rsenn

It's not a problem that I face because I'm not in the position to be hiring BD guys, but why would I want to hire one from a failing company? That the company is faiing suggests the BD guys aren't bringing in enough business.

Alas, you are correct. I tried walking away (not signing). The BD guys ganged up on me. They took their case to the CEO (their direct boss), who then told me to give them whatever they want. (That sounds like dangerous instructions.) 1. What does history tell you? When the prime wins, do you get the promised work, or not? 2. Sounds like your company is in a weak competitive position. If the primes needed you, you'd get a better deal. 1. Sometimes yes, sometimes no. Too often, no. 2. Often times yes (we are small), although I suspect that sometimes we could get a better deal if the BD guys would push back (negotiate) and not accept anything thrown their way.

My BD guys tend to bring me teaming agreements where we'd be a sub to a prospective prime contractor. The TA's usually indicate that we would get to help the prospective prime win, and bear the proposal costs and related costs of doing so, but that we are not guaranteed anything, even if they do win. Sometimes there is a vague intent or aspiration mentioned, something like we'll intend to split the work 60/40, but it's too ill defined to be enforceable. To me, this is a problem, but my BD guys think it is just fine. Why do they resist negotiating something more defined and enforceable? What will it take to change their behavior?

They do.

The presence of a standard implies that some are non-standard.

It sounds like everyone is focused on the process, not the output. Try defining the output that you want, and the input you will provide, and leave the process to the offerors. Input -> Process -> Output.

Why do you assume that 40 hours must be the basis for salary distribution? It is easy to imagine someone who works less than 40 hours each week for a salary.

Can a company grant degrees and certificates? If I need my employees to be Certified Oracle Experts, can I have my HR department issue them certificates certifying them as Certified Oracle Experts? Ditto for degrees. Can I have my HR department issue a certificate in the corporate name awarding a Masters degree? The degree certificate would be modeled after one from one of the big universities.

Use smaller procurements, with clear and objective evaluation criteria, so that evaluation becomes a simple check the box exercise. Use output based purchasing (buy the results of services (deliverables, some other measure of output)) instead of services by the hour.). Let us simply buy from whomever we want instead of going through elaborate fake competition drills that take up so much time and that we rig anyway.

A recently released RFQ calls for "call orders." I can see nothing in the RFQ that would distinguish a call order from a delivery order. Still, I am familiar with calls as sold in the securities markets, and am wondering if in the eye of the government writer call order has a special meaning somehow derived from that market. Has anybody seen the term call order used before, or suspect why the writer chose that term? From FAR part 2, “Delivery order” means an order for supplies placed against an established contract or with Government sources. “Task order” means an order for services placed against an established contract or with Government sources.

I did just that.

If an unsuccessful offeror receives the notice at 3 pm on the Friday before a 3 day Memorial Day weekend, need he request a debriefing by Monday evening, or is the deadline extended until Tuesday evening since Monday is a federal holiday?

And all of this is good reason to avoid buying anything, even a pencil, on a cost type contract until you've got the KO's approval and determination of reasonableness in writing. Oddly, to comply with the regulatory requirements, it makes sense to spend days of billable time to get the KO the approve a small ODC's purchase and provide the supporting determinations documents. After a while it becomes a bit of routine, with it being a regular duty of one of the project people.

It is implicit that they think all labor categories will use the same number of hours, whether that be one hour or 2080 hours.

It looks to me as if subcontractor is a subset of vendor. A subcontractor performs part of the prime contract. If the vendor does that, it is a subcontractor. If it does not, then it is not. Staples would likely be vendor other than a subcontractor (a material-man?) even if the goods purchased from it were used on and charged to a single contract. A staffing company (or any company, even Lockheed Martin) which provides staff but does not direct the people once assigned to its customer would be a vendor other than a subcontractor. Verizon would be vendor other than a subcontractor if it sold commercial telephone service, such as a single line on a desk, and the line was used exclusively for a single contract. Legal Definition of vendor : one that sells something < https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/vendor > Definition of subcontractor : an individual or business firm contracting to perform part or all of another's contract < https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/subcontractor > Definition of materialman plural materialmen : one who supplies materials (as in the building trades) < https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/materialman > What is VENDOR? The person who transfers property by sale, particularly real estate, "seller" being more commonly used for one who sells personalty. He is the vendor who negotiates the sale, and becomes the recipient of the consideration, though the title comes to the vendee from another source, and not from the vendor. Rutland v. Brister, 53 Miss. 685. What is MATERIAL MAN? Provider of construction or renovation project materials. A mechanic's lien from the property owner or builder guaranteeing payment for the materials is typically given to the material man Law Dictionary: What is MATERIAL MAN? definition of MATERIAL MAN (Black's Law Dictionary) < http://thelawdictionary.org/material-man/ > Law Dictionary: What is VENDOR? definition of VENDOR (Black's Law Dictionary) < http://thelawdictionary.org/vendor/ > What is SUBCONTRACTOR? Secondary or junior contractor working with the main contractor. Law Dictionary: What is SUBCONTRACTOR? definition of SUBCONTRACTOR (Black's Law Dictionary) < http://thelawdictionary.org/subcontractor/ > Subcontractor A subcontractor is an individual or in many cases a business that signs a contract to perform part or all of the obligations of another's contract. < https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Subcontractor >.

A couple of months ago we lost a LPTA re-compete to a company with a less than stellar reputation. Call them Scuzzball. True to form they made employment offers to some of the incumbent staff at 25% - 33% less than they were making. Most said no, apparently with some juicy adjectives thrown in. Word coming back from the government site via people still there is that Scuzzball has had only only a couple of people show up, clearly an insufficient number to do the work called for in the RFP, and presumably their contract, and that the supported population of people on the government site are unhappy with the absence of support from Scuzzball. I'm predicting that Scuzzball will try to get increases in their labor rates in one way or another (new labor categories for example). I'm looking for a way to stop them from being rescued. I'd prefer the government takes a hard line with them and drives them into bankruptcy, removing them from future competitions and causing an early re-compete of the contract. Does anyone have any advice as to how to make sure this happens?

Okay. I guess I am in the minority, but I read it as 15.506 is the general and applicable clause requiring the debriefing, and 16.505 simply adds more requirements for the debriefing when the order is over $5.5 million.

Yesterday we lost a proposal and asked for a debriefing. The KO declined to provide a debriefing, citing FAR 16.505(b) and the fact that the order was under $5.5 million. I don't read that clause as grounds for denying a debriefing. Does anybody else read it that way?

I discussed this with SBA a few years ago. The SBA said the prime is free to use a different NAICS code with it's subs. The example is the prime contract is to support a wide ranging network. The prime's NAICS is one related to compter networking. Prime contracts with sub to build a small building to house some equipment. He would use a NAICS in the construction field. To the further question about size standards, the SBA said that while the prime can pick a different NAICS code, he must stick with the size standard the SBA assigned. He cannot for example say the NAICS code is 123456 and the size standard is seventeen trillion dollars.

Ok guys, let's look at a common enough situation. The RFP is out, and the labor category descriptions are written to the incumbent workforce. The RFP is clear enough in displaying that the government wants stability and continuity, not a new workforce. Knowing who the current workforce is certainly seems to be vital information, and it is known to the government but not to offerors other than the incumbent and perhaps his subcontractors. I call it superior knowledge that should be disclosed, although from earlier comments, it looks like most of you do not.

Thanks, Guys. I still believe the identities of of the people in the current workforce (along with what they are doing and their contact information) is relevant and when the government has it (as they would whenever the workforce works on government site), it is superior knowledge. Evidence that it is relevant is that offerors spend considerable time and effort trying to find out this information. Most of the companies that I have worked for make that a task of the recruiting team to try to figure it out. And, when they have been the incumbent, have tried what they can to keep others from finding it out. It's advantageous to know, and advantageous to keep competitors from knowing. And, especially when the workforce works on government site, the government has the identities of the workforce members, along with information about what they are doing and much of their contact information. Since it is relevant, relevant enough to have an impact on the offerors' solutions, and the government has it, I believe it qualifies as superior knowledge.

Thanks, Retreadfed. The clause talks to passing information from the outgoing contractor via the government to an incoming contractor. It does not provide that offerors should get the information early enough to be useful in proposal preparation. As to the vital to bidding or proposing aspect, I guess it depends on your idea of vital. If a proposal can be submitted, no matter how blindly or ill informed, is the information vital to bidding or proposing? The clause imposes an obligation on the incoming contractor, which each of the offerors intends to become. This information would certainly be helpful when proposals are prepared, and usually the government has knowledge of who the incumbent workforce is, especially when they work on government site. This looks very much to me to be relevant superior information that the government has. Now, is there anything that directs that the government provide it to offerors? If there is I'd like to find it and use that information to call for the incumbent workforce information when I'm proposing.

That the Government has a duty to disclose superior knowledge to a contractor is established law. I find nothing that says the Government should disclose superior knowledge to offerors, however. Is there anything that says that the Government should disclose superior information to offerors? I am thinking in particular to about the clause at 52.222-17, Nondisplacement of Qualified Workers. The Government would usually know the names of the people it wishes to protect with that clause, and have relevant contact information, while most offerors would not. An incumbent might, but others probably not.

Instead of blind proposal approach to eliminate favoritism among the evaluators, try making the evaluation criteria be objective and verifiable, so that two evaluators reading the same proposal will give it the same score. A recent GSA OASIS on-ramp did a commendable job of making the evaluation criteria be objective and verifiable.

Thanks for the wisdom, guys. While I dislike giving anything that the other side might use against me in the future, it was a simple enough exercise to create such a table, inventing labor categories and allocating the price in a manner that I suspect will looks reasonable. It's just an exercise in pandering to perceived perceptions, but easy enough to do.