• Content count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

0 Neutral

About LorenaCC

  • Rank
    Copper Member

Contact Methods

  • ICQ
  1. Well as a former KO at DISA, I can tell you that at DISA uses LPTA a lot for complex IT buys because the program offices demand its use because the DISA PALTs are shorter for FFP LPTA. When the KOs tell the program offices that FFP LPTA is not the best fit given the nature of their requirement, the program offices go to their SESs who then call the HCA who then tells the KOs to just do what the program offices want. I have no idea if this particular practice is widespread in DoD. See the DISA ENCORE III procurement (includes protests filed by CACI & Booz Allen: https://www.fbo.gov/index?s=opportunity&mode=form&id=02f89205a546e6874148234739e9ac95&tab=core&_cview=1 I now no longer assume its inexperienced KO, I now tend to assume its done at the direction of others above the KO.
  2. Re: Lorena, rather than ask the WIFCON community to research their argument, how about challenging the attorney and procurement executive to provide the citation to support it? Your attorney should have the ability and resources to research and find the applicable decision to support his/her belief. Don't let them off the hook too easily. Joel, I've done that. The Attoreny has retracted her statement based on her own research. The Procurement Exec hasn't been known to think he's wrong or admit he's wrong. The Procurement Exec feels its the Policy shop's function to find support for his "well in my mind..." statements. Thanks for the link.
  3. My Procurement Exec and one Attorney believe GAO recently used the so-called "10%" rule to determine a contract modification was within scope and therefore denied a protest. Neither has been able to produce anything other than their own recollection. Everything I have found in my previous and recent research indicates they are seriously mistaken. So if anyone out there has seen anything from GAO to support their statements, please post a link.
  4. Having a major debate between Legal and Policy regarding the requirement for a consolidation D&F. NDAA 2013 repealed 10 USC 2382 which required D&F for DoD over $6M, on Jan 2nd. On Jan 3rd, Small Business Act in Section 44 requires a D&F at $2M for all Federal agencies. DFARS still requires the D&F, I haven't seen anything in SBA regulations or the FAR or from DPAP on this matter. Maybe we all are missing something. Any thoughts would be appreciated.
  5. Did anyone see this? http://www.acq.osd.mil/dpap/policy/policyvault/USA003691-12-DPAP.pdf DPAP rescinded the Class Deviation and issued another one yesterday.
  6. Vern, The CO has been thinking a lot about this mess and does see the seriousness. This is a cost reimbursement contract that is incrementally funded by several end-user offices for maintenance on their equipment. The line item that funded this purchase didn't stand out to us because this type of equipment was already being maintained, and a previous CO had found the purchase of component spares to be within scope. The line item description used the term " bundle" which is commonly used on this contract to describe spares kits, so the line item did not stand out to us. Also the contract is scalable so as additional pieces of equipment are added, more spare bundles will be needed as well. The prime contractor also now has a strong Contracts Manager (former AF KO) who has put a stop to the acceptance of out of scope work, but the purchase was before her time. She has explained the dangers to her company on another out of scope action they were eager to perform for the Govt including the fact that an auditor could spot these actions and disallow all costs associated with tem. My CO and our 1st and 2nd level supervisors had similar converstations with our COTRs/the PM and their executives at the same time. We will keep telling them and refusing to ratify their actions but I can't help but think it also makes them sneakier
  7. Vern, Thanks, since the post my CO found out the other program office provided funding (my COTR buried the line item in an incremental funding requisition) for purchase, standard warranty and quality check only, no technical support services. My prime contractor has invoiced and was paid. My prime conducted a competition for this techology and both program offices conducted technical evaluations and recommended the same vendor. My prime contractor has now stated their responsibilites ended after the quality check and delivery to the other prime contractor. My CO agrees, has previously given the prime and the COTR strong warnings about proceeding with out of scope work.
  8. My CO was just informed the program office directed the prime contractor to subcontract for high tech equipment under our maintenance/logistics contract on behalf of another program office who couldn't get the purchase done before the end of FY. Turns out this equipment started to fail, causing major program delays to full program deployment. The requesting PMO worked directly with the subcontractor (CO, COTR and Prime unaware until now), the component identified as the cause of failure was replaced in all units, now the new units are not properly connecting to the network. Now the other prime contractor has filed an REA due to the schedule delays caused by our subcontractor. Remember the subcontract was out of scope for the maintenance contract and its issuance was without the CO's knowledge. Now that CO is requesting my CO and our prime contractor force the subcontractor to provide further on-site support. My question is has the other CO and PMO tied our hands by their actions? Since my prime contractor knew the subcontract was out of scope and did it anyway, what are their responsibilities now? I have been researching but haven't found much. We plan to consult Legal but the CO likes to have some info/ideas beforehand. Just wondering if any one has faced anything similar, how you handled it and what was the final outcome?
  9. Buyerman: The CO has an unlimited warrant, "without further limitation." Vern: Thanks so much, my CO will appreciate it. I think he had a moment of self doubt. The pressure is intenifying because the construction has to be completed by next Spring and the PMO has done nothing but try to get the CO's position overruled by the new HCA.
  10. I think the ANC was upset about their last award fee and this issue came along at the perfect time. There's still a chance someone will back the CO up on this.
  11. I agree. Thanks for the sanity check. The CO has told them this as well, but the CO is the last person they listen to. I suspect the PMO doesn't want to do a new contract because they would have to put together requirements and an IGCE and evaluate proposals. By modifying the existing contract, they can throw a few dollars over the fence and walk away (until the deadline approaches). Just maybe the CO's management will show some support and leadership.
  12. I need a sanity check, please. I have a sole source award to an ANC 8(a) for maintenance, logistics, & repair to complex law enforcement equipment. One of the project offices supported under the contract needs a tower at one of its stations relocated by order of the state due to a highway reconfiguration project. This involves a historical landmark in a city at sea level -- which presents challenging contruction/excavation issues and this ANC would have to subcontract out all of the new work. The contract has 4 more option periods, but the contract ceiling will be reached in the next 6 months. There are highly critical IG & GAO reports out regarding the award of this contract. It is a performance-based CPAF. I say the construction project is clearly out of scope. The PMO wants to have the ANC manage the construction project, eventhough the PMO can't provide sufficient requirements, and the ANC originally said the project was too risky for them. Now procurement wants to seek SBA approval and modify the contract for the new work or award a separate contract to the ANC for this construction work. My questions: 1. Given the laws regarding sole source awards to ANCs, is scope really an issue since there were no competitors? 2. The contract ceiling will be reached soon without this additional work, again does this matter in the ANC world? 3. If the modification is appropriate, aren't constuction appropriate performance measures required and additional funds for the award fee pool?