Jump to content

Freyr

Members
  • Posts

    91
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by Freyr

  1. 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.
  2. 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).
  3. 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 there's other factors to consider. GSA's GSAM says that only fixed price contract should be towards the high end of the profit range which they max out at 7%. I was also looking at the link below (table starting on page 18) where it appears to recommend a profit of 0% to 1% for a T&M contract. https://www.acq.osd.mil/dpap/cpf/docs/contract_pricing_finance_guide/vol3_ch11.pdf Am I off base in my thinking that 10% doesn't appear to be fair and reasonable at first glance for this type of contract? I was thinking, considering the factors in the GSAM, that a high profit objective for us should be closer to 3% which is leagues away from their proposed 10%. Appreciate any insight anyone can provide, thanks!
  4. I've got my FAC-C Level III already and I'm DAWIA Level 2 certified.
  5. 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? Thanks!
  6. 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).
  7. 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.
  8. 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 question is: What sorts of things would make a CO question the representation? I've recently seen a firm who's SAM report states they're small and shows them as 1 employees with less than $100,000 in receipts but it's also said that for the last 5 years, exact same numbers (if you look back on SAM 7 they have a different name with around $30M in receipts). We've requested financial statements that don't seem to add up to what they claim their size either. Is there anything else we should be looking for or any other standard procedures to assist in verifying size status claims? Thank you!
  9. 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.
  10. 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 betting getting the PEs and highest levels of legal counsel involved will do more than just advise those inexperienced COs but would end up driving the bus for them.
  11. 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 learning the ins and outs of Federal Acquisition.
  12. 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 received, only 10 pass a compliance review.
  13. 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.
  14. 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 everything except that subcontracting plan (which was omitted), then are we still in the same position as if we had that language and still cannot request the plan without going into discussions? I guess my question now boils down to: is that language on it's own what would be removing the vendor if no other deficiencies exist? I recall reading this case about an Agency not having that language and getting in trouble for performing a compliance review.
  15. 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 a responsibility item?
  16. Another office disagreement/debate we've had recently is regarding whether or not a responsibility issue can be fixed via exchanges if the vendor failed to provide any documentation regarding it. Our example: Using FAR Part 15 procedures. Solicitation says vendors must provide financial statements, accounting system audits, and subcontracting plans. Solicitation also says that the Government will review each proposal for compliance with the solicitation and will remove vendors who do not comply with the requirements of the solicitation. Vendor 1 provides only financial statements and accounting system audits but failed to provide any subcontracting plan. Vendors 2 and 3 provide all of the documentation required. Is the subcontracting something that we can request Vendor 1 to submit their subcontracting plan after their initial submission without engaging in discussions? We've looked at some cases (like this and this) where vendors failed to provide certain financial statements or accounting system audits and the Agency removed them for non-compliance with the solicitation. The GAO seemed to think in those cases that it didn't need to go to the SBA for a CoC because it wasn't a non-responsibility determination but rather a non-compliance issue. The COFC has of course held that if even if the exchanges had produced changes in a vendor's proposal it would not constitute discussions under FAR 15.306(d) because the exchanges only concerned responsibility. I haven't seen any GAO/COFC cases where an Agency allowed a fully omitted responsibility item to be submitted after the initial submission (maybe I'm just asking a dumb question and it's clearly something that no one would protest or no CO would allow?). Bottom line Question: Can we cure a material omission in the name of responsibility or should the vendor be kicked out during the compliance check?
  17. Thanks C Culham, I've been reviewing that page and the CFR the past few days and came up short on this specific topic. Like Jacques just mentioned, I'm guessing the SBA wrote it this way to prevent COs from simply submitting every proposal to the SBA for a determination once the submission deadline hits to try to whittle down the number of proposals the CO needs to evaluate. If I was the SBA then I'd only want to make determinations on vendors who may actually get the award.
  18. Hi all! I was wondering if anyone could shed some light on how the size protest process works and the timing of everything. Reading the regulations and the SBA website it seems like you have to fully evaluate a company and possibly announce them for award before anyone can file a size protest against that company. Even FAR 19.302(d)(4) says that if we protest before we announce award the SBA will dismiss it as premature. We currently have a company who we don't believe is a small business based on a review of the financial statements they submitted but, not being SBA, we don't have the authority to tell them that they're not small (and honestly there may be things we aren't seeing, we're not the experts on size status!). Seems strange to me that we would have to get all the way through the process and possibly announce this company as an awardee in order to protest their size status. Will the SBA perform any kind of size determination for us before we announce any awardees or do we need to wait until the very end? Thank you!
  19. Ibn, is the "proposed contract terms" you're referring to the Cost Factor described in the instructions? If, hypothetically, there was no evaluation of the actual compensation data and only an evaluation of the general methodology of developing compensation as it relates to the offeror's ability to understand the requirement and obtain the resources/experience necessary to perform the contract would this then potentially open the door to it being a responsibility matter (in your opinion)? My office has been chattering lately about unpriced IDIQs/schedules and it made me think of this thread and how this provision could potentially apply to them if the number/type/location of professional employees is unknown when soliciting.
  20. For something like GSA's upcoming ASTRO solicitation, I'm guessing they'll probably need that clause in it but it seems like it could be a good place for a non-comparative assessment of a compensation plan. It looks like they're choosing a route similar to the other GSA IDIQs but in those contexts, where they don't know how many employees or the types of employees, it seems like they would just be looking at general information regarding each contractor's approach right? Maybe I'm getting too far into a tangent with this now....
  21. I appreciate your responses on this Ibn, taken together with Jacques thoughts gives me a lot to think about. Would it be safe to say that depending on how you're evaluating something such as a compensation plan that it may be used either as a responsibility type assessment or a technical evaluation? Jacques, I'm not sure I follow what you just stated. I'm having trouble seeing the evaluation of "a sound management approach and understanding of the contract requirements" as creating a performance obligation. It seems like it's more like the offeror saying "this is how I think I can attract employees and retain them for what I understand your requirement to be" rather than an assurance that it can and will take that approach once performance beings. After performance begins, assuming their compensation plan is not incorporated into the contract, they may find that they can change their compensation packages and still meet other performance obligations in the contract right? It feels like it's more related to the ability to obtain the resources (say personnel) needed to perform. Don't we just want to know that they understand what we're asking them to do and can hire people to do that?
  22. Seems like a really basic question but none of my colleagues have been able to give me a straight answer on this. The topic arose when it was mentioned that SB subcontracting plans can be negotiated without opening discussions because it's a matter of responsibility, according to DynCorp vs United States it seems that exchanges on responsibility matters really don't constitute discussions. When looking at different elements of a proposal it doesn't always seem clear cut on what would be considered a matter of responsibility and what wouldn't. FAR 9.104-1 talks about several aspects of responsibility and FAR 19.601 talks about responsibility including but not being limited to "capability, competency, capacity, credit, integrity, perseverance, tenacity, and limitations on subcontracting" but I guess I'm looking for some examples. Like if we put in FAR 52.222-46 into the RFP but aren't going to provide a rating other than pass/fail would that be considered a responsibility assessment? If so, would that change if we evaluated it in a manner other than pass/fail?
  23. Thanks guys, I'll be trying to put all this information together for my CO to help with her final decision. Your answers are pretty solidly pointing in a single direction. Just for my own curiosity as someone still fairly new to being an 1102, if the effect is the same then what's the difference other than the course of action that produces it? If we waive the issue for everyone and just document the circumstances/reasoning then that would have the same effect as posting an amendment that removes it right?
  24. The funny thing is that our legal office feels issuing an amendment after receipt of proposals to change the eval factors is more risky than waiving requirements (I'm not sure why). The factor that's an issue really only affects about 1% of the work performed, so they feel there's an argument to be made that it's reasonable to relax the requirement for everyone as long as they're treated the same. I'm wondering if a claim a potential protestor could make is that since they were rated so low in all the other areas but submitted this part right that they would have been awarded a contract if we kicked out everyone who didn't submit that part right (assuming we do waive the issues). Seems like it would be award to a vendor who isn't necessarily the best value to the Government based on a technicality (or maybe a latent defect in the RFP?)
  25. We're actually doing multiple award (up to 30) so theoretically the issue would be waived for the numerous proposals with that issue (about 50% of the ones received, including the otherwise highest rated ones). We're getting pressure from the program office to find a faster way to deal with the issue and not allow for revisions/resubmission.
×
×
  • Create New...