Jonfucius

My agency has been 100% teleworking since on/about St Patrick's Day. In that time, we've stood up a pilot for Slack, and been invited to use the Commercial Virtual Remote Environment (CVR), which is DoD's implementation of Microsoft Teams. My agency doesn't do MDAP/MAIS programs, mostly services, supplies, construction, assistance awards, and OTAs. We've been so successful at our telework implementation that our SES is talking about reducing office footprint, and letting employees move out of the NCR and remain employed with the agency. My productivity has remained about the same. In terms of system access, we have a reliable VPN connection, Citrix, VMware Horizon, MobiKeys, you name it. Our financials are all online behind CAC-enabled websites, and we are required to use only secured Wi-Fi connections, so the level of security is roughly the same remotely versus in the office. The only major degradation I've noticed since being a full-time teleworker the last two months has been with our contract writing system (PD2), which is somewhat slower, but it hasn't impacted our agency's mission.

My agency has even started moving to all-electronic source selections, which involve encrypted E-mail and CAC-required websites for access to procurement-sensitive information. I'm about to have my first virtual source selection, so I will try to remember to update this form with my experiences.

Based on my experience with PD2, it won't like anything that has a lot of formatting. My agency's PD2 install defaults to single-spaced 10pt Times New Roman, and throws fits when anything other than plain text (in that format) is added to an Add Text or fill-in clause. Wish I could help, as I'm usually able to bend PD2 to my will.

Joel,

I've thought about buying the latest editions of the Cibinic & Nash series, but the cost investment was too great - so thank you for the tip about university bookstores!

My former colleague left them behind by mistake, but upon further reflection, I do recall my colleague saying he had already acquired the newest editions, and that I was free to have his copies of the previous versions.

Joel,

Ah, understood. I would agree that the Reference Book might not always be the best source for definitions when it comes to understanding industry terminology.

Joel,

Are you referring to the departure of my colleague?

Another highly useful reference book is The Government Contracts Reference Book (currently in its 4th Edition) by Nash, O'Brien-DeBakey, and Schooner. Put very simply, think of it as a combination dictionary and thesaurus tailored for Government contracting. I use the Reference Book and Administration quite frequently in my day-to-day. I lucked into (older, but still useful) copies of Administration and Formation of Government Contracts (also by Nash and other contributors) when a colleague left my agency and no longer wanted those tomes.

Mr. Edwards - I was under the impression that directed subcontracting was impermissible, since the Government does not have privity of contract with the sub. I'm not looking to start an argument; rather, this would be for my professional interest. I had an issue similar to the OP's a few months ago.

I credit my CON 090 professors for making us memorize the titles and corresponding numbers to all 53 parts of the FAR. When I started, I just scanned through all 53 parts until I found what I wanted. After CON 090, even if I didn't know the exact subpart, I knew I could find IDIQs under 16, negotiated contracts at 15, small business programs at 19, foreign acquisitions at 25, and so on.

I appreciate that they added more prominent links to SAM, eSRS, and other systems. My go-to for the regs remains the Hill AFB FARSite. The barebones design (obviously intended for 56k dial-up or early broadband connections) loads almost instantly, which is appreciated in a crunch.

Not sure if this example is applicable to your situation, but...

I had a requirement once upon a time for a specialized (but commercial) item, and it would be evaluated using LPTA. The estimated value was well below the SAT. The requirement package called for certain specs; in other words, the customer wanted a brand-name item. I explained to them why we can't just buy a brand-name item whenever we want one, and why pursuing that route would extend the lead time. The customer agreed to a brand name or equal solicitation using salient characteristics, and I got a number of offers in reply. The winning offer was of course the lowest-priced offer (which led to significant savings on the IGCE), and they actually offered the exact model the customer wanted in the first place. I sent their offer to the program office/user for technical evaluation, and got an explicit statement that the offer was technically acceptable. My supervisor signed off on the contract, and away we went.

Once the item was delivered, the customer began harassing contacting me on a regular basis, claiming the item I procured was not what they asked for. The customer apparently wanted a "nice-to-have" accessory, but it was not defined anywhere in the salient characteristics. This accessory would have increased the cost of the procurement, but we would have still been under budget and the provided funding. I asked the customer to explain how that could be, since they saw the offer (pricing redacted due to office policy, but otherwise the exact offer the winning vendor sent me), and that (prior to award) they affirmed that the offer was technically acceptable. This went on for months, and it took my supervisor threatening to report the customer to their supervisor for them to stop asking me about it. I must have sent the customer the RFQ I issued (including the customer's salient characteristics), the redacted offer, and their technical evaluation three times during that span!

I guess the moral of the story is: LPTA is great, but you better have your requirements well-defined. If there's a "nice-to-have" addition you want, don't assume the contractor will throw it in gratis. We all know what happens when you assume

Mr. Edwards' post #19 reminded me of a certain scene from MASH (the film).

Vern: Thank you for the clarification. I've been going through the FAR Matrix to find clauses that may apply to this IDIQ; once the first round is done, I intend to scan through the prescriptions and remove any that would not even remotely apply in this specific instance (obviously leaving any required clauses in place). My contracting office uses SPS/PD2, but the clause logic system on it is notoriously finicky and not always up-to-date, and DPAP's Clause Logic Service does not appear to have been updated in several months.

Retread: thank you for posting in reply to my question, but I think Vern covered my concerns before I had a chance to reply to you. Cheers!

I am helping a colleague put together a solicitation for a commercial IDIQ solicitation. Specifically, I have been tasked with putting together the clauses and provisions for the solicitation. FAR Subpart 12.3 is somewhat misleading (or, I am not reading it correctly, which is entirely possible) on the subject of using clauses and provisions other than the five 52.212 clauses/provisions. I am fully aware that clauses such as 52.216-19 and -22 can and should apply; however, I'm fuzzy on the other clauses that could apply (that is, "required when applicable") in an IDIQ situation. If this topic has been addressed somewhere other than this designated forum, please feel free to post the link and delete this topic. Thank you!

Vern - thank you for the examples! It is very much appreciated.

jj - Thanks for the example.

Joel - I'll look into omitted clauses, thank you!

jj20874 - Is there a citation or source I can use for that? Thanks!

Retreadfed - Thank you for the suggestions, I found a couple of good examples for my training.

Greetings,

I'm working on a training presentation for my coworkers, and my topic is the Christian Doctrine. As later Court of Federal Claims cases have ruled (such as General Engineering & Machine Works v. Sean C. O’Keefe), the Christian Doctrine applies only to "mandatory contract clauses which express a significant or deeply-ingrained strand of public procurement policy". The original G. L. Christian & Associates v. United States court explicitly mentioned the termination clause(s) in its decision, but I've run out of sources to research. Would any of the esteemed WIFCON forum members have other examples of "deeply-ingrained strands of public procurement policy?"

Thank you!

I found the Government Contracts Regulations / Règlement sur les marches de l'État [PDF]. They are 14 pages long.

I agree with jj20874. Signed NDAs should not be included in the actual contract. Template (blank) NDAs should be incorporated either through the DFARS clause or as an attachment / continuation page in the contract.

I do have a question for jj20874: Should signed NDAs be retained as part of the contract file? That is to say, not within the SF 1449 (or other format), but as a separate tab?

aordway,

I'm not an Army 1102, so take my post with several metric tons of salt, but:

One thing that has always stuck in my mind regarding agency supplements is this: Agency supplements can only be more restrictive, not less restrictive, than the FAR. For example, the AFARS could, theoretically, one day make all simplified acquisitions ($3K to $150K) set aside exclusively for SDVOSBs. However, the AFARS could never eliminate the set aside requirement for simplified acquisitions.

Therefore, I would say that the requirement must be posted to both systems; however, it looks like ASFI is set up to cross-post to FBO without additional intervention by the user. If you want to be sure, check FBO for your solicitation/announcement once you have posted to ASFI.

I would recommend you look at the FAQ document titled "FedBizOpps Posting Guide" found at this link.

illzoni,

I'm not in the same boat, but I did a little poking around nonetheless. I live in the DC-MD-VA area, so I'm constantly hearing ads about UMUC; I looked into their credit transfer policies and they may be of interest to you.

It may be clarifying that the KO is expected to ensure that the option price is more advantageous to the Government in lieu of a new procurement. For example, there is a class deviation requiring DoD KOs to use Part 15 price analysis techniques to confirm that FSS prices are fair and reasonable. The DFARS PGI states (at least the version of the PGI current through 14 October):

The contracting officer shall use an appropriate sampling technique or request field pricing assistance, and document the contract file with the results of the cost or price analysis.

"Appropriate sampling technique" may be intended to mean checking prices on GSA schedules or GWACs prior to exercising the option.

I don't have experience with spare parts procurement, so I may be off base. I would appreciate input from other WIFCON members.

Make sure to read the sections of Part 16 that 12.207(d) specifically calls out. Keep in mind that you will have to write a thorough justification for the use of contract types other than FFP (with or without EPA) under Part 12.

Piggy-backing on MustangBob, I would consider finding a billet with another government agency before leaving the public sector entirely.

An alternative approach would be to use a Government-Wide Acquisition Contract like NASA SEWP or GSA Alliant and take advantage of their small business only contracts.

SEWP can be more convenient than GSA, since they can add products and services to their contracts as needed, usually within a business day. If you want to know more about using SEWP, send me a private message.