Jump to content
The Wifcon Forums and Blogs


  • Posts

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by mm6ch

  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?
  16. They just published 3rd Ed. of the CPCM Study Guide in January 2014 which "supposedly" provides a vital link wtih the CMBOK 4th Ed. I, unfortunately, have the CPCM Study Guide 2nd Edition. No vital link for me
  17. I own the CMBOK 4th Edition--says published in 2013. Purchased in Nov 2013
  18. 1. What is your all time favorite book? --The Great Gatsby 2. What is your all time favorite song or album? --Guns N Roses: Appetite for Destruction 3. What is your all time favorite movie? --Fight Club (Memento a close 2nd) addition: 4. What is your favorite TV series (mini series)? -- Band of Brothers
  19. I see a problem with not including the labor cats in the resultant contract. If the labor cats are proposed an offeror is disqualified eventhough use of excluded labor cats may be necessary to perform the work. If not proposed, then you end up with the situation in post #1. I see this as a symptom of the lower Agency budgets. Programs are given less funds to work with and are forced to procure the same solution with smaller budgets. Thus, they generate an IGCE based on use of lower level labor cats to ensure the budget is not exceeded and then mandate these labor cats in the solicitation. Post award, the mandated labor mix is not included in the contract, the cost ceiling is unachievably low, and the awardee must figure out how to make it work. The total hours are what remain. It's a trap and I wouldn't propose.
  20. I agree with you, upward adjustment seems reasonable. The information in the solicitation that mandated the use of certain labor cats that were not translated into the contract would be of importance should the government not process the upward adjustment and you request a claim. Maybe it's not of importance but def. caused the cost ceiling to be reduced to a level not achievable based on the requirements. Hopefully, others with more experience could weigh in on how this solicitation info is handled wrt a claim. Not sure if you want to go this route but you're getting railroaded in my opinion.
  21. This statement is confusing. Please clarify: So in the solicitation the CO would not allow use of certain labor cats (higher rates) in proposed solutions. Thus, you proposed solution excluding said labor cats allowing for a lower total cost. The labor cats were not included in the contract, just the LOE in terms of total hours. During performance you utilized these exluded labor cats to accomplish the PWS as those mandated were unable to satisfy the requirements (is this true)? This caused the $ burn to increase? You discussed this issue with the CO and they stated the labor mix was not included in the contract and to get the job done with whatever labor cats and within the cost ceiling. There are a few ways forward. Obv. you do not want to fail in terms of performance, so a claim (see post #2) seems the most logical way forward. I assume the government lives with the risk of a cost overrun in this scenario, CPFF? You'll receive the FF up to the ceiling the government will have to authorize and fund above the ceiling if it gets to that...you won't receive fee on overrun. You'd perform IAW the terms of the contract but would have to use higher labor cats and would burn through funds quickly but it is an alternate way forward...just brainstorming.
  22. Hmmmm. Not sure I agree. The ability to think logically, in my opinion, is developed early in life and has very little to do with choosing a liberal arts degree as your field of study when almost 20 years old.
  23. Advice requested for the following ratification issue... Unauthorized commitment occurred for commercial services above micro-purchase threshold. The Government Agency began the process to ratify IAW FAR 1.602-3. The ratification process required significant fact gathering causing delays. The Contractor became frustrated with these delays and sent an email stating that they no longer wished to pursue the matter and considered it closed. In other words, they did not wish to be compensated for the work performed. After this email the contractor became unresponsive to government emails and phone calls. Our Judge Advocate advised we request a “Release of Claims” from the contractor to make certain they do make a claim against the government including interest at some future point in time. The contracting officer disagrees with processing a “Release of Claims” believing it to be unnecessary because there is no contract against which to apply the Release of Claims clause: FAR 52.212-4 (Alternate I) (i)(7) FAR 4.804-2 (a) The contractor subsequently did not renew their registration in the SAM so even if ratification was processed the contractor would not have the ability to be made whole without being registered in SAM. FAR 4.1102 Concern/Questions: Could the vendor at a future point in time make a claim and the government be held liable for the work performed including interest? Would a release of claims make certain this does not happen? Would it be necessary considering the email and the fact that the vendor is no longer registered in SAM? Or should we close the issue? What am I missing? Are there any other solutions?
  24. Formerfed nailed it in post #9. I too see contracting turning into an automated career on the execution side of things and COs/CSs taking on more of the role as acquisition advisor, i.e. just guiding coworkers through the "acquistion maze". I've worked at an AF Systems Center, Base Level (USAF), in the IC, and in a contingency environment over my 10yr career. I enjoy the career much more than I did 5yrs ago primarily because I came across this website. The worst thing that happened to me was DAU. The training actually turned me off to Contracting during my first 5yrs. I believe, we force feed bad training in the first 5yrs which kills retention of 1102s. Reading WIFCON blog posts, daily review of protest results, combing through Nash and Cibinic Reports made publically available, and topically reading the Nash and Cibinic books has taught me infinitely more than DAU ever has or could. I'm gonna go off on a tangent here: As I have read numerous times on WIFCON, we need better training to energize new 1102s or the career is doomed. We won't have enough competent folks to teach the generation behind us (do we now?). I really think you have to have a particular mind set to enjoy reading and analyzing procurement regulation, case law, and books. It takes time, is tedious, and requires deep diving on topics which, from what I have read, is the opposite of how my generation consumes information via the internet. So, I think bad training mixed with generational social changes, together, may undermine the field of contracting. To answer the poster's question, I would second the comment in post #12:
  • Create New...