Freyr

Hi all, this got brought up during an office meeting this week and I've been mulling over what I thought. We had a commercial SAP requirement for an Off-Road Vehicle with a maintenance agreement each year for 2 years. The CLIN structure we solicited was a single CLIN for the vehicle with a second CLIN for 1 year maintenance and a third CLIN that's optional for the second year of maintenance. The issue is that we had two vendors submit offers, the first vendor (Offeror A) conformed to what we submitted but the second one (Offeror B ) provided a quote for the vehicle plus 5 years of maintenance. If we only evaluated 2 years of maintenance on Offeror B it would be lower than Offeror A. Offeror B didn't show any options on their offer or any language saying they're open to offering just two years of maintenance. My thought is that Offeror B didn't submit an offer that's in accordance with the solicitation and therefore shouldn't be considered. Some others thought that we could just send the award to Offeror B for the vehicle and two years of maintenance and see if they accept. Ultimately the CO decided along the same lines as me and just awarded to Offeror A but it made me think, am I being too strict in my thinking? Was there an option to have Offeror B "clarify" their offer without prejudicing Offeror A?

I have a CO who is citing FAR 5.202(a)(11) as a reason she doesn't need to synopsize this her FAR 15 requirement because it's a "follow-on" to the current contract in place. It is a sole source and that document will need to be posted but she says she doesn't need to synopsize it first before awarding. There's no change in the PWS at all, it's just that we need more of this requirement. I've read the language in the FAR, definitions in FAR 5.001 and 2.1, and it seems permissible. It just doesn't pass the sniff test to me, seems like an easy way to try to sneak through multiple sole sources for the same requirement and only post the justification. Is this really one of the purposes of (a)(11)?

Hi all, when awarding an IDIQ for a civilian agency should we be citing funds for the minimum guarantee on the base IDIQ or immediately be issuing a task order that has the funds? To be clear, I mean getting a purchase request that has a line of accounting then commit and record an obligation for the minimum guarantee (I saw a few threads where nomenclature seemed important on this topic). Seems our office does both with some COs vehemently opposed to putting money on the base IDIQ and others who don't care, just wondering if there's advantages/disadvantages to either method. The COs that are vehemently opposed to it say that since work isn't being performed under the IDIQ but rather the TOs, then money shouldn't be put on the IDIQ itself and only the TOs. The COs that don't care point to FPDS allowing us to show an obligation when we create the CAR for the IDIQ.

I had a feeling these would be the responses (I don't disagree)! It's curious to me though that such a large/visible program like OASIS would take this approach, if it's a poor/non-compliant approach then why would they write it like that? Did they just try to be too clever to make it user friendly?

Hi all, I was reading through the OASIS Contract (page 52) and came across the section on Clauses. It states: "All “Applicable” and “Required” provisions/clauses set forth in FAR 52.301 automatically flow down to all OASIS task orders based on their specific contract type (e.g. cost, fixed price, etc.), statement of work, competition requirements, commercial or not commercial, and dollar value as of the date the task order solicitation is issued. (Note: Any Applicable and/or Required provisions/clauses that require fill-in information must be provided by the OCO in full text)." Basically, if it is applicable or required then it's included in the subsequent task orders but any fill-ins must be provided by the OCOs. I was wondering what you all thought about this? What about incorporating this into other solicitations? Ie- We issue a full and open solicitation and say all applicable and required provisions/clauses are incorporated into this solicitation, additionally here are the fill-ins that apply. Seems like we'd be skipping a lot of the legwork involved in creating RFQs but also introducing a lot of ambiguity into the situation. Thoughts?

Hi all, as I was reconciling my payment records I saw that our accounting folks paid the contractor using the wrong LOA. The vendor billed to the correct one, but for some reason our side billed the LOA on the CLIN below it. My question is whether this is going to require us to 1) have the contractor pay back that money and reinvoice on that CLIN again or 2) if it'd be possible for us to issue a modification to move money around between two different LOAs. #2 seems like it'd be in violation of some kind of rule (misappropriations act?). Looking for the most efficient solution to the correct issue. Thanks!

First off, congrats finding a ladder that goes to 13, most go to 12. That said, those yearly promotions are not guaranteed and you still need to be meeting your performance goals to obtain them typically. Some offices will just promote you on the clock, others are more strict on deciding when they get to promote you (DHS for example will hire folks at 12/13 ladder positions and never give them a 13). Formerfed really nailed it though, pick jobs based on the work you want to do, work/life happiness, and your own goals. In DC you can get to a 15 relatively easily if you're smart, work hard, and can play the office politics. Downside of DC is that you're in DC which (in my opinion) gets old fast. FederalSoup's forum is also a great place for these types of questions, you'll get less people saying that this isn't the forum for it (even though this is a subsection for the Contracting Workforce).

Hi all, my organization seems to put periods of performance on everything. Supplies, services, construction, everything from Hotel rooms to hardware maintenance. We use PRISM and I guess there's some issues between our financial system and PRISM that makes it so our purchase requests cannot be set up with X days after award and the award must match the purchase request exactly in terms of CLINs, dollar amounts, quantities, delivery dates, etc. It also seems to prevent vendors from invoicing for things before the ultimate delivery date or the end of the period of performance. For some of these I think it makes more sense to have a solid single delivery date, like hardware maintenance, but others it's a little more foggy. Leases of equipment or real property for example, I feel it's a supply purchase but is it one that should have a single delivery date or a period of performance? Does it ultimately matter if we explain in the contract what we're expecting? For example, if we're renting a portable office trailer for 3 months from January until April we could have a delivery date of January in PRISM with language that says we're renting from January 1st through March 31st in the CLIN. I've dealt with PRISM before but clearly my new organization didn't want to shell out for a decent version of it...

I have a customer who's able to define what their bare minimum requirements are but they're willing to pay more if a contractor can propose something that exceeds those requirements in specific areas. I'm having trouble thinking of how to phrase the requirement though (It's a simplified acquisition, likely commercial). It's like saying at a minimum I need a vacuum that works on carpet but I'd be willing to pay more if it has a detachable hose. Would we be able to say we'll rate their technical acceptability as satisfactory if it meets the minimum XYZ, good if it meets XYZ and either A, B, or C, exceptional if it meets XYZ and any two A, B, or C, and outstanding if it meets XYZ and all 3 A, B, and C? Or maybe just each feature provides X number of points and rank them based on the number of points they have? Or am I overcomplicating the whole thing?

If Yes and Yes, honestly I'm not seeing a reason why she would want to use FAR 15. FAR 13 really gives you all the same tools as FAR 15 but without the rules right?

Hi all, I'm overthinking something again, must be the rainy weather... I have a requirement for various COVID cleaning services where I have CLINs 0001 through 0003 as base CLINs and 0004 through 0005 as optional. These aren't different periods, just if we need an extra service we'll exercise the CLIN. The FAR doesn't explicitly have a clause for doing this as far as I can tell but it seems like 52.217-7 is pretty close even if the FAR says to include it for acquisitions "other than for services." I want it to say that we'll exercise those lines within 120 days of award (we expect completion within 120 days for everything, options included) so just filling out that part works fine. The issue is the part that says "Delivery of added items shall continue at the same rate that like items are called for under the contract, unless the parties otherwise agree." Seems like it's saying something different than the first line of the clause (where things are to be delivered at the stated quantity/price). What's the purpose of that last part of the clause? Am I even picking the right one for this scenario or does something else in the commercial world work better? Edit: Follow up question, if the optional CLINs are different periods is there anything I should consider? Like if CLINs 0001 through 0003 are from January through March, CLINs 0004 through 0005 are from October through December.

That helps a lot! So we if we know we might need 1,000 of those $75 tests we can treat the need for each test as a separate requirement as long as we're just purchasing them as the need comes in? On one hand it makes a lot of sense but on the other hand it almost seems like we'd be splitting the requirement, though the purpose wouldn't be "merely to avoid" any MPT requirements. However, like you said, if we think we'll need to get 100 of the tests at one time (the purchase being $7,500) then we should have two BPAs so we can compete it right?

Thank you all! Per usual your responses have been incredibly useful and has helped open up my thinking on the use of FFP contracts. Firm-Fixed-Price, not Firm-Fixed-Amount! I'm still not clear on the use of a BPA with GPC for each test (or the lump sum at the end of the month). Would are customer (who is the cardholder) be "swiping the card" or would we need the CO to do it because it may exceed the MPT for services? What about creating a CAR in FPDS if the number of tests needed does exceed the MPT (and what if it doesn't)? Since my organization doesn't really seem to use BPAs like this I'm betting there's going to be a lot of pushback for this idea (leadership doesn't like new ideas).

Isn't the whole concept of FFP that it's a fixed amount that doesn't change? Wouldn't we be required to pay them for the firm fixed price regardless of if we actually used what they actually provided? As far as the BPA idea, how would that work with GPC? We really don't use GPC for anything other than micro purchases and we'd very likely need to exceed the MPT with this.

We may have a requirement coming up for the purchase of rapid covid-19 tests, up to 1,000 of them max. We don't know how many exactly we'll need or exactly when they'll need to be used. Once it's determined that a test is needed we need to get the person tested within 12 hours. The issue we're running into is how do we structure the contact so that we can execute in that small timeframe. Our contracting personnel can't/won't execute an option that fast and we don't want 1,000 CLINs. FFP doesn't seem appropriate since we don't know exactly how much we need or when (and we don't want to pay for $1,000 tests if we only end up using half). It seems like it's a commercial requirement so a CR CLIN is out of the question. Do we use T&M and just say that they'll provide tests not to exceed X dollars? Or am I over complicating the whole thing? Thanks!

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 something, looking at FAR 32.703-3(b) says that it cannot exceed more than one year right? The way I'm reading it says you can do a base + options that aren't on the fiscal year but you can't do a single period that exceeds more than two fiscal years.

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.

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 fiscal year cycle right?

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 quotes they received) for anything above the MPC but under the $25k threshold. I suppose my question is why haven't I seen other agencies pursuing this (unless I'm missing it) and would it require any sort of deviation to the FAR to allow for this to happen?

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).

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 inconsistent with the FAR when required by law (though I could just be interpreting it in the way I want to).

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).

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 signing off on them prior to the determination that their accounting system is acceptable. 1) Am I way off base here? 2) Is anyone else dealing with 889 Part B implementation the same way? 3) How are you dealing with solicitations that are closed but won't have any awards made until after 8/13? (I'm assuming amend the solicitation?)

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.

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?