Jump to content
The Wifcon Forums and Blogs


  • Posts

  • Joined

  • Last visited

About br549dewey

  • Birthday November 25

Profile Information

  • Gender
  • Location
  • Interests
    Contract Administration
    Reformed Christian faith

Recent Profile Visitors

1,218 profile views
  1. it won't work for this one, at least at this time, it does not appear it would. However, we are going to stand up a BPA for crane repair, and I think your suggestion is ON POINT. Thanks, Dale
  2. I think that most of the repairs will end up being Not-to-Exceed (NTE) until the shop is able to completely breakdown the problem area. Your description of getting the prices for common repairs, akin to scenario pricing, along with labor rates, makes sense, though it could get a bit tedious. Has anyone tried rotating the awards? that is, if there are three firms that are BPA holders, rotating the calls to the three firms? I suggest three, because I think that is the likely number for our locale. Thanks and regards, Dewey
  3. An IDIQ would mean I have a contract with rates and a supporting price memorandum. A BPA would mean I don't have a contract, but I do have some rates, some prices, etc. For either we would have to negotiate a final price for each call/order. I am leaning towards competing a BPA for firms that do such work in our metro area. The BPA could be our test baby, so that we can know more about what is available in the area. Thoughts?
  4. I need to stand up two BPAs - both for repairs in our local area. Probably up to $150K each for a year. We can get rates from each firm, but the calls (NTE when issued) can't be definitively priced until the heavy equipment(s) are taken apart. Anticipate two BPAs with only two local firms that do this sort of repair work. I am more accustomed to "C" type contracts and IDIQ contracts, vice BPAs What can I use for standing up two single award BPAs (can do multiple award, since we can't compete individual calls - i.e. can't price until they are taken apart)? That is, do I draft a J&A that explains that these two firms are the only available sources? Having two BPAs will indirectly give us some quasi-competition benefits, since each firm will be aware the other is in Agreement with us.... Need advice on the soundest way to document that we need to awards to local firms that cannot be 'head to head' competed. Regards, Dewey
  5. To avoid doing a J&A the price had to be evaluated prior to award. If the price was evaluated, then it should be displayed in the contract as a final, negotiated price for the six months. If not displayed because no price was agreed upon, then you are back to preparing a J&A and having to go through the unavoidable delay while the J&A goes through a long signature chain. It is tempting to skip the J&A because you are running out of time, but you have are not 'kosher' if you try to use -8 as a "cheap trick" way to add 6 months to the contract.
  6. I think a found most of the answer. Here is an excerpt from DAU - The way to ensure that you will evaluate options is to say so in your solicitation and then do it during the proposal evaluation process using the appropriate FAR (or agency) clauses, depending on which is appropriate for your requirement. To evaluate options is “normal” in the use of options, it would be “unusual” to include an option and not evaluate it (see FAR 52.217-3, but it can be done and there are valid reasons). When you include an option and don’t evaluate it that means you cannot exercise the option “unilaterally” later without a J&A (as noted in your background information from the GAO Case). On the other end of options is their “exercise” which can be in the same or different fiscal year, or even at the time of award, depending on the clause used in the solicitation. When exercising an option a D&F (not to be confused with the J&A) shall be prepared, in the D&F you must state that the requirement still exists, funds are available and that the option was evaluated at the time of the award (see FAR 17.207© 1 through 5 of all the areas to be addressed in the D&F). If not evaluated (as you pointed out) it is “out of scope.” If the option is considered “Out of Scope” then a J&A is required, or you can issue ANOTHER solicitation to publicize the additional work. If the option is the best alternative it can be considered as the first proposal on the new solicitation. This is why most options are evaluated at the time of award to avoid issuance of a J&A or second solicitation. It is the Competition in Contracting Act (CICA), as implemented in the FAR, that is the problem for the government, the contractor is usually happy to accept the additional work. The Contracting Officer must avoid violations of CICA that’s the reason for the J&A or second solicitation for the “Out of Scope” work to satisfy competition requirements.
  7. Question: If the GOVT elects to use 52.217-8 -- Option to Extend Services for up to a six month extension, what approvals are needed? If the price for the six months was not previously evaluated, are we looking at posting to FBO, and a J&A?
  8. Hi. I am referring to the price existing in a dynamic contractual setting. The price is established within a context that includes, but is not limited to related factors, such as time for delivery, means of delivery, time and method of inspection, quality control requirements, and on and on... So, a price might seem to be fair and reasonable, until we look further at other terms of the contract that impact price. If you have ever negotiated with Cost as an Independent Variable (CAIV), you have seen how related factors can be negotiated until a "price" is reached. Price does not exist in a vacuum. Note that when we point out flaws in our G.E.s, we almost always see how the G.E. overstated or understated these related factors - e.g.cost of testing and samples, time to access the base, the cost of QC reports, and so forth. - Dewey
  9. "Fair and reasonable" is a construct. We see that it is more involved than a few stipulations or a few slides. Although a fair and reasonable price determination has been summarized in many ways, and likewise described and detailed in numerous ways, it is a construct that is really an abbreviated way of naming a very involved subset (pricing) of a very large body of knowledge (contracting). It is a construct we go back to because the determination is about getting appropriate consideration "in contract". i.e. can we support accepting this price on behalf of the Government? A GAO decision will give us insight, but still does not give us complete, in depth understanding. Hence, we have entire books and guides written on this little term - "fair and reasonable". So what do we do? We study this construct, "fair and reasonable price", year after year, with its many dimensions and particulars, so that we are better able to assess if a specific scenario supports a determination of a fair and reasonable price. What else to do? One can have experienced peers read his or her Price Memorandum. A good friend/peer can tactfully play the devil's advocate, helping us identify flaws or holes in our logic. We keep learning, and listening, and the construct steadily comes to mean more to us, and our understanding gets deeper, and wider, as we learn and practice contracting. No man is an island. P.S. I like reading the decisions, but take pause at the time involved...
  10. You asked -"would a determination of the lowest price being fair and reasonable, solely on the basis of adequate price competition, be compliant with the governing rules?" I ask you, could you defend your determination to a wise tribunal? did you consider all pertinent facts? Where there any inconsistencies vis a vis the lowest price? i.e. was it much TOO low? Ask yourself, what do I have besides the competition? Is there pertinent price history? what price did we expect? Do they understand the requirement? what is our G.E. amount? Again, it is about the situation in which the determination is made. Have you considered all pertinent information? Do you have enough? If you believe you could defend your decision to an objective, outside, unbiased party, then reduce it to writing. No man is an island. the governing rules put the burden on the one who determines the price fair and reasonable. Happy Trails!
  11. Greetings all. If your system won't let you decide whether or not to make the check boxes available to vendors, then shame on you/us... :-} it is meant to be a decision point, for the buyer. There is a reason the buyer is to be able to decide if they (interested party boxes) are available. Remember, being an interested vendor is NOT the same thing as being an interested party. i.e. Checking the box does not make one an interested party. My point was that if you are announcing an intended sole source, the contractor(s) need to do more than check the interested party box on FBO. They have to contact the buying agency to express their position - i.e. they can do the work, etc. I think having the interested party box active on a sole source announcement is just straight up confusing. If it is a sole source announcement, the interested PARTIES need to know how to challenge the proposed sole source action. Thinks for responding. Happy Trails! - BR549Dewey
  12. I am glad to see that others have suffered under the burden of the recurring new FY trick bag. No matter what we do, there is suffering. As long as the services must go on, and we are censored for letting contractors work without funds, there will be suffering. It is not logical, but it happens every year. We can read the clause until we fall asleep. The clause was intended to let contractors work. The immediate problem is that they might start invoicing us before the funds arrive. This conundrum can't be fixed with the current rules. If we want to make the auditors "happy", we must not let the contractors provide services for any customers who have not provided us with funds. And if we let them work and the funds arrive in time, the auditors will look to see if they invoiced us for services rendered while we were waiting for the funds. It cannot be fixed with current "mis-rules". The availability of funds clause must be used as was intended. Oh, no Promises to Pay or Guarantees of Funds are enough, either. Let's smile and continue to suffer next 1 October when once again we have customers with needed services and the funds are "on their way".... HAPPY TRAILS!
  13. Hi. See below that the interested vendor function is for competitive solicitations, or notices, such as sources sought, that are in preparation for a competed solicitation. This is from the FBO buyer's guide - "Opportunity Actions: Vendors are able to add themselves to the Interested Vendors List (IVL) for an opportunity. If the buyer has indicated that reviewing vendors are able to review other interested vendors, vendors can review the list of vendors who have expressed interest in the opportunity. Vendors can request explicit access to view controlled, unclassified packages with explicit access designation. If the vendor’s profile indicates that the vendor is eligible for access to export controlled packages, the system allows the vendor access. Additionally, Vendors can electronically respond to RFIs, RFQs, and RFPs directly through the web site for those notices which have the Bid Module enabled by the buyer. Note: The Interested Vendor list is only available to those with FBO accounts. Agency buyers / engineers will need to go to the FBO homepage and login in order to view." Hence, the interested vendors function seems inappropriate and even problematic and confusing, for sole source actions, where competition is not intended. For that matter, the interested vendor function appears to make business sense only when trying to stimulate competition. Yet, I see the function activated for numerous non-competitive actions on FBO... Some vendors might mistakenly think that registering as an interested vendor in some way challenges the intended sole source action. It does not, but merely displays interest.
  14. Agreed. I see it (interested vendors) on intended sole source notifications. This is confusing, since they have to challenge a proposed sole source (typically sole responsible source), not register as an interest vendor. Note that lawyers do at times want to know if bidders registered as an interested vendor for a solicitation. View that this is oblique, but it is in some cases recorded, like a footnote that is at best indirectly related to the matter at hand. The interested vendor field does seem to be best used to stimulate competition, and especially for commercial items or services.
  15. I think registering on the FBO site (interested vendors) has been confused by many contract specialists, and their supervisors, with determining who is an interested party. I have heard it said that "you have to register as an interested vendor or they will toss you out." This appears incorrect, clearly. Further, on the other end of the spectrum, some firms or individuals just use it (FBO) for free advertising. Further, along with what Mr. Edwards recently wrote, I re-learned last night that there are subtle differences in determining who is an interest party, depending on the venue. For instance, GAO's definition of an interested party is different from that of the SBA, for size protests. As for more about confusion - I know of more than one case recently where legal counsel wanted to know if a firm that had protested to GAO had registered as an interested vendor in FBO. Perhaps more misunderstanding of what interested vendor is for? Since we put everything on FBO for interested bidders, including links, I am back to asking why this feature is even on FBO?? I intend to take the FBO tutorial in order to glean out more about its functionality, and FBO's "intentions" for the thousands of buyers who sculpt their notices and solicitations into FBO. Since we who use FBO must perform the equivalent of "Functional Tests' for FBO, we are the ones to let them know what is working, what is not, and what is extraneous. The recent change that makes registration and logon required for being an interested vendor shows that FBO continues to slowly morph. I originally asked this question about FBO and interested vendors because I saw a lot of variation in FBO solicitations. For instance, why would you not permit interested vendor registration for a commercial, full and open competition? Other Contract Specialists permit interested vendors on simple informative notices, with no apparent use for vendor registration. FBO is like so many software applications we use in that the designed functionality permits too wide a range of responses, with the associated differences in interpretation. Hence, we see wild and wide differences in its use for almost identical solicitations..... Thank you.
  • Create New...