apsofacto

They could abandon the policy and see how it goes.  Even if the court were wrong, the source selection would be simpler. 

Stated concerns the policy was addressing were : 1.) business continuity disruption after a disaster, and 2.) less competition over the long term.  If the policy dies, how would ya'll mitigate those concerns?  My immediate response would be 1.) letter contracts or anything else in FAR 18, and 2.) waiting and seeing to see if the marketplace begins to dry up.

Thank you very much for sharing this.

19 hours ago, KMKC said:

the Program office contacts all of the components and gathers up all of the requirements and somehow one or two always seem to fall through the cracks.

Yes, that is a goof in the IT group, software management failure as General describes.  Thanks for confirming.

Just to clarify, is the "someone" a vendor saying they wanted to submit a quote and feels frozen out of the competition, or is it a person at your agency who never got their license?

It's very circumstance dependent, but you should get an opportunity to respond to negative past performance.  You could always call your (former) project manager and talk to them, see how much stink rubbed off on you.  May be worthwhile (regulations allowing) taking them out to lunch and do some fence-mending.

I realized today I have been on a jihad spiritual struggle within oneself against sin against the word "Indicate" for a few years now.  I saw the Environmental Protection Agency Acquisition Regulation (EPAAR) Clause Update for Submission of Invoices federal register entry on the Main Page and started compulsively trying to rewrite this section:

Quote

(e) Period of performance indication. Invoices or requests for contract financing payment must clearly indicate the period of performance for which payment is requested. Separate invoices or requests for contract financing payment are required for charges applicable to the base contract and each option period.

According to the linked Merriam-Webster definition, "Indicate" has a few meanings, some mean to "to state", and others are more advisory or suggestive.  So whenever I see the word, I wonder for a fraction of a second which version the author means. 

The passage says "clearly indicate" which surely helps.  Why not just say "state" or "describe"?  Won't this version always be better?:

Quote

(e) Period of performance indication. Invoices or requests for contract financing payment must clearly indicate state the period of performance of the work for which payment is requested. Separate invoices or requests for contract financing payment are required for charges applicable to the base contract and each option period.

(Also cut "clearly", and added "of the work" because we pay folks for work, not for period of performance)

Question is: should "Indicate" be vindicated, or annihilated?

We know by now that I have some issues.  I'm getting old, and crusty.  Set in mah' ways.  Resisting the urge to change the passive voice in the second sentence! So I appreciate your feedback, I may need to be yanked out of this rut I'm in.  Or perhaps we can destroy this scourge that plagues us.  If this devolves into a contest to rewrite that clause section that's OK too, that would be fun.

18 hours ago, formerfed said:

I’m confused - the budget would come from the IT department so it must originate there?

Honestly I think so.  Budgets are very important- it's why people fight over them.  You can persuade the IT group to consolidate licenses, etc., and you should because its a sensible thing to do.  However, the first official act is humping a requisition over to the procurement office, and that is solely in their control. 

Your remaining concerns are:

1. Contract Type;
2. Past performance Evaluation; and
3. Price Evaluation

When we discuss these issues, we don't deploy much specialized IT knowledge, though certainly a little is required.  If you are curious, observant, stick around for a little while and are tight with the IT group you can get through those problems and run a great procurement together.  You are absolutely right that if a contracting officer has the following shortcomings, they won't be able to pull of an Agile procurement:

1. Unilaterally refuses to pay people by the hour;
2. Has zero interest in writing new words for the evaluation factors; and
3. Cannot evaluate a labor-hour based price proposal

These are procurement shortcomings I think, and they won't be corrected by increasing the amount of IT technical know-how of the CO.  I think those shortcomings would make it more difficult to procure MEP services, for example.  Those will hurt the CO in all sorts of areas.

We don't disagree on much.  I think the cure to this disease lies in being a better procurement guy in general, and you believe further focusing on IT subject matter will help (Correct me though if I'm misunderstanding your cure.)  Would be safest to do both, but we're luck to accomplish even one of those two things.  .  Most likely outcome is neither- improving people is really hard.

Side note: Have you tried defining a "sprint" or "scrum" and procuring say 20 of those?  They're labor hours in drag, but they might sneak by because you do not have to use the word trigger-word "hour" in the description.  I haven't had 1/10th the push-back on the labor hour thing you may have experienced, but that was my back-up plan if that problem came up.

I don't think you hire the 1102 to consolidate data centers and push them to the cloud.  The budget to accomplish that would come from the IT department, so it must always originate there.  But let's say it did, is your thought that the 1102 would need a lot of technical knowledge in order to issue the solicitation to accomplish that? 

I'm certain that is true to some extent, but I'd rather the 1102 concentrate on being a great 1102.  The IT folks need us to ensure discussions are fair, to help navigate the small business world, to make sound best-value trade-offs, and a host of other things. They can't do that stuff on their own, but they can pull their weight on the technical side.

I've been fortunate to have a good relationship and a fair amount of trust with the IT groups I've supported over the years, and I've learned a great deal about their business mostly through interacting with them all the time and seeing their various successes and failures (they've seen a few of my failures as well).

To address the question posed, I don't think lack of knowledge is the driver of being left behind.  If you are curious, observant (or nosy), stick around for a few years and can manage a relationship with the folks you support I think you will be OK.  This is more attitude than anything I suppose.

On ‎5‎/‎3‎/‎2019 at 12:15 PM, Reese said:

In some cases, there is truly only one supplier.  However, the issue is that under 12/13 and under the SAT, we continue to issue several PO's to acquire spare part following the guidance of soliciting from at least 3 sources and then running into FAR Part 19.502, in which some of vendors are not small businesses but the only source

Sole source acquisitions to the actual sole sources may help you through some of this.  Someone will need to write justifications.  Say you did that alone, how much of a toothache remains?

Also, FAR 19.502 gives you an out, but some justifying is required:

Quote

. . . is automatically reserved exclusively for small business concerns and shall be set aside for small business unless the contracting officer determines there is not a reasonable expectation of obtaining offers from two or more responsible small business concerns that are competitive in terms of market prices, quality, and delivery. If the contracting officer does not proceed with the small business set-aside and purchases on an unrestricted basis, the contracting officer shall include in the contract file the reason for this unrestricted purchase . . .

Regarding the "dedicated suppliers", would competing the remaining work under some BPAs fit the bill?

These ideas require more up-front paperwork, but hopefully a payoff down the road. 

Supply chain is not my world, just trying to provide another option in addition to Pepe's above.  Folks, feel free to open fire on this trial balloon.

I am aghast.  There are no Bs- there are only A₁s and A₂s. 

Seriously though, are we getting stupider as the generations go by?  Will we one day obsess about the amount of electrolytes our crops are receiving?  Or is this just something typical 42-year-old males worry about?

I fear that I'm a "B" and I'm being followed up by mostly "C"s.

On ‎4‎/‎8‎/‎2019 at 9:42 AM, PepeTheFrog said:

Can God microwave a burrito so hot that He Himself cannot eat it?

Stealing this.  Just FYI.

22 hours ago, ConMan1982 said:

Under the current structure if we exercise an option that contains 10,000 labor hours for year 3 (how effort is measured), and we only use 5,000 of those hours during that period, the unused 5,000 hours of effort dies with the expiration of the option period.

This really does not sound like a deal-killer.  I'd get it if you needed 15,000 hours and it only had the 10,000.  Could you just use the thing and see how it goes?  Maybe re-compete in a few years if it is driving you nuts?

On ‎3‎/‎29‎/‎2019 at 10:52 AM, PepeTheFrog said:

Frog Lives Matter!

This is the life of frogs, warts and all. 

Elaine,

We are obviously too much fun to leave.  Find a different office, though.  Yuck.

On ‎3‎/‎14‎/‎2019 at 6:09 PM, Don Mansfield said:

Trivia contest, arm wrestling, staring contest, to name a few.

I prefer seeing who can hold their bare forearm over a candle the longest.  It weeds out the more stable people and gets you some real free-thinkers.

You can not begin work on the purchase order and/or refuse it in writing.  It's an offer to you, so refusing it is OK.  If you already began work on it then you might be stuck. 

Thanks C,

Cannot speak for the others, but I always gravitate toward GAO because their decisions are just so much easier to read, and I know how to use their search engine.  Not the best reasons! 

However, I have noticed they weigh in on this one contract admin issue on the occasion when a disappointed firm sees a contract modification they do not like on a contract they lost (as with your example).  I remember seeing this more with contract mods that add a chunk of work, so its nice to read your example because it is new to me.

I thought this passage from your link was also worth reading:

Quote

In our view, the agency did not improperly relax the specifications because the original nature and purpose of the solicitation and contract has not been changed by modification P00004. The capabilities and missions of the 7-person I-CRC and 15-person I-CAC set forth in the solicitation and contract remain the same after the modification to the contract. The changes to the purchase descriptions of the boats and motors are relatively minor when viewed against the entirety of all of the contract specifications and performance requirements. Defense Systems Group; Warren Pumps, Inc.; Dresser Indus., Inc., B-240295 et al., 1990 U.S. Comp. Gen. LEXIS 1182, Nov. 6, 1990 (protest denied where modifications involved substantial cost and affect first article test requirements, delivery schedule, and performance specification but did not change the nature and purpose of the original contract).

There may have been a different outcome had the Contractor floated up this bad-boy for first article testing- would have been one Valhalluva big change to the original contract specs and performance requirements:

4 hours ago, PepeTheFrog said:

A broad and sweeping solicitation, that describes a very large potential area of work (scope) gives more wiggle room for modifications.

Can you think of any areas in the solicitation other than the scope?  Q&As not incorporated into the solicitation leap to mind as a possibility. 

Thanks, Ji, I'll continue then.  Appreciate your insight about the Government reviewers. 

Anyone-

I seem to spend a lot of time reviewing SOWs lately, and I don't think I'm the only one.  This seems like a challenging area for beginners so please feel free to post any advice as a comment or as a new post.  Folks will be interested.  I'll do another one about Background sections later. 

There are times in a man's life when he has to look hard in the mirror, spit mouthwash at his own reflection, and decide for himself whether or not something is a cardinal change. 

We have learned on the message boards over the years there is now hard and fast rule for determining this answer, there is just a judgement of whether or not the instant change to the SOW, the contract price, or the schedule deviates from the original purpose of the contract.

I have found myself adding these types of sentences to SOWs as both cardinal-change-battlespace-preparation. (Also seems useful to describe what the higher-rank folks think this Contract is for):

Quote

1. The purpose of this Contract is to provide all provide all unarmed security guard services for the Haughton T. McWhackadoodle Airforce Base.

Quote

2. The purpose of this Contract is to provide all necessary engineering services to support the Pennington B. Bottomtoothe Aqueduct project.

Quote

3. The purpose of this Contract is to provide all necessary resources to create, implement and maintain the Environmental Protection Agency's (EPA's) Sludge Accretion Database (SAD).

These are fictional examples, but you are welcome to google.

Example 1 is vulnerable to price increases (e.g. security is ramped up after a security event).  Example 2 is vulnerable to both price and period of performance increases if the construction phase of the project drags on.  Example 3 could be vulnerable to all three: price, period of performance and scope changes.

Is this a waste of time?  Is it accomplishing my goal of cardinal change battlespace preparation?  Or is this sort of thing just superfluous?

It sounds like you will not be able to split this into smaller, more manageable chunks.  Can you pick the most likely scenario, evaluate those options, and force the requiring activity to provide sole source justifications for deviations?  I assume they are foisting this on your office somehow, so you should inflict as much suffering upon them as you can.

Looking forward to hearing better responses that this, just getting the ball rolling.  Best of luck to you, General.

I vote for (2), though sometimes CORs and I rewrite SOWs together.  I hope it helps them, but they write this way so infrequently it's unlikely.

2 hours ago, Guardian said:

I have never understood why the Government cannot employ professional writers to script these documents, particularly when the requirements they describe involve nine-figures of taxpayer funding.

Endorsed.  Division of labor is good.

On ‎12‎/‎28‎/‎2018 at 10:40 AM, PepeTheFrog said:

The US military and CIA encourages the media and the general public to associate UFOs (unidentified flying objects, which includes an aircraft you don't recognize because it's a secret) with aliens, because it takes the focus off of secret US military aircraft. The government has even gone as far as feeding false information and fanning the flames of alien conspiracy theories and organizations. The concept is called "disinformation." Operation Mockingbird is the most well-known example of the CIA controlling the Fake News to control public opinion and knowledge about certain issues.

This is exactly what I would say if I was replacing all of you with aliens. 

Hi Joel,

Thank you- I think all those reasons make sense!  But those can't be the reasons the FAR default to award without discussions, right?  Those are all very local, case-specific decisions, so they couldn't explain the system-wide default position.

I self-identify as a HUBZone.  The whole zone.