Redskin Fan

I'd have to respectfully disagree with the stop preparing and issuing draft RFPs comment. If we are just talking about speeding up the process without changes in the regulations, I'd concentrate on how to get better proposals. I'd push that draft documents (or portions thereof) be more routinely posted well in advance of the RFP issuance. For instance, if you have a re-compete, we should more routinely be issuing historical information etc several months in advance so prospective offerors have the opportunity to absorb the information and make a better educated guess on whether nor not to pursue the opportunity. I find it easier to engage industry in a market research mode which may also lead to straightening out the Government requirements before the RFP is issued. I also find too many RFPs get issued with one vendor already having complete access to the Government's requirements and historical information and everyone else getting 30 days to prepare a proposal. I believe the more you put out for industry to see up front the more likely it is that you'll get quality proposals back. It's substantially quicker to review a quality proposal than a poor one. That's my opinion anyway. The other thing I'd consider is for more Program Offices to dedicate people to develop requirements and write SOWs. A well-crafted requirement tends to glide through the process while a poorly written one sputters along. Thanks

When I started in 1980 (in DC), a journeyman was a 12. Being a 13 was a really big deal. The journeyman level climbed to a 13 in the 90's. When I retired last year I'd say the journeyman level had moved to the 14 in DC. It took me 26 years to get to the 15. People are getting to the 14 now in DC in less than 10 years. In interviews for a 14, I'd ask people about their Part 15 experience. I had more than one blank stare. Rarely did anyone indicate they had done more than a handful of Part 15 procurements. It's a different world and I'd readily admit that a good 12 in 1980 could work circles around most people in the 1102 field today (probably including myself).

You would think Congress would be the last group to complain about bridge contracts given the number of continuing resolutions they pass. I read that between 1977 and 2015, Congress only passed all twelve regular appropriations bills on time in four years. In 2011 alone, there were 7 CRs.

Especially given this is not a competitive procurement, the simplest thing to do would be to pick up the telephone and talk to the Contracting Officer. By and large, I find most CO's are reasonable people and would rather resolve the issue before you spend time putting a proposal together that they will turn around and ask you to revise. The 1920 hours is probably not a scientific estimate but instead a WAG put together by their program office. Make a call.

I don't think what Pat is describing above is al that uncommon. Some people will debate whether this requirement should have been filled via T&M but there is nothing inherently wrong about going down this path. For instance, I had a requirement to staff a reception area and our requirement included having 3 people sit there, even if no one was coming in the door. But, in busy times, we would be properly staffed. With an emphasis on ridding offices of T&M, this is a path I see many take.

Here's a different aspect I would look at as well. I see you indicated the technical personnel indicated the costs were envisioned as an ODC when they prepared the IGCE. My initial reaction to similar claims by technical personnel is then why the requirement was not specified in the SOW and priced accordingly. If they are attempting to tap into a pot of money (ODCs) for an award made in a prior fiscal year, just make sure you can establish there was in fact a bona fide need for the subscription in the prior fiscal year. (Of course I don't know the specifics or what type of money is involved but if you are crossing fiscal years I'd make sure I knew the answers.)

Thanks, and sorry if I confused my post. I have two-year money that was awarded in FY16 and performance spanned into FY17.

I have a question regarding multiple-year appropriations. With the end of the fiscal year coming, I’m getting requests to spend money, do extensions, etc. I’m not comfortable with one particular request. Unfortunately, I have no access to an appropriations attorney or another individual that can help out. So here I am. I have a severable services contract that was awarded last September using FY16/17 funds. It’s set to expire before the end of the month and we need an extension for a short period pending a re-compete. The existing T-M contract has funds remaining (no delays etc.- the work has just gone easier than anticipated). Program is asking to use the funds remaining on the contract to fund the extension into FY18. My Finance Office indicates the money can be used to fund performance into FY18 (though I have been given no specific reason why). I took a look at the Red Book and at GAO cases. I found one GAO opinion (B-317636, Subject: Severable Services Contracts) that seems on-point. It indicates “severable services are considered a bona fide need of the appropriation current at the time rendered. Consequently, an agency using a multiple year appropriation would not violate the bona fide needs rule if it enters into a severable services contract for more than 1 year as long as the period of contract performance does not exceed the period of availability of the multiple year appropriation.” That seems straight-forward to me that these FY16/17 funds cannot fund performance beyond September 30, 2017. I’d appreciate comments in the event I’m taking these few sentences out of context. Thanks