Jump to content
The Wifcon Forums and Blogs


  • Posts

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Profile Information

  • Gender

Recent Profile Visitors

8,949 profile views
  1. It applies to the CLIN, which is where you list the estimated cost, fixed fee, and total.
  2. I think for most contracts the phrase ends up meaning without any type of premium pay, like hazardous duty, overtime, shift differential, etc.
  3. For DoD, see here: https://www.acq.osd.mil/dpap/policy/policyvault/Class_Deviation_2020-O0013.pdf
  4. Whether the small business plan is purely a "responsibility item" depends on the language of your solicitation. It sounds like your solicitation isn't treating it purely as a responsibility matter, but obviously that depends on the language of the solicitation when read as a whole.
  5. Research pointer: For some reason, the FAR uses the words, "telecommuting" and "telecommute" rather than "teleworking" or "telework."
  6. Well-stated @formerfed. If we kept simplified procedures simple, to include proposals and evaluation criteria, even a complete explanation wouldn't take much effort. While there are simplified procedures for awarding contracts, there is no simplified procedure for handling a protest. With few exceptions, the same protest rules apply regardless of the contract's dollar value. Here's a way to look at it: The "brief explanation" (for FAR Subpart 8.4 and FAR 13.106-3(d)), like the debriefing for Part 15, is not the last step in the source selection process, it is the first step in the bid protest process. Just to be clear, I'm not advocating any particular level of detail. I'm suggesting that the considerations a PCO looks to in deciding the level of detail of an explanation are the same considerations a PCO would look to in deciding the level of detail (beyond the minimum) of a debriefing.
  7. It does depend, and it really depends on the same factors you would consider in providing more than the minimum in a debriefing. I don't want a contracting officer to underestimate the extent to which he or she can impact whether a disappointed offeror protests. Often a good debriefing can prevent protests. Even when that doesn't occur, sometimes a good debriefing can get the disappointed offeror on the clock on a potential protest ground, preventing the piecemeal presentation of allegations later. In either case, you save yourself time later. The effort to defend some of these protests far exceed the effort of a carefully considered explanation of the basis for award. While the debriefing is never a proper ground for a protest, I'm quite sure folks have protested because of the debriefing they received, for instance, they thought the Government was hiding something (like the failure to follow proper procedures). While the dollar value of these actions (where no debriefing is required) are often low enough that rational disappointed offerors don't bother to protest, one need only look at the Latvian Connections LLC line of decisions to realize not everyone behaves as a economically rational actor.
  8. Generally true. Sorry for being semantic, but there are still circumstances where a CoC might be required. However, by evaluating past performance as other than pass/fail, and giving a neutral where there is no relevant past performance, where a neutral would be eligible for award, your past performance evaluation would not amount to a responsibility determination.
  9. I take your post immediately above to mean my second option: "Are you asking how to get the award to the contractor?" Based on the limited facts presented so far, here's my guess. While it won't surprise me if someone disagrees, I think this is a funding action and block 13b is appropriate. If you don't like that, check block 13a and cite to your award fee clause. Regardless, there's no reason this needs to be bilateral.
  10. Any contracting officer that releases a solicitation where a cost reimbursement contract will be awarded on an LPTA basis should lose their warrant. EDIT: I found the quote I was looking for! To quote Mr. Edwards: http://www.wifcon.com/discussion/index.php?/topic/103-economical-lpta/page/2/&tab=comments
  11. I'm sorry that I'm not understanding the question. Are you asking how to change contract type to CPAF? Are you asking how to get the award to the contractor? Are you asking how to modify the award fee plan? If the last, I would start by looking at your award-fee clause. That clause likely provides for unilateral modification of the plan, as FAR 16.406(e)(3) provides, "Insert an appropriate award-fee clause in solicitations and contracts when an award-fee contract is contemplated, provided the clause...expressly provides that the award amount and the award-fee determination methodology are unilateral decisions made solely at the discretion of the Government."
  12. If FAR Subpart 13.5 is available, I don't see anything that would prevent an evaluation based on price alone. Obviously FAR 13.106-1(a)(2) says, "Contracting officers are encouraged to use best value," but it seems to be a tool in the toolbox. EDIT: There might be other rules that prevent it. For instance, for DoD, if the provision at DFARS 252.213-7003 is prescribed, then it seems the Government is required to evaluate past performance, so a "price alone" approach wouldn't be available.
  13. An evaluation based on price alone is NOT the same as an LPTA. An evaluation under simplified procedures based on price alone does not consider quality or risk or whether the quoter's or offeror's proposed approach demonstrates an understanding of the Government's requirements, even on a pass/fail basis, but takes as a given each vendor's promise to perform. So your example above (where you consider understanding) would not be an evaluation based on price alone. As the RFQ should identify the "basis on which award will be made" (FAR 13.106-1(a)(2)), the RFQ should list this criterion if the Government intends to evaluate it. If the RFQ said the evaluation was going to be price alone, but the Government evaluated quotes against additional criteria, that would be solid grounds for protest. Myers Investigative and Security Services, Inc., B-287949.2, July 27, 2001. The simplified procedures at FAR 13.106-1(a)(2) are best understood in contrast to FAR 15.101-1(b) (relative importance) & 15.304(c)(2) (quality). EDIT: All this said, realize the FAR 9.103 related to responsibility still applies even when the sole basis for selecting the apparent successful vendor is price alone (as potentially would the need to go through the SBA's COC process if the apparent successful vendor is a small business and found not responsible).
  14. I'm not familiar with seeing this in a typical term form cost reimbursement effort. The hours represent in the first instance the GOVERNMENT'S obligation. "If the Government fails to order the specified LOE, it is liable for breach of contract damages...." Nash & Cibinic, "Estimates in Level of Effort Contracts: Wrong Contract Type, Wrong Breach," 19 Nash & Cibinic Report ¶ 23 (May 2005). For more information on this contract type, see FAR 16.306(d)(2). Vern's article in 09-11 Briefing Papers (October 2009) and Professor Nash's article at 25 Nash & Cibinic Report ¶ 55 (November 2011) are both useful when considering a CPFF term form effort.
  • Create New...