Jump to content

airborne373

Members
  • Posts

    46
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by airborne373

  1. FAR 16.403-1 states "when final cost is more than target cost, application of the formula results in a final profit less than the target profit, or even a net loss. " with the application of the formula (0/100) the contractor sees his profit decremented by his percentage, which in this case is 100%. Tjhe statement you are questioning is based upon the information given to us and my interpretation of 16.403-1
  2. ok going to give it a shot. (after reading the NASA incentive guide to freshen up on FPIF contracts) Target cost $60M Final negotiated cost $68M difference ($8M) target profit $7M contractor would see a decrease in their profits of 100% of the difference of the target cost and the final negotiated cost. In this case since it is a 0/100 share on the over, the ceiling does not matter as the contractor assumes responsibility for for all costs over the the target cost. ( if there were a different ratio, then I could see where the ceiling would come into play) so based upon the sharing ratio, my answer would be the final cost would be $67M, with the contractor absorbing a ($1M) loss. just my two cents. edited for spelling,
  3. Most of the PM's that I interface with actively recruit 1102s, as they have little or no experience embedded within their shop. Generally these 1102's that cross the aisle, assist in the preparation of the documents, making recommendations and interfacing with the contracting shop, etc. The also tend to get assigned as COR's on contracts, do budgets, and a myriad of other duties. So depending on what they could have you doing, you would not necesarily be out of "contracting", you will get an exposure to a different side of "contracting". as far as upward mobility,it depends on the size of the program shop. The PM's have the equivalent of a 14/15 where I am located at. (They are on the Acq Demo pay scale) Good luck, but I would definitely talk to people that are doing the job.
  4. Contractors must enter personnel into SPOT. (http://www.resource.spot-es.net/FAQ.aspx) is the a FAQ for the SPOT website. The Contract will have specific CENTCOM clauses in addition to the myriad of FAR clauses. The KO will include the latest clauses as they change quite frequently (or used to ) LOA's (letters of authorization) will have to be issued to the contractor personnel. ( this process can take a few days to process as the contractor enters information, COR concurs, KO has to approve) CENTCOM Contracting has a page for contractor personnel (http://www2.centcom.mil/sites/contracts/Pages/GCP.aspx) that dcarver provided.
  5. Section 811 and 831 will be the ones I am most interested in. Curious to see what Bureaucratic hoops we will have to jump through.
  6. 373 is for 3 BN 73rd armor. I was at Ft Bragg from 91 to 95, throwing myself and sheridans out of "perfectly good" airplanes.
  7. thanks, Was the argument of responsibility I was using, however some disagreements with me on that. I am addressing my concerns, ultimately the KO makes the determination, Just wanted a sanity check.
  8. Currently reviewing an action for award and ran into this situation. Background. 1. Verifying that CPARS is current on previous contract. ( push is now for this agency, that we may not award if CPARS on previous actions are not up to date) 2. Found that there was not CPARS on this current requirement. ( our PARC requires on this particular MATOC that DO/TO's have CPARS for each.) 3. Had the specialist contact the COR to see if they were in process of doing a CPARs report, was informed that the KO (on the MATOC) was the assessing offical, but also let us know that on the current contract there were some performance issues, cure notices, etc. 4. RFP did not have as an evaluation criteria , past performance. 5. RFP is for a different MATOC that provides similar services. (follow on contract providing similar support) 6. Potential awardee is the same as the one that had cure notices on the current contract. (contractor on both MATOC's) Since we did not list as an evaluation factor as past performance for this award, I am being told that we should award. I have difficulty with this as in good faith, if there are performance issues that need to be resolved. (unfortunately the KO who is the assessing official is not in due to personal reasons). If the contractor improved the performance, then I would have no issues with awarding, esp since we did not evaluate past performance. but without that information it leaves a question as to the risk of performance for this contractor. So my question is, how do we deal with information that comes up, while not part of an evaluation factor, but raises questions about the potential awardees. or am I being to conservative on this? (as a caveat, I am not the KO, but part of the peer review on this action, and the decision to not evaluate Past Performance was the KO's determination) thanks
  9. Unfortunately, from what I have seen from "newbies" and "old timers" is that not too many people question. I have seen to many "professionals" ask someone how to do something or wait for legal to tell them rather than doing some basic research.
  10. Depends on the day, and what questions I get. Sometimes it is fun and enjoyable as I feel like i am making a difference with some of the new people, other days ......................well i will leave it at that. Some people just dont like to research and figure stuff out.
  11. Check with ACC at Redstone, PCF is part of the Virtual Contracting enterprise now. send you a PM with a contact link
  12. Listening to some Colt Ford - Country is a country does KId Rock and to mix it some Eminem. (in preparation of talking to legal)
  13. Principles of Economics by Mankiw. not by choice though
  14. we are utilizing PCF Paperless contracting file (web based) as our official contract file. While it is "great" idea, it is a PITA. All documents are to be electronically signed and uploaded to this website in the appropriate cabinet. A cabinet has to be created for each modification or TO/DO on this website. but there is not tethering of the original award cabinet. slow to upload, not user friendly to access. We are now in process of running compliance reports, but the only way to verify the information is uploaded correctly is to review each cabinet. and when originally started, no standard naming nomeclature for the documents to be uploaded. having used both, give me a paper file. much easier to access and find stuff. Can do it much quicker.
  15. While we used those terms in the private sector, since I have been in the Gov't sector, nope. now we have some people that do some of the functions of what and expeditor may do, but more as an additional duty.
  16. A smart decision maker can make either system work, ( while not knocking our decision makers) they are also pressed by time, dependent on the write ups of the teams. If the team sees that the best an offeror can get is acceptable, then their is the psychological avenue to consider. Will they do their due diligence in providing enough information in the write up for the SSA to make a decision? or since it is acceptable, they will do an acceptable job on the write up. interesting discussions, and I agree that with the right teams, it can work. But from what I can tell it would not be preferred as no advantagees have been identified. Fortunately the Army Source Selection Supplement is still in draft, and I hope enough comments were brought up about the combined rating scheme.
  17. Vern, I guess Bottom line is that the DOD has proposed two different methodologies in the source selection manual, and the Army has determined that the combined evaluation/risk methodology is the preferred method unless you are in a R & D arena. To me, forcing us to go to the combined will limit our ability to evaluate a proposal. If an offeror has a creative proposal that is outstanding technically, but the risk is a moderate we are forced to put them as an acceptable overall for that factor. Now granted, I have limited experience with Gov't Contracting, but many years in private sector business, I cannot understand what the advantages to having a combined evaluation. To me, I believe risk should be separated out and evaluated separately in order to do a trade off. So the question should have been to the group, are there any advantages to the combined evaluation ratings and what are they? hope this clarifies.
  18. That was our concern also. It was noted on our responses to AS3 as a concern. It will force the KO to write the Determination to use another methodology, and have the fun discussion with legal as why it is the appropriate method to utilize. thanks for the feedback.
  19. I am relatively new to federal contracting and became a procurement analyst several weeks ago. I seek some advice regarding use of the DoD?s two methodologies for evaluation of technical approach and related risk. The DoD Source Selection Procedures (see pg. 14) provide two distinct technical rating evaluation processes. DoD methodology 1 includes risk associated with the technical approach in a single rating and DoD methodology 2 provides for separate technical and risk ratings. I understand that Navy organizations and the Air Force as a service assess risk separately from the adjectival technical rating (similar to DoD methodology 2) for FAR Part 15 negotiations. The proposed Army Source Selection Supplement (pg. 17) states that the Army prefers the combined single rating of methodology 1, but that the separate risk ratings may be applicable in the R&D area. I wonder if the Army?s preference of the combined single rating of methodology 1 may impact evaluation matters if a proposal may not fall within the express language of the single rating descriptions. If anyone could share their experience regarding the advantages of use of the combined single rating of methodology 1 or explain why the combined methodology is preferred by the Army, it would be appreciated. Thanks very much !
×
×
  • Create New...