Jump to content
The Wifcon Forums and Blogs


  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by Michael11

  1. Pepe, I have admittedly never encountered a ‘rain maker’, but I have heard of them and know they are out there. In my experience, though, BD folks are far less prestigious generators of ‘business’ than anything you described. They are often (but not always) folks with subject matter expertise in whatever they are ‘selling’, and have performed the work themselves in their careers before BD. They are normally qualified to walk the walk and talk the talk. As it pertains to government contracts, I haven’t personally met many BD people that were overly persuasive or well-suited for sales. It’s often someone who knows the business reasonably well (or is an expert), knows just enough about government contracts to be dangerous, and knows what a teaming agreement is and why we need one. They are good at evaluating RFP opportunities, are good technical writers, and they know enough about the opportunity to know if it’s rigged or ‘wired’ for another company. They know whether or not they or their partner firm has ‘capes’ and can be competitive for work. Sometimes they assume the position of a proposal coordinator for a big, competitive RFP. I guess I have a pretty jaded view of BD because a lot of times the opportunities they 'win' turn out badly. In my experience BD folks are quick to make a ‘sale’ at any cost. Which often means an ill-advised budget compromise, a persuasion to accept contract terms knowing full well they shouldn’t, and a lack of awareness or caring for contract administration, traded for ‘client’ relations. They would be the enemies of many Wifcon members. Oh, and I have never seen them paid on a commission basis. The position I described is salaried and in the range of $140K - $200K per year.
  2. thanks for everybody pushing the rock up that hill. I will moveon to reading some solicitations more closely.
  3. what I am talking about is the development of procurement proedures for an institute of higher education, a university, or a non profit as indicated in 2 CFR 200.318. It is also described in .319 and .320 describe specifically what methods of procurement must be followed. IN short, it says a covered entity should have procurement policies that sorta mimic the government's when it comes to soliciating subcontractors. don has aptly stated that this is a post award requirement and I am saying that it's rare that you haven't already picked your partner before your proposal goes to the government. i am looking for a way to reasonably select subcontractors that are included in a proposal when time does not permit a full and open competition. if you always selected/competed subs post award i am crystal clear. that is not my reality. I am missing something and my denseness is not by design. Im taking a rest from this and taking more time to research. appreciate the insights
  4. Don you make a really good point. I agree these regs are post award. But, in my experience, if you are including a subcontractor in your proposal, often times, not always, it’s because they are providing a technical qualification that you yourself may not possess. Maybe they have exceptional past performance doing xyz and you don’t. Maybe they have some highly qualified expert on their team. Wouldn’t the government be ticked if you included them in your bid, won, and then competed the subcontract post award and it had to go to someone else. If the government awards without discussions isn’t that sort of what you’re left with? Plus an unhappy teaming partner. If the proposal instructions say one thing and post award you have a different set of rules that seems like a problem. Pending a contract award the majority of subcontract awards I have seen were done deals with the prime proposal submission.
  5. Thanks Don. If you’re submitting a competitive proposal and you need to include your subcontract costs for example, maybe you need the partner for tech requirements also, how do you negotiate a price before the bid is submitted if you don’t compete it or solicit quotes. its often the case that the taming May indicate a general share of the Sow and as part of the government’s cost price analysis wouldn’t they want that performed before proposal submission. Post award doesn’t make a lot of sense to me
  6. https://www.law.cornell.edu/cfr/text/2/200.320 200.320 section D1 says: (d) Procurement by competitive proposals. The technique of competitive proposals is normally conducted with more than one source submitting an offer, and either a fixed price or cost-reimbursement type contract is awarded. It is generally used when conditions are not appropriate for the use of sealed bids. If this method is used, the following requirements apply: (1) Requests for proposals must be publicized and identify all evaluation factors and their relative importance. Any response to publicized requests for proposals must be considered to the maximum extent practical; (2) Proposals must be solicited from an adequate number of qualified sources; https://www.law.cornell.edu/cfr/text/2/200.318 https://www.law.cornell.edu/cfr/text/2/200.319 They seem straightforward especially when considering post award. But, preaward it seems unreasonable to comply competing everying subcontract over $250k.
  7. Thanks Jamaal. This would seem applicable to contractors who have already secured an award in excess of the SAT. Same thing for the subcontractors which would again seem post award. What about as a prime responding to a competitive RFP (pre-award) where under uniform guidnce subcontract competition is required. Am I correct that this option to send to FBO would be excluded? If you decide to secure subcontract partners for your proposal, chances are you have executed a teaming agreement. It wouldn't make sense to compete it after the fact, so I'm curious how organizations grapple with publishing an RFP for a subcontract, evaluating the proposals, select a (potential) awardee should they win the contract, and perform a price/cost analysis all in the short time they have to respond to the RFP as a prime.
  8. Purchasing policy requires competition of subcontracts > $250K via formal advertising. What method of publication have companies found to be the best? Besides emailing RFPs to vendors, or publicizing the requirement on company website, is there another method? I have heard of companies using FBO as a publication for sub RFPs but I have not seen it done.
  9. That’s good foresight JI thanks. I can’t tell you for certain that we are entitled to payment. I’ve heard we are. And after all of the deliberations I have to trust the experts. I look forward to finding out once and for all
  10. Thanks for all of the great feedback. To clarify yes this is a contract. I will research the dispute clauses included in the contract and hopefully there is reprieve. Ji thanks for your opinion that a claim may not be adversarial. I’m sure that is what folks who are tasked with the client relations will want to hear if we decide to move forward with it. I hope we will. Joel I’m with you that a face to face would be effective. I think essentially that same course of action was already taken months and months ago over the phone and obviously whatever the outcome was wasn’t convincing enough for the government.
  11. Thanks Ji. Would you consider it a courtesy to give them one last chance to pay ie indicate our intention to file a claim.
  12. FFP agreement. There was some initial disagreement over whether all requirements of the contract had been met. Government and contractor deliberated and contractor offered reasonable accommodations to complete scope to the government’s liking all the while contractor maintained work, as written in the contract, was completed. Contractor patiently waited following submission of final invoice. Despite multiple pleas from contractor to COR for technical clarification if it was needed and emails from company leadership over several months to the CO it has been pure radio silence from the govt. Invoice is approaching one year old, staff has now turned over, and still nothing. Invoice was never formally rejected. What is a reasonable course of action at this point? Emails are not returned phone calls are not answered. Emails have been sent that tee up the situation to the government still nothing. Would is be reasonable to say one last time the situation, give the govt a 30-day deadline and then they will receive notice from an attorney? I cant say I’ve ever seen a situation quite like this and the more time that passes the less likely I see the contractors chances of collecting payment due without outside counsel or something of the like? Any ideas?
  13. In a case where you priced your bid with labor rates that include Industrial Funding Fee (IFF), and you invoice those same labor rates to your client, which would be your 'sales', in a T&M contract, you could take the entire value of the invoiced labor, times it by .0075 and that would be your IFF on labor. You could apply the same .0075 on any invoiced ODCs. Would this method be incorrect? Is there a better method? Someone has suggested that when an award is made to a price that included IFF on labor rates, the IFF portion is essentially not 'yours', and is reserved strictly for IFF. so they go through the trouble of tracking the contract value at the amount less the IFF. I'm guessing they do something similar to the above when it comes time to calculate the bill. This doesn't sound logical. Thinking about this always makes my head hurt. Is there more than one way to skin this cat?
  14. Thanks Neil that sounds like a reasonable course of action. Retread - you are correct this was a competitive order under an idiq contract. As it is a contract subject to commercial terms and conditions the only mention I found re: patents has to do with patent idemntity and does not contains clauses that refer to royalties over $200 or inventions. it didn’t initially dawn on me that the govt could be requesting completion of a form that isn’t applicable to the terms of the contract
  15. Thank you both for the feedback. Neil I will read those clauses with additional rationale for the governments interest in royalties. This is for a non dod civilian agency. We did receive the request from the CO but there is no identifying form number. It is tied directly to the task order. There are no patent or royalty clauses whatsoever. None of the provisions Neil mentioned were in the rfp or in the subsequent contract as a clause. The contract was awarded competitively under an idiq contract. If these clauses are not included, is n/a an appropriate answer in the eyes of the government?
  16. Hi all, Interested in folks’ perspectives on reporting of royalties and patent rights during contract closeout. For reporting of royalties, what is the government’s interest in this? Why are royalty payment in excess of $250 important? Same thing for patent rights - what is the significance of reporting an invention as part of the closeout process? Would a contractor’s affirmative that an invention was made then supersede actual contract terms pertaining to the issue? i am sort of confused as our contract is completely silent on both of these issues. The word patent or invention do not appear anywhere. The guidance on the closeout form says if any questions are answered in the affirmative, provide a copy of the information required by contract. There isn’t any? Also, when settling subcontractors we generally have them complete similar paperwork for their release of claims. Should a similar atteststion re: inventions, royalties, etc also be obtained? If one weren’t is there risk in the event a sub actually claimed an invention was made?
  17. Thanks guys! I heard the resounding Yes answer earlier this week and was also pleased to follow along in the rabbit hold as we debated bailments. All told I agree adding the unit as a deliverable will likely be the simplest, most transparent and financially worthwhile way to go.
  18. Thanks for the feedback everybody. Beginning with H2H’s inquiry the contract does not contain any 52.245 clauses but does say the provisions of 52.245 shall apply to all property acquired under such authorization. This request originated with the COR and I agree with folks that no matter what we will likely bring in the CO ahead of purcashing this item so that they are aware. I would be speculating but I think this may be part of the issue. We don’t normally make or sell laptops but this feedback has brought some fresh perspectives like how the changes clause or FAR part 6 may apply so I will look into that. FWIW I’ll try to make the situation a little clearer because I don’t think it’s as bad as I may have initially framed - I’ll make this up and let’s say the contract is for the 2020 Census. We have helped develop research and applications on the upcoming Census. Graphics and marketing materials, etc. This is part of our scope. A program mgr would like the ability to show these things off at events they attend over the next two years in furtherance of the (our) program. Rather than do this with their own fed laptop which could probably be configured to do all this, they want a dedicated unit for this purpose. The contractor would still never possess the unit but let’s say it would either be in the field or at fed agency until program is over. What I think I heard with others’ (Vern) feedback is that if this arrangement wasn’t contemplated as part of the proposal, and it’s not specified in the SOW, the parties could consider adding the equipment as part of a bilateral modification using the changes clause, formally adding the equipment to the contract and making it a specified deliverable. And it’s there we could specify the terms and use of the equipment (agency responsible for liability, theft, etc)? Contractor would not want to be held liable if doesn’t have control over the unit. Do these details make it sound any less fishy? Am I in the right track? Thanks for the helpful feedback. I have some reading to do.
  19. Hi all - curious your thoughts on this one. An agency has inquired to us about purchasing a piece of equipment with contract funds to be used for program purposes, but for exclusive government use. Let’s say it is a laptop. It is to be used by the programs’ feds at trade shows and the like in support of the program. is this allowable? On one hand there is no doubt this equipment is reasonable and needed to further the program. On the other hand if the govt is capable of purchasing the unit for themselves I don’t see why that would be problematic. If the contractor would make this purchase how would they mitigate their liability for property that is not in their possession or under their control? Can a title be transferred to the government thereby neutralizing the contractors risk of tracking equipment they aren’t privy to?
  20. Desparado in my asking around the last week or so I have heard several cases like this. Several big boy contractors leaning on people in high places to get their ratings changed if they weren't happy with them. We have been rated exceptional on one contract and then didn't do a single thing differently on another and got satisfactory. Yes, the contractor commentary follows the evaluation for future source selections. But ultimately that rating, even if it's a very small part of a broader evaluation criteria, means something. It's important. It could be the difference. Contractors shouldn't have to lawyer up to make a case for their CPARS
  21. That's really helpful FrankJon. Thank you. This whole exercise has been a lot of fun and we have learned a lot. I would still be interested in contractor or govt POV for what is considered exceptional work in areas like cost control. There are a host of ways I could think to provide value added services in other areas. It sounds like meeting all contract requirements, providing budget necessary updates, sending for your funding notice (s) and completing your work on time and under budget are not enough. There must be something of significant benefit to the government. Exceptional work is our goal - what are others doing in this area that they would consider exceptional?
  • Create New...