jwomack

Depending on the circumstances, I would probably just stop ordering from them.

As you said, right or wrong, many do it. So I looked into this a while back and thought it was ok but can't remember the rationale. I think there's some leeway for acquiring repetitive needs without having to establish a new obligation at each instance but can't remember the citations, etc., I may start another thread on this topic.

I disagree.

See B-294974.6 https://www.gao.gov/decisions/bidpro/2949746.pdf "Statutory requirement to obtain maximum practicable competition in simplified acquisitions is met where agency uses competitive procedures in establishing blanket purchase agreements (BPA) with multiple vendors; under those circumstances, there is no requirement that the agency conduct a further competition among the BPA holders in connection with each individual purchase order subsequently issued under the BPAs."

1. Having a competitive process to get one of the BPAs in the first place is what satisfies the competition requirement. Competition can be at the BPA level or call level if the solicitation says that's how the BPA will operate. There is no requirement to have competition at both points. 2. CO could place a call (obligate the funds) for a group of anticipated needs. Then authorize others to place non-obligating work orders under that call.

Competitive, multiple award BPA so competition won’t be required at the call level. And it would give you an out in case someone refuses a call. To offer the most flexibility as related to ordering, a CO could park money on a call. If annual funds are used, don’t overestimate the call amount unless you don’t mind losing the surplus.

if they had redelegation authority

I saw this years ago - For a reason similar to this - Except it was so a Senior Executive could put a feather in his hat.

Whenever practicable, require SOOs instead of SOWs in both solicitations and contracts.

Break the habit of requiring offerors to show specifically how they will solve a problem. Instead, rely more heavily on experience and past performance. Train PMs on how to write SOWs, SOOs, and evaluation factors.

Or require mandatory overtime for the one person...or require 2 bodies at 960 hours each...or...

Would you have the same opinion if the Government said it needed 2500 hours? 3000 hours?

You could ask the Contracting Officer. If contracts were FPDS reportable then they may freely give you both the previous contract numbers and award amounts.

Sounds like the Fact vs Folklore conversation on Wifcon a couple months back.

1. That’s the default. The Government may be open to negotiating those terms especially if you’re the only source or bring some other great value that others don’t have. That negotiation would generally need to take place as part of establishing the initial contract and not down the road after contract award and when they’re about to exercise an option. 3. In addition to Matthew’s answer, if the solicitation doesn’t say one way or the other (like it should) then you should assume the option periods will be evaluated as well.

Agree with GAO except where they implied employees could wash their dishes with the bottled water.

If you're with a small business then I recommend asking your SBA rep for help. If you're greatly concerned you may want to seek an attorney's assistance. Otherwise you could just ask the CO of record to help.

Yes. Yes, but it varies depending on where you work. Different places have different cultures. Your general observations are not unique to the federal contracting community. I’ve seen the same in the military and private industry, neither of which had anything to do with federal contracting.

KOs can verbally authorize additional work for 52.212-4 contracts. But the authorization would only be considered an offer made by the Government and not a change in the contract’s terms and conditions (and therefore not payable). Doubtful but also possible, there could be language in the Task Order or underlying contract pre-authorizing and agreeing to certain verbal changes.

It looks like the author considers privatization to mean outsourcing to a non-governmental entity. I agree with this definition. It's unclear if the author thinks all government business is inherently governmental. I believe we should privatize whatever is not inherently governmental but only when doing so is in the people’s overall best interest.

Comparison to what is proper. “Weakness” being a polite word for incompetence.

As an auditor, would it be wrong to only review acquisitions made in September? It may be statistically skewed but the weaknesses would certainly be identified.

Navy SeaPort is/was the same way at least a few years ago. If the contractor met minimum standards they got a contract.

Good articles. A reminder that the three Branches of Government are separate but must strive to speak in unison. Sometimes established processes need to be questioned.

Longer than many folks want to invest. Agree with all the input and thank you.