble-defense-acquisition-may-be-workforce/95945/?oref=ge-iphone-interstitial-continue
  3. This sounds like a good wifcon blog. Calling out poor J&As or other publically posted docs, placing on wifcon, and critiquing. The new form of social accountability. Yes, No? Public humiliation. Good idea or bad idea?
  4. Who knows? Maybe a purchase for "windows" (microsoft) and android compatible tablets has already been made. We have no clue--justification lacks a lot of important info.
  5. And let me preempt the expected reply that the Air Force infrastructure is not based on Apple. I'm speaking only about this project or program. It may be based on apple hardware--we do not know.
  6. So the justification is rambling, not well organized, and bs facts are thrown around. That's obvious. Get rid of the facts on thiness, they're irrelevant. They should have based the justification on the fact that the AF Language Portal application is only available in the Apple App Store and that requires the purchase of Apple hardware, iPads. Govco's quote is hilarious-- too broad, but I get what they're trying to say. That's just lazy writing and it got through many reviews, wow! It would take all of 15 min to write a better sentence or two. Meetec, you say "The second claim is true, but that is because AF has not provided their applications to the Google or Microsoft application store. In other words, the AF gave Apple an unfair competitive advantage over other stores that resulted in this exception to fair opportunity." Why must this Air Force organization develop applications for Google and Microsoft? If they have a hardware infrastructure based around Apple products then why waste time and money developing apps for others providers. The Air Force is not a for profit enterprise like commercial app developers where the goal is to reach the greatest number of people. Developing apps for microsoft, android, blackberry, etc., etc. costs money. The calculus is different. I'm not clear on the point of the "limited source justification." Is it to justify limiting sources to just NETCENTS primes or is it a J&A to sole source to ONE NETCENTS prime. The use of FAR 16.505 makes me believe they are justifying procuring 4k IPADS directly from one particular NETCENTS prime. I cannot fathom how you can justify that only one prime is capable of delivering iPads. So yes, no protest, <$10M, but wow so bad.
  7. In addition to deaner's link on protests: https://interact.gsa.gov/wiki/are-schedule-orders-protest-proof GSA does a good job on their website with intructions, videos, etc. They have a youtube channel. Well, the fact that you have a youtube channel to explain how your MAS/FSS schedule contracts work could indicate your processes are too complex.
  8. Agree with Don, it's not required but, If we're talking initial task orders to be awarded with the IDIQ it may make sense to evaluate the past performance of those firm TO requirements or at least wrap that in as part of your IDIQ PP evaluation. Why? For the initial TOs, you won't have any prior performance under the IDIQ and IDIQ service requirements are by their nature vague and nondescript; in turn, your IDIQ PP eval may not be meaningful. You may get a better sense of an offerors abitlity to perform by evaluating past performance on actual requirements. For future TOs, you should have prior performance under the IDIQ to evaluate so this may not be an issue but for now I would consider including a PP eval on the initial TOs; at a minimum, somehow tying that eval in as part of your IDIQ PP eval. You could kill 2 birds with 1 stone and get a meaningful past performance eval out of it. It really all depends on how you've drafted you IDIQ past performance eval criteria and requirements. Did the attorney provide rationale?
  9. Here is my one: 1) "It is also interesting to note that incumbents on “poorly performing” contracts often win against successful incumbents on other competitions."
  10. There are so many assertions in this article without reference it's mind boggling. Sounds like the whining of a losing incumbent.
  11. google: "wifcon IDIQ price evaluation" (hat tip to Bob for his "Try This Search Procedure" post) 1. http://www.wifcon.com/discussion/index.php?/topic/1881-price-evaluation-of-idiq-contract/ 2. http://www.wifcon.com/discussion/index.php?/topic/747-use-of-illustrative-task-orders-for-pricecost-analysis/
  12. I think your table is Ok. It could be a special clause with tiered CPFF rates but that's not the issue. The issue is how to define the emergency repair requirement linked to CLIN 0002 in terms of hours (LOE)...since you must use CPFF Term (LOE). You were able to chart 6 years worth of data so that's a positive and is more data than most have when developing requirements. That data told you the emergency repairs were previously "lumpy" and inconsistent year to year so, given the variability in hours, I recommend you restructure CLIN 0002 (see PGI 204.7103 Contract line items) and use optional subCLINS so not to overcommit your organization to hours/$$ that may never be burned/expensed. I'd structure your emergency repair hours in chunks of 500hrs for example. Once you get to 75% burned exercise the next chunk. That still may be tricky given the "emergency nature" of the requirement though--just brainstorming here. Do you have data on the historical average LOE per repair--that would be helpful? Think we're beginning to veer outside the lane of this forum talking requirements development vs. CPFF-Term (LOE). Let us know your solution. Good luck.
  13. Since you say you must use this contract type, recommend Optional LOE CLINS rather than "lumping" all hours under 1 CLIN and then descoping a huge chunk; the fee would be fixed to each CLIN. Not really sure how you would chunk them, i.e. per 500 hrs or per type of repair. How are your CLINS structured currently? Believe a CO would not be fond of putting on contract scope that is not attainable.
  14. Really? Redact markings from hundreds if not thousands of pages of proposals. Are we talking sharpie, adobe PDF, or .DOC. Literally sounds insane. No way would I waste time doing that. I'd tell your lawyer to grab and marker and start redacting.
  15. Situation: You're on a panel interviewing candidates for a GS 1102-12/13 Government Contract Specialist position. You have the opportunity to ask three questions. What questions do you ask and why?
  • Create New...