Jump to content
The Wifcon Forums and Blogs

FrankJon

Members
  • Content Count

    219
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

0 Neutral

About FrankJon

  • Rank
    Member

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Male

Recent Profile Visitors

3,039 profile views
  1. I've seen more than one "old school" CO say this. I think it's a silly vestige based on how IDIQs and BPAs were traditionally "supposed" to be used (i.e., supplies, brief tasks). They can't get comfortable with the idea of separate 5-year contracts springing forth. They stopped updating their acquisition knowledge at some point in the 90s, and they're trapped there until they retire. Same ol' story, different day...
  2. For those who are interested in this topic, OUSD(A&S) provides this explanation within its new Adaptive Acquisition Framework site: Source:https://aaf.dau.edu/aaf/services/references/
  3. FWIW Virtual Acquisition Office did an Advisory on comparative evaluations a couple years ago. Those with a subscription may want to take a look to get a fresh perspective on the discussion.
  4. On January 10, DODI 5000.74 was canceled and reissued. Does anyone know of an online explanation of what has changed? In the alternative does anyone know where the prior version may still exist to compare and contrast?
  5. I think you might need an agency policy to do this. I agree, it would be useful if possible. I have a feeling you'd still want a J&A. FAR 13.203(a)(1) contemplates micro-purchases being distributed among vendors. If that's impossible because there is only one vendor, I think that merits justification. (At least as a CYA.)
  6. The intermediary is not a required source. It's a nonprofit organization with a network of partners and affiliates. The sources are not government orgs. They're institutions. I'm not the CO, but I don't think the intermediary is prone to negotiate. The entire ordering process appears to be highly standardized per the intermediary's website.
  7. Let's assume we go the BPA route. We would have an executed J&A for all calls thereunder. Each call (an email) would be under the MPT, so synopsis requirements would not apply. Calls could be grouped together and billed for monthly against an order created in the contracting system. Is there a problem with this approach?
  8. Intermediary is the only contractor. Sources are not subs to my knowledge; they're independent entities that have a separate agreement to provide records through the intermediary. Good point about the individual order limit.
  9. By "open market" I mean not on an established contract. It will be sole source.
  10. I'm seeking recommendations for optimal contract type and CLIN structure given the following requirement characteristics: Requirement is for record pulls. Contract will be with an intermediary organization that pulls from approx. 5,000 different sources. Each source charges their own unique price per pull. Intermediary charges a tiered flat fee per pull. If annual quota is not met for anticipated tier price, Government will owe the difference between anticipated tier price and actual tier price multiplied by QTY actually ordered that year. Ordering will occur on as-needed basis. Each order will be below the MPT. Open market, commercial sole source. SAP not available due to total anticipated price. Regarding the multitude of unit prices, I think an optimal setup might be an IDIQ with a CLIN referencing an exhibit with unit prices for each of the 5,000 sources. I would appoint an Ordering Officer under this scenario; however, the agency making the award does not have a specific policy permitting the appointment of Ordering Officers. Without an OO, I don't know how an IDIQ would work. An alternative approach being contemplated is a firm-fixed-unit-price C-type contract with an exhibit, estimated QTY per source, and NTE price per source. Regarding the tiered fixed fee, the current approach is to include a reimbursable CLIN that will be used to pay the contractor the difference in pricing if needed. I don't love this approach - one reason being that I don't like having a reimbursable CLIN on a commercial contract, another being that the CLIN doesn't provide the Gov't deliverables on its own - but I can't think of a better way to set this up. Ideas?
  11. Change the scenario so that the original contract was awarded using FAR 15 procedures. Would this same change be defensible in the face of a protest by the unsuccessful offeror? Why or why not?
  12. Yes. No. I agree it's unlikely that a protest would be meritorious. However, my agency is particularly sensitive to the appearance of impropriety and any ensuing press coverage. We want to be able to justify our actions on principled bases, not just successfully defend ourselves against administrative remedies.
  13. The Government will reform a task order based on mutual mistake of the parties. Specifically, the contractor will be permitted to file a claim for services which were always part of the Government's requirement, but which were stated ambiguously in the solicitation and TO. The Government considers the change to be within the scope of the TO and the competition. To the latter point, the Government believes that the work at issue, while ambiguous, put the competitive field on notice of the potential for such a change. At a minimum, competitors had the opportunity to clarify this point during solicitation, though nobody did. There is evidence to suggest that the sole unsuccessful competitor for this work was operating under the same misunderstanding as the awardee when it submitted its quote, though the evidence is not conclusive. The unsuccessful competitor proposed a price that was 2% lower than the awardee, but lost as a result of the trade-off decision. Does approving the claim and reforming the TO force the Government to reconsider the outcome of the award evaluation? If so, what should the Government's analysis on this point entail?
  14. As I said in my first post, the article was just a spark for me. I am not using it as a basis for anything. I wanted to discuss taking the idea further. I also mentioned that there is precedent for this type of set-up in the Government, but it's on the QT. While it's not the contracting field, it is a highly-professionalized field that I'm thinking of. We're just talking here, man.
×
×
  • Create New...