jwomack

FAR 1.108(b) “Delegation of authority. Each authority is delegable unless specifically stated otherwise (see 1.102-4(b)).”

I've seen them as liaisons between the 1102 shop and the program office. Former 1102s.

Comparing something’s relative worth to its alternatives. As related to evaluating price in a source selection, it would be the process of determining if the quid pro quo is a relatively good decision or not.

It sounds like you’re contemplating the calculations of opportunity cost.

By definition, an Expert Witness is expected to testify, i.e., provide their expert opinion as testimony. (Black's Law "Expert Witness", "Witness". Rule 702 et seq.) Conclusion: Services of an Expert Witness are considered advisory and assistance.

Why not? Stating that Part 13 actions are not subject to Part 6 does not explain why the authorities of 10 USC 2304 and 41 USC 3304 cannot be applied to Part 13 acquisitions. Please explain further why these citations can only be used, and are only applicable to, CICA actions.

FAR 5.207(c)(16)(i) does not say IAW Part 6, it says “using the sole source authority at 6.302-1”. The authorities cited at 6.302-1 are 10/41 USC xxx which may be applicable to the Part 13 acquisition.

If I worked for that General I’d be drafting a sole source justification. I’m pretty sure he’d sign off. The difference in stopping power is marketing nonsense. To put it in acquisition terms, accuracy and quantity when combined are significantly more important than caliber (within certain parameters). The 9mm has less recoil than a larger caliber weapon meaning follow-on shots are easier to put on target when firing in rapid succession. And, comparably sized and weighted, the magazine for a 9 holds a greater quantity of rounds than the magazine of any larger caliber.

Was not aware. Am now. Intend to look at it. I like Don's idea.

16.504(a)(2) is in reference to the contract, not each CLIN therein. My agency’s “system” is blank PDF Forms and blank Word documents. We’re a little behind the times. This is good only in that we’re not confined to contract-writing software imperfections. Why include min/max at the CLIN level if it’s already established at the contract level? So both the contractor and government managers can adequately gauge the scope of the project. This may not be a FAR requirement but would seem to be a wise business practice. I don’t like the phrase “minimum guarantee” in contracts either. Accordingly, I only use it when talking to others about a contract. I find it most useful when speaking with non-contracting types, such as a program manager. ji, Yes, that’s the general concept.

No. In my example, zero is the minimum quantity at the CLIN level. I think you always need a minimum and maximum at the CLIN level. And at the contract level if the contract’s min/max are not otherwise apparent just by looking at the CLINs. Since the sum of the CLIN minimums does not equal the contract’s overall minimum, I made the distinction. If the sum of the CLIN quantities equaled the contract's minimum quantity, I may still refer to that sum as the contract’s “minimum guarantee”. A separate enumeration in the contract would be unnecessary. I’m pretty sure I didn’t invent the term “minimum guarantee”. FAR language or not, it’s widely used contract slang at least in my little world. When using this phrase, I mean it as synonym for “an IDIQ contract’s minimum quantity”. They could. No, but there are a lot of government contracts I’ve never seen. Something similar which I have seen is a “contract setup fee” CLIN.

SOLICITATION CLIN 0001 Minimum quantity = 0 hours Maximum quantity = 1,000 hours CLIN 0002 Minimum quantity = 0 hours Maximum quantity = 1,000 hours TOTAL CONTRACT MINIMUM / MAXIMUM QUANTITIES (Required quantities per FAR 16.504(a)(4)(i)) Minimum quantity (aka minimum guarantee) = $2,000 Maximum quantity = (aka maximum possible contract value) = 1,000 hours The information above is sufficient for vendors to devise an intelligent labor rate. In the cited GAO decision (B-254044) the agency only provided the previous year’s quantity and did not provide any quantities that would be in the upcoming contract. In my scenario above, quantity estimates are provided as a range (0-1000 hours at the CLIN level; $2,000 – 1000 hours at the contract level). This satisfies FAR 16.504(a) which says, “Description. An indefinite-quantity contract provides for an indefinite quantity, within stated limits, of supplies or services during a fixed period. The Government places orders for individual requirements. Quantity limits may be stated as number of units or as dollar values”. By “three” I was ineloquently speaking to the min/max quantities at the CLIN level and the min quantity at the contract level (min guarantee). --- CONTRACTOR INTELLIGENTLY PROPOSED RATES BASED ON THE ABOVE SOLICITATION Considerations Fixed cost for the contract = $1,950 CLIN 0001 variable cost per hour (excluding profit) = $40 CLIN 0001 profit per hour = $10 CLIN 0002 variable cost per hour (excluding profit) = $80 CLIN 0002 profit per hour = $20 Cost Proposal A Low risk proposal. Contractor recovers fixed costs considering only the contract’s minimum guarantee (minimum quantity). CLIN 0001 = $2,000 for the first hour. $50 per hour for hours 2 through 1,000. CLIN 0002 = $2,050 for the first hour. $100 per hour for hours 2 through 1,000. Cost Proposal B Highest risk proposal. Contractor recovers fixed costs only if the contract’s maximum is ordered ($1,950 / 1,000 hours = $1.95 per hour). CLIN 0001 = $51.95 per hour CLIN 0002 = $101.95 per hour Cost Proposal C Medium risk proposal. Contractor assumes the Government will order 25% of each CLIN’s max. Fixed costs evenly spread out ($1,950 / 500 hours = $3.90 per hour). CLIN 0001 = $53.90 per hour CLIN 0002 = $103.90 per hour --- GOVERNMENT EVALUATION Proposal A CLIN 0001 = range between $0 and $51,950. CLIN 0002 = range between $0 and $101,950. TOTAL CONTRACT = range between $2,000 and $101,950. Proposal B CLIN 0001 = range between $0 and $51,950. CLIN 0002 = range between $0 and $101,950. TOTAL CONTRACT = range between $2,000 and $101,950. Proposal C CLIN 0001 = range between $0 and $53,900. CLIN 0002 = range between $0 and $103,900. TOTAL CONTRACT = range between $2,000 and $103,900. --- WITH AN ESTIMATE OF DEFINITE QUANTITIES FOR THE INDEFINITE QUANTITY CONTRACT In addition to the initial scenario, the Government provides these estimated quantities: CLIN 0001 = 400 CLIN 0002 = 250 Contractor Cost Proposal D CLIN 0001 = $53 per hour CLIN 0002 = $103 per hour ($1,950 fixed cost / 650 hours = $3 per estimated hour) Government Evaluation of Proposal D CLIN 0001 = $21,200 CLIN 0002 = $25,750 TOTAL CONTRACT = $46,950 --- Correct. Fixed, not sunk.

The min/max are both quantities to which the government can apply proposed labor rates to. The result would be a range. To price services intelligently, vendors can, and should, also consider the contract’s minimum guarantee amount. With these three elements (min qty, max qty, min guarantee), vendors can offer a price with as low or high risk as they desire. Low risk proposal: Capture all sunk costs within a quantity equaling the contract’s minimum guarantee amount. (Stepladder pricing?) Higher risk proposal: Spread all sunk costs assuming the maximum allowable will be ordered. I agree that disclosure of an estimate reflecting what is likely to be ordered would probably benefit the Government. But I don’t think it’s required by FAR nor common sense, notwithstanding GAO’s opinion.

I interpreted question 2 as The agency is not providing any estimated quantities as part of the solicitation. FAR 16.504 requires min/max quantities be provided. I suppose another interpretation of question 2 could be The agency will not disclose the actual number of hours that will be applied for evaluation purposes. I understand your initial response if this is what you were addressing.

Could you expand on what you mean by "generally"? How do you get around FAR 16.504(a )(4)(ii ) which says, “A solicitation and contract for an IQ must – Specify the total minimum and maximum quantity of supplies or services the Government will acquire under the contract”?

1. If I were with DOD, probably. 2. Your left hand column and subpart numbering already address this. Shading may not work well for printing nor for copy/paste into Plain Text emails (to my recollection this is fairly standard in DOD). And the left hand column would create problems as well with copy/paste. 3. No. 4. For maintenance, you’ll need to consider how to align/annotate the DFARS entries if it’s not up to date with the FAR. For example, FAR 1.7 may become FAR 1.8 while DFARS is still 201.7.

1. No 2. N/A 3. The contract is between SBA and the 8(a)

2 reasons - Poor time managment by the Government (ran out of time). Poor market research by the Government (didn't research realistic response times); in fairness to the Government, industry will always ask for more time.

You obviously don’t work in any office I’ve been in. The -8 clause gives the government fairly significant flexibility with regards to contract length. Why would you not take advantage of this flexibility “in a perfect world”? Also, are you saying contractors should not price a part of the contract they may be legally bound to perform under? And that they should always carry over a rate that is offered for a different contract period?

If it’s numbered correctly, it’s a reference to the Navy’s supplement to the FAR. All of the FAR supplements can be found here (GPO, electronic CFR). You may want to ask the Contracting Officer to confirm.

A notice of intent may (or may not) be presented as a solicitation: Notice of intent that is a solicitation: The Government intends to place an order for XYZ on 9/2/15. The purchase will be made based on price alone and will be awarded to the contract holder offering the lowest price. Please submit your best pricing for XYZ by COB 9/1/15. Notice of intent that is not a solicitation: The Government intends to place an order for XYZ on 9/2/15. The purchase will be made based on price alone and will be awarded to the contract holder offering the lowest price. The Government will consider IDIQ established prices and all subsequent pricing offers submitted to the Government by COB 9/1/15. In the first example the notice is requesting an offer “please submit…”. In the second example the notice does not request anything. It only states what the Government intends to do.

Maybe they’re completing the project in phases as funding becomes available. With notice of funding via “order”.

It’s contradictory to 52.212-1(e) which encourages offerors to present alternative terms and conditions. Ultimately it restricts the Government’s options.

10.001(a )(3)(i ) says use the results of market research to “Determine if sources capable of satisfying the agency’s requirements exist”. 13.104 says “consider…at least three sources”. In JDYoung’s scenario, “vendors are solicited to ask if they carry an item or provide a service.” This is market research, not a solicitation for quotes procedure. “If they say no, then it is being considered as a ‘No Quote…but companies that may or may not sale the products are solicited for quotes.” A vendor that doesn’t sell/carry a product is not a source. Soliciting such a vendor for a quote would not contribute toward satisfying the FAR 13.104 requirement to consider three sources.

Basic training for DAWIA/FAC-C: More mandatory subjects should be required particularly for Level 2 and/or Level 3 certification. Subject matter – (1) private industry’s perspective on conducting business with the Govt (all things cradle-to-grave, not just negotiation techniques), (2) communication skills (both internal and external), and (3) professional business writing. Continuous training: 80 hours is about right but there should be more definition as to what’s required. For example, a mandate to spend at least 40 of the 80 hours on (1) research methods (and real world application of the findings), (2) project management, (3) familiarization training (cross-training) with others such as budget officials, PMs, or senior decision makers. More people? No. Better trained? Yes.