sackanator

Quote

Implemental numbering is the same as its FAR counterpart, except when the text exceeds one paragraph, the subdivisions are numbered by skipping a unit in the FAR 1.105-2(b)(2) prescribed numbering sequence.  For example, three paragraphs implementing FAR 19.501 would be numbered 219.501(1), (2), and (3) rather than (a), (b), and (c).  Three paragraphs implementing FAR 19.501(a) would be numbered 219.501(a)(i), (ii), and (iii) rather than (a)(1), (2), and (3).  Further subdivision of the paragraphs follows the prescribed numbering sequence, e.g., 219.501(1)(i)(A)(1)(i).

That answers that one.  Kinda weird why they would do that.

Quote

Have you review FAR 1.502?

notice in the Federal Register -- unsolicited recommendations.

I haven't, wanted to verify in here that I wasn't crazy first before doing anything else.  

Following guidance for subdivisions for sequence.

FAR 1.105-2(b) 

(2) Subdivisions below the section or subsection level consist of parenthetical alpha numerics using the following sequence:

          (a)(1)(i)(A)(1)(i)

FAR 10.002 goes to paragraph (e) like below...., then goes to another Subsection.  

10.003 Contract clause.

--------------------------------------------------

Looking at DFARS again.

DFARS 210.002 "Procedures" 

Using Acquisition.gov and pulling up the FAR and DFARS. DFARS states the following 210.001 Policy.(c)(2) In addition to the notification requirements at FAR 10.001(c)(2)(i) and (ii), see 205.205-70 for the bundling notification publication requirement.  Bold and underline for emphasis.  

FAR Part 10.001 Policy.

      (c) If an agency contemplates consolidation or bundling, the agency—

           (1) When performing market research, should consult with the agency small business specialist and the local Small Business Administration procurement center representative (PCR). If a PCR is not assigned, see 19.402(a); and

           (2) Shall notify any affected incumbent small business concerns of the Government's intention to bundle the requirement and how small business concerns may contact the appropriate Small Business Administration procurement center representative (see 7.107-5(a)).

      (d) See 10.003 for the requirement for a prime contractor to perform market research in contracts in excess of $6 million, other than contracts for the acquisition of commercial products or commercial services (section 826 of Pub. L. 110-181).

The subparagraphs (i) and (ii) don't exist.  I thought sometimes that acquisitions.gov is off or has small corrections in places but then verified with the eCFR title 48 chapter 1 "FAR" and chapter 2 "DFARS" and they are the same.  How does one go about letting the site know that their publication is incorrect?  Also DFARS 210.001(a)(ii) doesn't seem to match with the FAR section.  

2 hours ago, C Culham said:

(4) A statement that reads in substance: “This is a rated order certified for national defense use and you are required to follow all the provisions of the Defense Priorities and Allocations System regulations (15 CFR part 700).”

When I issued the Delivery Order I didn't include that statement, that's would be the only thing that would make me think that it wasn't a proper rated order.  

Had the DFAR version of the clause 252.216-7006 ORDERING (no longer exists)  (b) All delivery orders or task orders are subject to the terms and conditions of this contract. In the event of conflict between a delivery order or task order and this contract, the contract shall control.

So, basically yes.  Thanks Vern.    

41 minutes ago, policyguy said:

The base contract has the term and conditions and the delivery order is the order and payment etc.  If the base contract did not have the DPAS clause it could not be applied to the delivery order.  Since this action is with DOD you can obtain information from the office that handles DPAS:

So after going to CHESS to look at the contract I now have to use a hypothetical since the specific contract that started this conversation does not have 52.211-15 but block 13a-b on the 1449 are filled in affirming that it is a rated order.  (think they were burning the midnight oil on these since one of them list DO-A6 "Ammunition" as the program).  Whether its still a rated order without the clause could be an interesting side discussion but the question would still remain, if the IDC is rated, would the delivery orders be rated as well? 

7 minutes ago, Vern Edwards said:

Did you mean: If an IDIQ contract has a DPAS rating, does the rating apply to all orders issued thereunder?

Yes, thought I re-read my post enough times to catch those kind of mistakes

Does a delivery order with a DPAS rating flow down to all delivery order used against it?  For this example the Army Computer Hardware Enterprise Software and Solutions (CHESS) program has several IDIQs under Army Desktop and Mobile Computing-3 (ADMC-3).  AFARS 39 requires we use the CHESS for ordering our IT equipment.  From what I have seen all the IDC contracts under the ADMC-3 are DPAS rated.  I assume that all orders off any of the base contracts would be considered a DPAS rated order under DOA7.  I have looked over provided material from previous threads related to DPAS and nothing says unequivocally that the DPAS rating flows down with the Delivery Order but it seems strongly implied.  Two of the most prominent examples

1-  https://www.bis.doc.gov/index.php/documents/other-areas/strategic-industries-and-economic-security/1615-dpas-training-slides/file slide 40 states "•A ‘‘requirements contract,” ‘‘basic ordering agreement,” ‘‘prime vendor contract,” or similar procurement document bearing a priority rating may contain no specific delivery date or dates and may provide for the furnishing of items from time-to-time or within a stated period against specific purchase orders, such as ‘‘calls,” ‘‘requisitions,’’ and ‘‘delivery orders.’’ 

     -- sub bullet then states "These purchase orders must specify a required delivery date or dates and are to be considered as rated as of the date of their receipt by the supplier and not as of the date of the original procurement document."  To me indicates the delivery order defines the delivery date of the DPAS rated base, why add in the DPAS rating to the Delivery Order/Call.

2-  DoD 4400.1-M C3.2.1. Procuring Activities SHALL assign a priority rating to all defense contracts and purchase orders, except ... (leaving out the exception language) so if we are required to assign a priority rating and its in the base contract why wouldn't it be in the delivery orders.

  Further down in the same policy it does state concerning computers 

     C3.2.2. l. Procuring Activities shall assign priority ratings only when the computer system and/or peripheral equipment will be integral to an end item that is necessary for:
          C3.2.2.1. l. Strategic or tactical military operations.
          C3.2.2. l .2. Logistics support of military operations.

Summary

Reason asking is vendor stated that she received guidance from the CHESS program that delivery orders had to individually have the DPAS rating.  I am not sure why you would have a rating in the base contract and then have to put them in all the delivery orders when DoD 4400.1 and 15 CFR 700 seem to state that you shall use the DPAS rating (baring that none of the exceptions apply).

1 hour ago, joel hoffman said:

I should have asked much earlier in this thread if you are using the A/E for labor hour or time and material type tasks within the various periods. I have been assuming that these are fixed-price design type A/E task orders that may or may not extend beyond the period in which they were issued. 

The way this one works is the rates for the disciplines is negotiated as fully burdened.  Each task order is then issued as a Firm FIxed Price based on the labor hours required for each discipline (plus other additional costs such as DVD's, prints and travel).  So for example the A&E for a project proposes 6 hours for Senior Electrical Engineer and 7 hours for Electrical Engineer IV.  The Government determines that more work could be done by the Electrical Engineer IV and negotiates the A&E down to Senior Electrical Engineer 4 hours and Electrical Engineer IV at 8 hours (also reducing the total hours for Electrical Engineer required).  Its not a Labor Hours because we don't pay for the hours, they are only used as part of the negotiation for the total price.  I've only touched A&E working in NGB so this is the process I am familiar with.   

12 hours ago, joel hoffman said:

What prevents the parties from negotiating revised rates for the extension if they didn’t think of it during the original rate negotiations (other than the literal sense of at the (existing) rates ? 

After this thread I can't really see any good reason, the concern was if negotiating rates was a scope change, if is was a scope change would the Brooks Act effect dealing with the current awardee to where we would have to reach out to the other vendors that we held discussions with.  I believe those concerns have reasonably been addressed.

19 hours ago, Jamaal Valentine said:

Does the contracting office have any -8 options that don’t use the preceding year’s  rates? Does the contractor have any contracts that do not use the preceding year’s rates?

I get a sense that forwarding established pricing/rates into the (-8) isn't completely settled or not all agencies are on board, our policy folks in Bureau seem to lean more towards they don't flow and requests that they be priced.

12 hours ago, joel hoffman said:

The easiest resolution of the rates , since it is a government option, might be to use a literal sense of the term “at the rates specified in the contract”  and that there is no adjustment except for DOL wage rate adjustments - of which there wouldn’t be any for professional salary based rates. That was the traditional sense of use in our agency. Also, the cited ASBCA case involved a best value (price included) competition.

Even though this is an IDIQ, options were established (again not how I would have done it).  The way the rates are specified is by option year/period, could I then use option year 1 rates for my (-8) period.  A reasonable person would assume that you use the latter rates but the way the clause is phrased one may take that literal sense of the term and make an argument for doing such.

Tried to respond all day and this was the first time I could log in.

4 hours ago, joel hoffman said:

What prevents the parties from negotiating revised rates for the extension if they didn’t think of it during the original rate negotiations (other than the literal sense of at the (existing) rates ? 

After this thread I can't really see any good reason, the concern was if negotiating rates was a scope change, if is was a scope change would the Brooks Act effect dealing with the current awardee to where we would have to reach out to the other vendors that we held discussions with.  I believe those concerns have reasonably been addressed.

11 hours ago, Jamaal Valentine said:

Does the contracting office have any -8 options that don’t use the preceding year’s  rates? Does the contractor have any contracts that do not use the preceding year’s rates?

Seems that forwarding established pricing/rates into the (-8) isn't completely settled, our policy folks in Bureau tend to lean more towards they don't flow.

4 hours ago, joel hoffman said:

The easiest resolution of the rates , since it is a government option, might be to use a literal sense of the term “at the rates specified in the contract”  and that there is no adjustment except for DOL wage rate adjustments

Even though this is an IDIQ, options were established (again not how I would have done it).  The way the rates are specified is by option year/period, could I then use option year 1 rates for my (-8) period.  A reasonable person would assume that you use the latter rates but the way the clause is phrased one may take that literal sense of the term and make an argument for doing such.  
 

2 hours ago, joel hoffman said:

I wanted to add: What prevents the parties from negotiating revised rates for the extension if they didn’t think of it during the original rate negotiations (other than the literal sense of at the (existing) rates ? 

After this thread I can't really see any good reason, the concern was if negotiating rates was a scope change, if is was a scope change would the Brooks Act effect dealing with the current awardee to where we would have to reach out to the other vendors that we held discussions with.  I believe those concerns have reasonably been addressed.

16 hours ago, Vern Edwards said:

You should not be preparing training slides about such matters if you have not personally done appropriate historical research.

At least to the extent where I incorrectly represent the facts right.  Are there any good books/material that provide historical content to certain FAR/DFARS sections other than going back in time through all the Federal Registers (which is hard to navigate for me) and Federal Acquisition Circular.  This would help on something I've been kicking around doing, a training session on Clause/Provisions.  We all know where 52.204-(24-26) come from but not the intent/reason behind a lot of the other ones.  While providing feed back to Contract Specialist for awards I KO I always provide comments and FAR references on why I am requiring the changes/corrections.

15 hours ago, Vern Edwards said:

You should not be preparing training slides about such matters if you have not personally done appropriate historical research.

At least to the extent where I incorrectly represent the facts right.  Are there any good books/material that provide historical content to certain FAR/DFARS sections other than going back in time through all the Federal Registers (which is hard to navigate for me) and Federal Acquisition Circular.  This would help on something I've been kicking around doing, a training session on Clause/Provisions.  We all know where 52.204-(24-26) come from but not the intent/reason behind a lot of the other ones.  While providing feed back to Contract Specialist for awards I KO I always provide comments and FAR references on why I am requiring the changes/corrections.

15 hours ago, Vern Edwards said:

You should not be preparing training slides about such matters if you have not personally done appropriate historical research.

At least to the extent where I incorrectly represent the facts right.  Are there any good books/material that provide historical content to certain FAR/DFARS sections other than going back in time through all the Federal Registers (which is hard to navigate for me) and Federal Acquisition Circular.  This would help on something I've been kicking around doing, a training session on Clause/Provisions.  We all know where 52.204-(24-26) come from but not the intent/reason behind a lot of the other ones.  While providing feed back to Contract Specialist for awards I KO I always provide comments and FAR references on why I am requiring the changes/corrections.

15 hours ago, Vern Edwards said:

You should not be preparing training slides about such matters if you have not personally done appropriate historical research.

At least to the extent where I incorrectly represent the facts right.  Are there any good books/material that provide historical content to certain FAR/DFARS sections other than going back in time through all the Federal Registers (which is hard to navigate for me) and Federal Acquisition Circular.

Quote

Are you going to issue additional task orders for new work? If so, there might  be a need for discussions here concerning expanding the scope, if this possibility wasn’t known to all firms that responded to the announcement. 

Joel,

Lot to digest.  Yes, the intention is to use the additional 6 months from the (-8) to issue task orders for new work.  The 52.217-8 WAS part of the solicitation posted on GPE (back then Fedbizopps).  To reiterate, no additional changes are being made (no change to the Maximum order capacity, no changes to scope of work, no clauses are being added).  The only thing seems to be needed is negotiated rates for the labor disciplines.  The only part that makes this complicated is its A&E (Brooks Act) and the (-8) labor rates weren't part of IDC.  The solicitation did state it was going to be a single award IDIQ.       

Side note, don't mean to start a different thread but its related, FAR 13 is derived from FASA, FAR 15 is derived from CICA, where is 16.5 derived from?  Trying to research/understand the how and why, also build training slides such as the relationship between exclusions from full and open competition (FAR 6/8/13/16.5).  Should I re-ask this question on a different thread?   

11 hours ago, Jamaal Valentine said:

@sackanator,

You keep mentioning that the 52.217-8 option was not priced nor negotiated. Was the option evaluated at the time of award? If yes, how? The total evaluated price may offer some insight in the -8 pricing.

Jamaal Valentine,

The 52.217-8 was/is included in the solicitation and award.  When fully burdened discipline rates were negotiated that would be used for the task orders placed off the IDC, they did not include any rates past Option year 4.  Priced option may not be proper terminology (except its the only language I could find for exercising the 52.217-8 without the negotiated rates).  Total evaluated price is the Maximum order amount.  Hope this answers your question.  

Thanks Vern, appreciate it.  

6 hours ago, Vern Edwards said:

Basically, you signed up to a contract with options and you're not sure how the options are to be priced.

Am I correct? If so, call the contracting officer and work something out.

KO has departed, this single award A&E IDIQ was his last hurrah before departing out of contracting completely.  Even though its an IDIQ it has 4 option years (not something I would do), and each option year has negotiated rates per discipline.  The awards we do now include pricing/rates for 52.217-8 (if its exercised at the end of the last option or ordering period), but this one does not. 

Constricting Officer, your assessment is correct, the focus though was on using the (-8) which was not negotiated.    

My question(s) where, can the Government negotiate rates bi-laterally for the additional 6 months of the 52.217-8 or is it more complicated.  Vern Edwards responded that FAR 36.602-1(c) would not apply to the exercise of 52.217-8 so if I understand it correctly we just negotiate rates for the additional 6 months bi-laterally.  Per the usual, a follow on A&E IDIQ won't be in place in time thus the need for the (-8).  

The reason I posted the question was I wasn't sure on the Brooks Act (A&E) aspect and the unpriced (-8) if they factored in at all.   

The Government may require continued performance of any services within the limits and at the rates specified in
the contract. These rates may be adjusted only as a result of revisions to prevailing labor rates provided by the
Secretary of Labor. The option provision may be exercised more than once, but the total extension of performance
hereunder shall not exceed 6 months. The Contracting Officer may exercise the option by written notice to the
Contractor within 60 days.

To me "within the limits and at the rates specified" seems to mean that if they are not part of the award (rates during the actual performance period of the -8) that they can't just be assumed.  However depending on which words you emphasize, I guess it could be read (restated) "performance will continue at previous rates and forwarded to the option (-8).  This would seem to cause more ambiguity since the rates increase every year and the clause "as written" would allow us to use rates from the years that were more favorable to the Government, the sentence doesn't specify which rates.   Since the -8 is unilateral it would seem using this approach I could direct which rates to use.  Not trying to argue the point, since what is suggested saves significant time and effort, but trying to read the language or understand it enough that if asked, I can justify with a logical response.  

Jamall Valentine,

The rates in the IDIQ are the fully burdened rates for job disciplines, example (not actual rates)

                                             Base             OY1         OY2           OY3           OY4

Discipline                              Rate             Rate        Rate          Rate           Rate
Senior Civil Engineer        $ 101.00        $ 102.00   $103.00    $104.00    $105.00

The KO that awarded this contract did not include rates for the (-8) or a statement I sometimes see in the 52.217-8 clause "shall follow the rates of the proceeding the period of performance".   

Single award A&E IDIQ was awarded with a ceiling (maximum quantity) of $5,000,000.00.  52.217-8 was included, however the negotiated labor rates did not include the (-8).  The organization would like to use the (-8) to extend the contract, no adjustment to the ceiling (maximum quantity) amount is necessary.  The question is does FAR 36.602-1(c) "discussions with at least three firms" apply?  Does there need to be a J&A posted for the exception to CICA as required for unpriced options or would that even be possible since your in the A&E world which requires the minimum of three firms for discussions? 

I assume since there isn't a change in the overall amount (ceiling) and that the 52.217-8 clause was included, that all that is needed is to do a bi-lateral modification with the negotiated labor rates for the additional 6 months but would like others rational on this?

This was a tool milling machine, not IT.