Jump to content
The Wifcon Forums and Blogs

Michael11

Members
  • Content count

    75
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by Michael11

  1. A PBP plan is required for an upcoming proposal. I'm actively researching some of the requirements but I've never done one and neither has my company. One thing I haven't been able to find online is a simple example. Can anyone share any best practices or where I may find a guide to create one?
  2. performance based payment plan

    The more I read the language in the RFP the less I think they're actually expecting a performance based plan (PBP) as described in FAR 32.10. They want a performance based payment schedule. None of the aforementioned PBP clauses are included. And no mention of contract financing. Can you have a performance based payment schedule, but not as a means of contract financing (an actual PBP)? It's our fault that we're guessing and there's no time for clarifications.
  3. performance based payment plan

    Nope, we didn't
  4. performance based payment plan

    Help that is exactly what i am saying. it says to "as this is a performance based acquisition, the contractor is required to propose a performance based payment schedule based upon tasks completed, submission of approved deliverables and task order milestones achieved within each period." PBP is not called for in the underlying agreement and there is no more mention of it in the rfp.
  5. performance based payment plan

    Help, just curious. Does the absence of a formal FAR prescription or FAR 52.232-28, Invitation to Propose Performance-Based Payments change your mind at all? All it says it pretty much provide a PBP plan based upon tasks completed, submission of approved deliverables and task order milestones achieve in the contract period. There's no other information and no one asked any questions because that would have made too much sense. I'm not saying that I would, but you could argue a traditional milestone schedule may still be considered a performance based payment plan?
  6. performance based payment plan

    Thank you all and my apologies Vern. I did have some but not all of your citations/research. What you provided was extremely helpful. I never did find that simple example though. If I build the PBP to 90% of the value what happens to and how is the remaining 10% administered?
  7. performance based payment plan

    Thanks for this information. Help sorry if it seemed as if I had done no research on my own. I do consider myself competent with Google and I probably dug up most of what Vern provided before I posted. I must be, as Vern noted, making it more complicated than it is. Which might be because if you go to the DOD PBP tool it quickly becomes more complex than just traditional milestone billing. Showing estimated expenditure timeline, etc. Don the solicitation does not contain FAR 52.232-28, Invitation to Propose Performance-Based Payments. It pretty much just says offerors must propose a PBP based upon tasks completed, submission of approved deliverables and task order milestones achieve in the contract period. It's going to be a hybrid contract with FFP and T&M line items. So I think we're going to keep it as simple as possible and it sounds like since there are no specific guidelines we won't sweat over a specific format.
  8. Our GSA pricing is based on a commercial price list. We have no annual rate escalation built into our pricing. We're in the process of submitting a request for an EPA and the CO has made clear what they need to approve it. The CO has indicated they have no reason they don't expect to approve it. My question is, until the pricing is formally approved, can we price the adjustment factor into RFQs out on the street? Or ones that we will bid between now and when the new rates are approved? Can we legitimately propose the new unapproved rates with the understanding that if they're not approved we will use our existing rates? Or can we propose our existing pricing but state that they will increase as approved under our schedule in accordance with the EPA clause? Any help or guidance is greatly appreciated.
  9. The RFQ specifically says offers must do this. In doing so how do you present the sub in your budget? Are they shown in the direct labor portion of the budget with a designation that they're a sub or are they still put in the sub or ODC cost category? Does anyone have any best practices? Must this mapping process have a full blown analysis of the sub quals vs. the prime GSA categories and qualifications? Any help is greatly appreciated!
  10. I think the posts here were really helpful in covering the topic of proposing items or services not on a contractor's gsa schedule. We're in receipt of a similar RFQ which has almost identical language - offeror's can propose only odcs on their schedule or items up to the micropurchase threshold and all subcontractor labor must be mapped to the prime categories and rates. After reading FAR 52.216-31, is my earlier hypothetical cost proposal setup the right one? The rows on our cost proposal could look like this - Engineer II $50 per hour Engineer II (IT Help LLC) $50 per hour Laborer $45 per hour Laborer (Workers Inc.) $45 per hour Laborer (Cleaning Co.) $45 per hour I think that would satisfy FAR 52.216-31. But I think if you disclosed that Engineer II and Laborer services will be performed/fulfilled by the subcontract employees identified in our proposal that would also work. But we definitely should not show them as an ODC or subcontract in the budget right? And does anyone have any workarounds for proposing ODCs which are required for performance of the work but not on a contractor's schedule? This would seem to severely limit our ability to propose the costs we'll actually need to do the work.
  11. It's my understanding that any executed CTAs were done so preaward. and I don't think we have the ability to request one at this time but I'm going to look more into. Also look into the restrictions called for in open market items. from a price competitiveness standpoint, I think we'd actually prefer to propose our subs at their rates plus any applicable odc burden verus wrapping them into our prime rates. Whynot you really hit the nail on the head. I plan on looking myself but is there a specific restriction, for open market items, that we should be concerned about when classifying such a service as an ODC (versus labr)?
  12. Thanks Help. I think you pretty well covered it. In this case it's actually for an FFP which imo makes it an even poorer prescription. do u still think it makes sense to include the sub hours under direct labor with the sub designation for the category . So sub gives us a budget and we do the best job of roll/mappijg their categories and rates jnto ours. Or sub gives us a budget we map it to out rates and put a plug in the sub category. I think both accomplish the same thing
  13. Yes we're the prime. This is for a call under a GSA BPA. In the Q&A it says 'subcontractors rates need to map to the prime's rates'. And consultants also have to "map to the prime's rates just like subcontractors". They are distinguishing anyone that does not have a contractor teaming arrangement in place as a subcontractor. Can we show something like this and then map the titles accordingly? And actually show this in direct labor category? Or should it still be recorded as a sub in the budget? Project Manager $100/hr Project Manager (Sub A) $100/hr Assistant $50/hr Assistant (Sub B ) $50/hr
  14. We're submitting a response to a T&M rfp. The agency has requested that we propose for each labor category a breakdown of the direct labor, OH, fringe, G&A, and profit. They've provided a template that is to be completed for each category. Each of these cost elements are to be expressed in a $ value - so direct labor and all IDC/profit should sum to the proposed hourly rate for each category. We have several questions about what sort of pricing to provide them. We currently have contracts with this agency and charge a certain set of rates. These rates, and our company's pricing model, do not generally fit well into this cost buildup. We hardly do any cost reimbursement contracting. Senior counsel staff would have enormous rates and jr staff rates would be more paltry than we currently charge them. So we have financial data to do the buildup, but the result is nothing that's really in our best interest to propose. Nowhere do they state that this should be verifiable cost and pricing or salary data. I don't think the word rate is mentioned anywhere - they want a $ value for each cost driver and a rate for the title, nothing more. Does anyone have any experience with this? Ideally we'd like to keep our rates close to what we're currently charging. Which is generally administered at a loss for sr staff and a profit at the junior level. Is there any harm in manipulating, say, the estimated salary in our buildup to fit into a pricing model that is attractive to the client? We want to be consistent with the rates and profit were apply to each of our LCATS. So the only other variable we have to work with is the estimated salaries to reach out fully loaded rate. It's hard to tell what sort of analysis they'll be doing with this pricing. Folks asked questions and their answers were vague and nonconclusive as to what the purpose of this exercise was.
  15. thanks for the additional feedback. Don I like that approach/guidance but at this point I think to avoid being found non responsive we're going to go along with this. Help that is essentially the format. We'd have to take it upon ourselves to add a place for a discount at the most senior level categories. And to Joel's point, we're still left with a similar disparity for the most junior staff but in the opposite direction. that is if we don't bump their "estimated" salaries a bit higher for them to hit the target.
  16. Thanks Vern. I'm pretty confident that, considering the language in the RFP, none of this is binding and is for evaluation purposes only. Which makes it that much more an exercise in futility. But that is no doubt our biggest fear - for an element of one of these calculations to be held against us at a later date. Or our approach be found faulty. We want this analysis to be somewhat verifiable - but at the end of the day to make a square peg fit into a round hole we are going to have to cut the edges off something. Whole thing makes me queasy.
  17. Yes this is a competitive procurement and they are intending to award one T&M contract. No cost or pricing data is requested or required to be completed. I do believe this is a commercial item RFP. They did indicate this was an exercise in determining cost reasonableness. Other folks asked during the Q&A whether they could just use their GSA rates. the response was basically yes but you still have to complete the format provided i.e. providing a breakdown of your gsa rate
  18. Correct - our rates are based primarily on market and not cost buildups. And correct, we are not sure which information to furnish in response to agency's instruction. We could come up with financial data to support many of these indirect elements but it's nothing I would consider totally auditable. As far as we're concerned, we'd like to keep the rates we currently charge this client. Which, for some categories, look like a bargain when we actually do a cost buildup. Is there anything preventing us from backing into these rates? If we apply the same burdens to all of the categories, the only thing left to manipulate is salaries. Which would translate to showing sr staff salaries likely below average and jr staff a bit more than our current average. Is there a better approach than this?
  19. Our GSA CO indicated that we could basically state in our proposal that our rates are under evaluation for an escalation and that we expect to receive it by the time the POP starts and will be charged accordingly. And suggested still using our current rates for the proposal. If we go that route, I imagine our budget or price would stay the same, but we could charge the escalated rates. Alternatively, if we put together a bid using the escalated rates, and then for some reason they are not approved, we've basically bid for a task order where we don't have gsa rates to support the price which doesn't seem right either. Or could we price it to say these are the rates we expect to have by the beginning of the project, but if for some reason they're not approved, we will bill you our existing schedule rates?
  20. bpa pricing

    we submitted pricing for a bpa in which we mapped the requested agency categories to our gsa categories and rates. the award was made. the first call order has now been released. the staff qualifications requested in the call order are very low, much less than we call for in our gsa schedule. if we bid our staffing mix strictly against the qualifications in the call order (so someone that may require 5 years of experience to be used under our gsa qualifications but fits the need of the bpa with only 2) is that permissible? I don't know why i'm having so much trouble with this any help is greatly appreciated!
  21. bpa pricing

    thanks all. fizzy you've brought up a good point. my problem is that they made clear when evaluating the initial BPAs that the mapping of rates and categories was for evaluation purposes. they had a level of effort plug for each category you mapped which brought you to your overall budget. which is now technically the bpa ordering ceiling per year. it was completely asinine to me and a complete mess during the questioning phase. it would take a long time to explain but i'm positive that every contractor's bpa looks totally different. right or wrong, probably wrong, we ended up essentially remapping our labor categories for the first call order in full disclosure the way the bpa was setup made no sense. that is we put our preffered staffing mix and put their according gsa rate in which may or may not have been perfectly in line with what the bpa called for.
  22. bpa pricing

    Thank you. Agree it's best to call the CO and figure out. Hopefully we can reach them before it's due. To maybe explain better what I was trying to ask. The initial (initial) BPA evaluation had NO minimum qualifications at all for any LCAT. We basically mapped our LCATs and established the rates based on functional titles. But NOW the Call Order is imposing qualifications for these categories, hence why our staff are wildly out of place when looking at the rate we proposed compared to the qualifications. If I understand correctly, you're always required to maintain at a minimum the qualifications for staff on your GSA schedule. If a call order or task order imposes more stringent requirements, you have to meet those too. But if the opposite happens and at the call order level they put very low requirements, you still have to default to you GSA requirements and meet those (and if your GSA qualifications trump those in the call order obviously you're meeting both at the same time)
  23. bpa pricing

    Like in an extreme example, the call order says the senior project manager needs 2 years of experience. We have the senior project manager category on our schedule and it normally calls for 5+. can we bid someone at the SR PM if they meet the necessary experience for the call order (2 years) but we wouldn't normally be able to bid them any higher than that?
  24. Often times you'll be given the opportunity to map your standard labor categories to non-standard labor category descriptions included in a GSA rfp. In doing so, once the administration of the award starts, which set of qualifications are you required to maintain? The non-standard ones you bid on (after submitting the crosswalk), or your standard categories? Say the non-GSA agency qualification in the solicitation call for 5 years experience in X (and you mapped that to your Project Manager category). And you now have another Project Manager that wants on the project but they don't explicitly have 5 years experience in X. Is the initial crosswalk at the proposal stage done more for evaluation purposes or are you required to meet those requirements for the life of the award? Or does is matter what the contract says?
  25. Thanks everyone for the valuable input. So if I understand correctly, if you bid a project manager, which on your GSA sked has five years of experience and a degree etc., as a more specific, say, Marine Technician Manager, which requires 8 years of experience as stated in the RFP, you must fill that role for the life of the award with someone who possesses the 8 years experience correct? I'm not trying to beat a dead horse here. If that is the case, it seems it would put contractor's in quite a predicament to constantly monitor their staff's resumes and qualifications. Does anything have any insights or best practices in managing this process because it would seem to have the potential for a big exposure area for a contractor if they fill a position with someone who traditionally fits their standard GSA required experience requirements but not necessarily in the case when their LCATs are mapped to nontraditional categories.
×