.gif)
Matthew Fleharty
-
Posts
563 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Blogs
Events
Store
Breaking News
Everything posted by Matthew Fleharty
-
J&A Increasing Ceiling on Multiple Award IDIQ Contracts
Matthew Fleharty replied to anon_'s topic in Contract Administration
For multiple award contracts, FAR 16.505(b)(1)(i) requires that contracting officers to provide each awardee fair opportunity to be considered for each order exceeding $3,500 (unless exempted by FAR 16.505(b) - to which you point out is not applicable) and FAR 16.505(b)(1)(iii) requires orders in excess of the SAT be placed on a competitive basis. I'd argue that the fact that a contractor has reached their ceiling does not relieve the contracting officer of the requirements of FAR 16.505(b)(1)(i) & FAR 16.505(b)(1)(iii), it just makes the requirements impossible to fulfill (because a contractor that has reached their ceiling cannot be fairly considered for the award of any more orders). If the preceding analysis is correct, it would be improper to just use Vendor B's contract and treat it as a single award ID/IQ. Does anyone else have any thoughts on this issue? -
I did not state that I thought Vern was wrong or that the data would disprove his point, quite the opposite in fact. I was making the point you referred to in order to crowd source research ideas to further explore the issue because, while I'm not "in a command where have people act[ing] on [my] behalf," I do have contacts and former professors back at the Naval Postgraduate School that get new students every 1.5 years that are looking for research/thesis topics - this would be something that those individuals have the time, energy, and resources to research and write on. So thanks for commenting on the merits of what further research might or might not be beneficial on this issue and not assuming I'm already some lazy, dejected contracting professional that just wants to complain...
-
I don't think everyone has access to it (which now requires NCMA membership) - hence the request for the author to share so everyone can read it and then intelligently discuss. For those that have read the article (and the author), I think the portion of the argument that could be improved on with data is when Vern argues that "the government's contracting workforce does not reflect the contracting workload and the government's actual needs." I would like to see an analysis of the Governments' contract actions through FPDS-NG data identifying those non-complex actions that could be performed by 1105s and 1106s versus the number of actions that might require an 1102. Such an analysis (if performed correctly) could go a long ways towards strengthening the argument that a certain labor mix is needed within the 110X workforce.
-
I read the same - Vern would you be open to sharing the article on the forums with all on a separate thread to start/have a discussion regarding your remarks?
-
I don't think Vern is arguing for "fewer evaluation criteria," but rather evaluation criteria that are actually discriminators (whether that means agency's utilize more or less - depending on the situation).
-
Apsofacto, It's not just the mandatory use or not (that's a different discussion which I'm happy to have - I'd sum my general position up as if you build a good strategic sourcing vehicle, the users should come) - the concern I was trying to get across in my previous post is that when the Government looks at category management we only ask ourselves "can we strategically source this?" (mandatory or non-mandatory) and, if not, the conversation ends there. There are other ways to manage categories of spend in addition to strategic sourcing, but the Government does not seem to be doing anything else.
-
I find it interesting that every time the topic of "category management" comes up, inevitably the discussion pivots to "strategic sourcing." Even in the Air Force, as far as I am aware, our conversation regarding category management merely tracks/assesses categories with high spend and then asks the question "can/should we strategically source products/services for this category?" If yes, we do and create some sort of mandatory use contracting vehicle, if not, we move on to the next category and repeat the assessment process. The problem I have with the previous approach is that "category management" is not simply a question or strategic sourcing or not, but rather what are the best practices for acquiring the products/services within a category (which may very well be aggregation through strategic sourcing) and then disseminating those approaches to the contracting professionals and their customers. Maybe I'm mischaracterizing what the Air Force/rest of the Government is doing today (I've been in systems for almost two years now so that may very well be the case), but from the conversation I saw in the panel discussion here, I think the trend is still merely looking at categories for strategic sourcing opportunities and not much else.
-
Should Training Classes Be Required?
Matthew Fleharty commented on Don Mansfield's blog entry in Don Mansfield's Blog
I need to think about your topic some more in regards to the training construct, but one thing I can say clearly and definitively - whatever portion of the DoD's DAU/training budget it takes would be better spent on providing the acquisition workforce access to quality publications/resources for continuous education (e.g. The Cibinic & Nash Report, Briefing Papers, etc.) -
Apologies for drawing you back into this conversation - you and I agree on what the clause states and the process/formula for calculating adjustments. I suppose my "elimination of risk" argument was related to why the price adjustment requirement was established/exists (i.e. price adjustments are based solely on actual wage increases stipulated by the DoL so that contractors don't have to price in estimates of potential increases or decreases that may or may not occur at magnitudes that may or may not be accurate). Is that a fair assessment of the policy?
-
Congrats and thank you for being a fine steward of taxpayers' dollars. More importantly, make sure you pass your lesson(s) on to the rest of your colleagues.
-
I see that - I was incorrect in stating "all effort (hour) risk;" however, I'm still of the position that no effort (hour) impacts should be taken into consideration even if it is just a portion of those impacts multiplied by the actual wage differences. Seems we'll just have to agree to disagree.
-
The OP does not say the services are programming services, he just states they are "commercial services" and later calls the requirement a "project." "Programming" is the entity with the money (i.e. the customer/program office...) - re-read the sentence and see if we agree or not:
-
I like the succinctness of that explanation - very well put (as usual).
-
H2H, Understood - on your next major commercial purchase, I'd still be happy to help you overcome any bias that may remain and I'll even revise my position to let you keep the difference
-
Please don't consider negotiation and competition mutually exclusive - they're not and, in fact, buyers are better off (personally and professionally) if they leverage both together rather than either independently/separately. I don't understand how my analogy is inapt or any different than yours - in both of those cases (and in many others) I would take the opportunity to bargain for a better price. For example, when buying a car or obtaining repairs from a dealership, a common metric that is used for employee bonuses these days is "customer satisfaction" (since wholesale/invoice prices are pretty easy to find through market research these days) - knowing that, I've been able to leverage (multiple times) additional discounts on the lowest quoted price in exchange for those maximum ratings (after all, my satisfaction is a function of receiving a quality product/service at a low price). Try it next time you go to buy a car...or if you're ethically opposed to doing so, I'll gladly negotiate your next vehicle in exchange for keeping the difference between the lowest quoted price you receive and the amount I settle at. Finally, I think Vern's comment regarding the concept of price reasonableness is spot on - a fair and reasonable price is not a price point, but rather a range of prices. If you disagree, just consider how transactions in markets would have to occur if the converse were true...
-
Deleted - Accidental Duplicate Post
-
Your adjustment method based on hours is inappropriate because pricing in year to year adjustments to hours would remove all effort (hour) risk from the contractor - that's certainly not what the parties sign up to when they execute FFP service contracts. The adjustment is not designed to maintain profit/loss positions year to year, but rather to remove Government mandated wage minimums (to the extent that they actual impact the contract) from the risk equation.
-
Is FAR 52.243-1 even in your contract? As it has already been stated, for commercial contracts, it shouldn't be. Sounds like the contractor realizes he/she made a bad deal (but a contractually binding deal with consideration nevertheless) and now he/she wants the new PCO to Monday Morning Quarterback the issue. Have you spoken to the previous PCO and has it occurred that he/she may have known exactly what he/she was doing when the previous modifications were signed? Even with all these letters and tertiary documentation you point to, there were multiple opportunities for this contractor to price into the contract modifications whatever consideration should have been adequate for the change and he/she failed to do so (or do so accurately) - OR they did price them in accurately and now the contractor is trying to extract even more from the new PCO...
-
I couldn't disagree more. Next time you go by a car will you be accepting the lowest quoted price of the vehicle or will you bargain?
-
Why? I don't understand this desire to automatically jump to utilizing FAR Part 15 procedures when, for commercial items, the authority in FAR 13.5 exists. How was using an RFQ the cause of this situation and what in FAR Part 13 prohibits the OP from resolving it? Also the OP never states that these are IT services...the post states "commercial services."
-
Your guess? Why not determine what the situation actually is (unless you don't want relevant input)...
-
NAICS Codes - Large Business
Matthew Fleharty replied to thecontractingguy's topic in Contract Award Process
I understand the requirement for current registration in SAM, but where does your agency's requirement for a particular NAICS code listing come from? -
NAICS Codes - Large Business
Matthew Fleharty replied to thecontractingguy's topic in Contract Award Process
Apologies in advance for answering your question with questions, but have you thought about the purpose and function of NAICS codes (specifically in relation to federal contracting)? Also, where would you find information that explains why a prospective contractor may not be able to receive a federal contract and is there a NAICS requirement there? -
Use of PPIRS Data in Source Selection
Matthew Fleharty replied to styrene's topic in Contract Award Process
Happens quite often - there are even some best value source selections where past performance is the only factor trading off with price - research the term "Past Performance Tradeoff" and look here: www.farsite.hill.af.mil/archive/affars/2009-0803/IG5315.101-1.doc (Disclaimer: this IG is archived and no longer part of the AFFARS) Also, if you're uncomfortable with the data in PPIRS, maybe you should consider other means of assessing past performance. I'm not sure what types of contracts you work on, but as an example, if you're contracting for commercial services you could consider using past performance surveys of contractors' performance in the commercial sector as well. Is anything subjective standard? -
I've gained a new interest in pursuing/understanding this topic a bit more so, while I'm doing my own research, if you or anyone else has examples of the use of metaphor instead of plain English in contracting regulations I'd like to see the references/excerpts.