Jump to content
The Wifcon Forums and Blogs


  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by Freyr

  1. My first thought was "oh no then we'd be subject to multiyear contracting rules!" Then I re-read FAR 17.1 and though "why the heck aren't we doing this?" I noticed this organization has had some issues with missing their window to exercise options, resulting in contracts ending then the team has to scramble to reacquire those services. It seems like just doing a 5 year contract that's SAF each year would eliminate that issue and possibly reduce our administrative burden. Unless I'm missing something... Edit: Answered my own question! Edit 2: @C Culham Maybe I am missing someth
  2. They're intending the POP to be from date of award to 9/30/2021 for the base, then 12 months for each period after.
  3. After years of working in an office no-year money, I've found myself in one where that stuff matters now! I have a severable service requirement (provide and maintain equipment) that they're looking to award in the next few months and the PMO put the contract end date as 9/30/2025. My question is why not just do it as a 12 month base with 12 month options? FAR 37.106( b ) appears to allow for this, and our agency supplement delegates it down to the Chief of the Contracting Office. It seems this would be a better solution than having to short the contract several months and putting it on the fi
  4. I recall when I was working for the Air Force they had begun to implement their expanded use of GPC initiative, allowing non-warranted cardholders to procure under FAR 13.301 for up $25,000 provided they had the additional training and were provided a delegation stating this threshold. Of course, re-reading it sounds as if those cardholders were in fact warranted up to $25k (is that correct?). Seemed like a great idea and it really took a lot of the workload off the base contracting folks and instead each cardholder would submit their proof of compliance (typically a sole source J&A or 3 q
  5. Thanks Retreadfed, definitely provides food for thought. Specifically, "While the Air Force’s position here would seem to be consistent with a literal reading of FAR § 19.1406(a), “a regulation must be interpreted so as to harmonize with and further and not conflict with the objective of the statute it implements."" The case seems to support the idea that if the FAR conflicts with a statute, then it should not be followed if there's other implementing regulation that could be reasonably used (provided we don't skip over the rule-making process).
  6. Devil's advocate kind of question here for my own edification: Where does it say that you follow the FAR above all else? FAR 1.602-1(b) states, "No contract shall be entered into unless the contracting officer ensures that all requirements of law, executive orders, regulations, and all other applicable procedures, including clearances and approvals, have been met." So what about a scenario where the Small Business Act has been updated and 13 CFR has been updated to reflect that change in law but the FAR has lagged behind that change? Seems like FAR 1.304(b)(2) allows for local policy to be inc
  7. Update on this: Leadership has seen the light and decided not to continue trying to rush the awards (which include cost reimbursable work). Their whole rush was the worry that all the many months spent evaluating proposals would have gone out the window if an offeror couldn't properly certify to the new 889 requirement (they also didn't want to deal with doing an amendment). Strange that my agency seems to be pulling their hair out over this new requirement, though I haven't seen much worry from other agencies about it (it doesn't seem like it's that hard to deal with to me).
  8. Hi all, we've gotten some "interesting" guidance from our leadership lately. With an 889 Part B implementation date of 8/13 looming we've been instructed to make all of our pending awards before 8/13. This includes ones that have been announced as prospective awardees, pending a review of any lingering responsibility matters, in our case possession of an acceptable accounting system. Our solicitation very plainly says "Each prospective awardee must possess an acceptable accounting system in order to be eligible for award." To me, this is entirely improper and no Contracting Officer should be s
  9. This is one of the things that's been confusing me. Looking at the CPRG it states that T&M/L-H/FP-LOE contracts are "are considered cost plus-fixed-fee contracts for the purpose of assigning profit/fee values." Why is that? It seems that T&M could be anywhere in a risk continuum between CR and FFP depending on the mix of labor vs materials but most the guidance I've read treats T&M as very risky to the Government but not as risky as cost reimbursable work. In our situation the large portion of the costs would be labor costs.
  10. That's exactly how I'm trying to look at it since it's a sole source as well, we're playing a game with the contractor by saying 10% is too high for us to justify try to come down a little. That said, if they come down on profit and up on direct labor rate that could, and probably will, increase the loaded labor rates. Some folks here have mentioned that 10% seems reasonable, my question to that is why? We're supposed to use a structure approach to negotiating profit, so for a T&M requirement what would drive up our objective on profit?
  11. The format we've got in our analysis document is a breakdown of each of the individual elements and an overall analysis of the fully burdened rates, so we're absolutely not ignoring the full rate.
  12. A. YES (we are requiring certified cost/pricing data) and A. FAR 52.232-7 and 52.216-7. That was my initial thought too (just negotiate the fully burdened hourly rates and they'll adjust profit accordingly right?) but my CO said she wanted a breakdown of each of the individual elements of their price (I pointed her to FAR 15.405(a) but she held her ground).
  13. Hi all, I'm being asked to determine whether or not a proposed profit of 10% is fair and reasonable on a sole source T&M contract we're planning on awarding. We haven't done this type of work before and I don't really have anything to base our decision off. I've read through FAR 15.404-4, The Time-and-Materials Contract: The Time Has Come for A Long, Hard Look, the DoD's weighted guidelines, and GSA's structured profit/fee approach and it doesn't seem like 10% is even close to something that should be fair and reasonable considering the contract type and risk involved, though I understand
  14. I've got my FAC-C Level III already and I'm DAWIA Level 2 certified.
  15. Hi all, I'm at a bit of a crossroads right now where I need to relocate and the options for me are either to take a lateral PM position (I'd manage an acquisition program) or stick with contracting but take a grade lower (with pay matching, so step 7). I was hoping I could get your opinions on the two career fields, pros/cons, career and promotion potentials, etc. Anyone have experience in both fields or going back and forth between them that can share? What do you all think about folks who go from 1102 to PM the potential to go back to 1102, would that PM experience be seen as valuable? Thank
  16. It was they way we did it when I started at this office and no one's thought to question it, I try to question whatever doesn't make sense to me but this one flew right over my head. My assumption, or what I figure people would say in hindsight to make sense of it, is that it's to get all the information up front so you don't need to ask for it later (like Joel mentioned, streamline the evaluation timeline). Looking at it now, it doesn't seem to streamline much and could potentially cause other issues and make things take even long (or even still have to ask for updated information regardless)
  17. Those are the only responsibility type criteria we typically include in our full and open competitions along with whatever other technical and price evaluation criteria are necessary (we normally do not use LPTA and most requirements are above the SAT/non-commercial). So we're not actually using any of those three to discriminate between proposals.
  18. I feel like I ask the most basic questions on these forums but this is another one I haven't really seen any information on. I know FAR 19.301-1(f) states, "The contracting officer shall accept an offeror’s representation in a specific bid or proposal that it is a small business unless (1) another offeror or interested party challenges the concern’s small business representation or (2) the contracting officer has a reason to question the representation. Challenges of and questions concerning a specific representation shall be referred to the SBA in accordance with 19.302." My quest
  19. Definitely understanding not to paint ourselves into a corner! For those proposal submission items I identified, our office's RFPs typically include them as requirements for their initial proposal submission (I'm assuming so we don't need to ask for them after a technical evaluation? Not sure.). For clarification, I have been referring to SB subcontracting plans, I apologize for not making that more clear.
  20. A colleague of mine actually saw this situation where a lot of vendors failed their compliance checks, protested, and the PEs suggested just giving awards to everyone. I think ultimately they ended up in discussions. I definitely agree that some MA-IDIQs are getting too big, needlessly so, but it seems like this might come up more since it's administratively probably easier to just give everyone an award rather than seek revised proposals or go into discussions (looking at those huge IDIQs like Seaport-e and OASIS (adding like 1000 new vendors?!)). Not to take things too off track, but I'm bet
  21. It's all a hypothetical still but does the reason matter? Is there a difference between an offeror who thought they uploaded it vs one who glazed over the requirement and didn't think they needed to? I'm taking from a lot of the responses here that the Government can tend to be a little too strict in their solicitation requirements, leaving little room for Contracting Officers to make judgement calls and use their discretion without appearing to bend the rules too far and appear to favor one vendor over others. Thankfully these forums exist to help educate those like me who are still lea
  22. Do you think that this might lead some agencies to strategically make decisions that would lead to lower risks of protests rather than to follow those basic procedures or do what's in the Government's best interest? For example, in an environment where multiple awards are anticipated but there's various compliance issues and a CO has removed so many offerors that they wouldn't meet their anticipated awards. The lawyers / Procurement Exec might say " just give them all awards, no one could protest that!" For the sake of the example above: MA-IDIQ with 20 awards anticipated, 30 proposals r
  23. Thanks for the article, super helpful! It states in there "If it is a responsibility criterion, the exchange will still be considered a “clarification” even if the offeror submits a revised subcontracting plan." Do you feel there's a difference between allowing a revised plan and allowing a plan to be submitted in general? You also brought up a word our lawyers seem to hate, "waiveable." What conditions do you see need to be met in order to waive something? Outside of FAR 52.215-1(f)(3) that is, unless you consider it to be that minor in the context of the solicitation.
  24. Greatly appreciate the answers which all clearly point in the same direction. That said, for a FAR Part 15 procurement, what's really the purpose of what Joel called a "Pro Forma" review other than to kick out vendors who didn't submit all of the requirements? Say for instance that the subcontracting plan is not used as part of any technical evaluation and we didn't include that compliance language. If a vendor failed to submit any required technical documents and we clearly can't evaluate their technical acceptability that's one thing but if we don't have that language and can evaluate everyt
  25. For the sake of this question the vendor would be a large business under the solicitation. I definitely get that a key principle of contracting is "say what you're going to do and do it" however, just to play devil's advocate, let's say Vendor 1 did go through a tech eval and received the highest marks with the lowest price while Vendors 2 and 3 just barely passed and had significantly higher prices and it's pretty clear from their proposals that discussions won't make them more competitive. Is it really in the best interest of the Government to remove Vendor 1 as "bum" for failing to include
  • Create New...