Jump to content
The Wifcon Forums and Blogs

REA'n Maker

  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

0 Neutral

About REA'n Maker

  • Rank

Profile Information

  • Gender
  • Location

Recent Profile Visitors

2,313 profile views
  1. 66 months???? So you can extend the contract for 5-1/2 years in addition to the base + option periods???
  2. This has got to be some of the worst language in the FAR. It seems like everyone has a different interpretation, for example, "insert the period of time within which the Contracting Officer may exercise the option" seems to suggest that "from 1500 GMT 21 MAR 2018 to 1500 GMT 21 APR 2018" would be just okey-dokey because it specifies a "period of time". But that would be stupid. Personally, I follow the lead of the clause author and write in "X days before the contract expires" after "within". Still hate the language though. What the heck were they thinking when they wrote that one???
  3. But the city-pairs aren't known.....why would you even bother comparing Seattle-DC with Baltimore-DC? Just say "closest LPTA wins".
  4. Assuming that the goal of the contract is not "travel", why are you evaluating it? Just say travel will be treated as a reimbursable per the JTR and be done with it. No one is favored or prejudiced. Otherwise, level of performance might end up being determined by who can travel cheapest, not who has the best qualifications.
  5. Companies use internal templates all the time. They also copy old proposals, sometimes not even bothering to change the name of the soliciting agency. Whether proposal templates are bought or recycled seems irrelevant. My understanding is that the only real restriction is on contingent fees. The government is also guilty of templating and using recycled RFQs and contracts, so there's that... Nothing you can 'do' about it, really. Short of actual conspiracy among offerors, I don't know how you could reject an otherwise acceptable proposal because you think it might have been based on a 3rd party template. The oral presentation idea is a good one, but it also begs the question of "do you wait and look at the proposals before you decide to require oral presentations, or do you do it on everything as SOP?" As mentioned previously, it can be used on pretty much anything regardless of whether part 15 applies or not.
  6. Yep. Protest grounds would be pretty straightforward: "If we had known that earliest submission was going to be a criteria, we would have submitted 2 days early." Otherwise eligible for award, prejudiced by the actual award criteria; it's all there. Very interesting decision napolik. GAO allowed sound, logical business judgement using facially objective criteria to break the tie. Who'da thunk it?!
  7. All CO delegations flow from the Head of the Contracting Activity, correct? Who is the HCA? If it's not an Executive Branch agency, the Director can pretty much do whatever they want regarding CO warrants. I was granted one by the Judicial Branch with no questions asked. Good thing I was a DAWIA Level III going in, eh? I assume because we are talking about the granting of warrants that you meant "certified federal contracts person"?
  8. Certified C&P data is a FAR-defined term, and is not synonymous with "price analysis". What you meant by "it's called price analysis" when I stated that competition "..obviates the need for cost analysis", I have no idea. I think you are conflating price analysis with a FAR requirement on the prime contractor to provide (literally) certified C&P data. Sounds like "you want the subcontract, give us visibility into your costs". Because the prime/sub agreement is commercial, they can do whatever they want. Exactly. Don't worry about FAR Part 32 or whatever. Find out what your prime wants, and if possible, give it to them. I think there might also be a terminology/semantics issue in play here. Only the Government can be provided with certified C&P data because the purpose of that is to provide an avenue for remedies like Price Reductions for Defective C&P Data, etc. Maybe that's what you need to educate the prime on. Ask them if FAR 52.215-12 is in their prime contract (it shouldn't be in the scenario you described) and go from there. Capitalism is a harsh mistress!
  9. Actually there is no requirement for a prime to 'determine' anything regarding their subs' pricing on a competitive procurement. They can pay their sub 110% of the prime contract price if they want. That's why competition is a good thing, and obviates the need for cost analysis at any level. Learn it. Live it. Love it.
  10. My use of the term "required" was in reference to the prime contract terms. That being said, why would a prime want a sub to submit certified C&P data on something that wasn't required in the prime contract? What possible business purpose would that serve?
  11. May I ask why you care about this? Considering that the government has no privity with a sub, why is this even a concern? The prime doesn't 'qualify for the adequate price competition exemption', 'adequate price competition' applies to a procurement action, and is determined by the CO based on the circumstances and outcomes of a competitive procurement. It's not an 'exemption' to anything. What we seem to be talking about here is the required submission of C&P data, and there is no normal scenario* I'm aware of whereby a sub would ever be required to submit C&P data and the prime wouldn't. * Not counting the Vern Edwards' Extraordinary Exception Scenario, which he always seemed to pull out of his bag of tricks at will. 😄
  12. Ditto. It sounds like the customer needs to do a better job of estimating his or her requirement. The TCV should be set such that it covers expected requirements for the entire PoP. The fact you have to increase the TCV with every order means your ceiling isn't high enough.
  13. I was trained that incorporating a proposal is a bad idea. Too much possibility of contradiction. If there is something in the proposal that adds value to the award, incorporate it. Adding the whole proposal is just sloppy and, as several have pointed out, isn't really a substitute for a jointly-developed SOW/SOO, which is the concept which (apparently) drives the need for incorporating the proposal in the first place (i.e., the Government did an incomplete job in describing the requirement.) Finally, I worry about adopting a contractor's proposal and presenting it as a government work product. Does the contractor give up ownership once it is incorporated? Can the contractor file a claim/REA in regard to a SOW that they wrote?
  14. On a related note, FAR 52.215-22/23 are two nominees for "Dumbest clauses in the FAR". Q: Can a contractor charge pass-throughs? A: Yes, but with caveats Q: What kind of caveats apply to pass-throughs? A: Caveats that prohibit excessive fees, of course. Q: What constitutes excessive? A: You know; when added-value doesn't justify the pass-through. Q: OK. Since 52.215-22 applies only to subcontracts comprising >70% of TCV, can I pay excessive pass-throughs on sub contracts comprising <70% of TCV, regardless of added value? And why 70%? A: I dunno; 70% just felt so right. Q: Considering that every key term and provision of 52.215-22 is subjective and/or arbitrary (e.g., "excessive", "value-added", "70% of TCV"), what is the point? Every negotiator already has the right to every piece of information mentioned in the clause (or at the very least, to develop an independent position which outlines what "excessive" means in the context of that negotiation). A: But we wrote a clause... Well thank God you wrote that clause, because 1102s everywhere were just wandering around like idiots paying excessive pass-throughs up the wazoo!
  15. Framing the fee justification in terms of risk always helped me during my Part 15 days. Justify the negotiation fee objective on perceived risks and how they can or cannot be mitigated. You made several good points regarding risk and risk mitigation in your post. And this! It took me years to realize that developing a detailed negotiation position didn't mean negotiating the details, and agreeing on a total number didn't mean the parties agreed on how they each arrived at that number. Craft your PNM to support the total number, not each cost element. Hence the Art & Science of Procurement.
  • Create New...