Constricting Officer

ji20874 is 100% correct. We do tend to jump around the FAR parts during an acquisition , but FAR 15 covers the "required" debriefs. I am no expert in this field, but the time I have spent in it tells me you might be dealing with a rookie that has been assigned paperwork duties. Just gave you everything they had, as oppose to discerning what should and should not have been provided. Once again, ji20874 is correct. Not your problem.

No need to focus on $ value for a contract modification. Instead focus on "in-scope" and "out of scope." The wording in the solicitation you are describing makes this modification out-off scope and therefore cannot be modified into the contract, bi-passing CICA. "Will be purchased separately" means by a separate contract action. It is the same as purchasing 50 engines from Ford and stating you would be the cars separately and then months later modifying in 50 GT Mustangs to the same contract. Good way to have a Warrant terminated.

I don't understand your reasoning? Opportunities are offered to all, but that doesn't mean all take advantage. Not contracting's job to worry about who attends. FAR 1.102-2[c](3): "The Government shall exercise discretion, use sound business judgment, and comply with applicable laws and regulations in dealing with contractors and prospective contractors. All contractors and prospective contractors shall be treated fairly and impartially but need not be treated the same (EA)." If the contractor chooses not to attend, that is their decision.

Not only is it permissible, if the timeline for the acquisition can be moved alone by doing so, I think it is a great idea. People get to wrapped around posting QAs to FBO and no other way will work ("the way we've always done it" crap), but if there is a better way to do it for the situation at hand, why not!!! I would suggest keeping minutes of the call and posting them after the fact. Whether a protest could be won or not, it could save you the headache.

I did some research and it seems to be really simple and innovative at the same time. Contractor comes through they get the daily rate as a bonus, on-time completion means the government wins/contractor is whole and late completion means they pay what it cost the government to wait. I really like it as a tool, but It would be hard to use in my current line of work for most instances (services). Hard to measure by a day or event. It has been a long day so maybe I am not thinking "Big Picture." Any ideas group?

Thanks for the info.

Hmmmm, Bob addressed this I believe: "Format for writing Questions Write your issue, scenario, or facts in the first part of your post. If your background is long, break up your thoughts with paragraphs. If you use an acronym that others may not recognize, like ADHD, write it like this Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder (ADHD). You don't have to worry about the FAR or DFARS because this is a contracting forum. Make sure you identify any regulation, law, etc. by citation. After you've written your facts, then write your questions in a new section below the facts. To distinguish one question from another, use the indent with the numbers in the bar at the top of the typing area. Click it with your mouse and the number will appear. Write your first question and, if you have more questions, hit the enter button and the number 2 will appear. If you have more questions, repeat."

All, Was wondering what you'll have been seeing as the currently trending evaluation factors in solicitations? I know sometimes people get really creative. I know FAR 15 gives us some very general ones: "FAR 15.304 (c): (1) Price or cost to the Government shall be evaluated in every source selection (10 U.S.C.2305(a)(3)(A)(ii) and 41 U.S.C.3306(c)(1)(B)) (also see part 36 for architect-engineer contracts); (2) The quality of the product or service shall be addressed in every source selection through consideration of one or more non-cost evaluation factors such as past performance, compliance with solicitation requirements, technical excellence, management capability, personnel qualifications, and prior experience (10 U.S.C.2305(a)(3)(A)(i) and 41 U.S.C.3306(c)(1)(A)); and (3) (i) Past performance, except as set forth in paragraph (c)(3)(iii) of this section, shall be evaluated in all source selections for negotiated competitive acquisitions expected to exceed the simplified acquisition threshold." (EA) Any and all examples will be greatly appreciated. Trying to put together a list of what our fellow professionals are using. Thanks in advance/CO

nkd9, As others have stated, there is a lack of information provide for a detailed response. To add to those, why are options the preferred course for the contract formulation? I am guessing it is because the customer wants the option to get out of the contract is one of the phases does not go the way they plan/hope/want?

My organization likes to first get people familiar with the contract writing system used first. Then start some formal training from the ground up (CON 90/FAR Boot Camp first), while also having a starting workload. jj20874 is 100% right about professional dialogue. I would suggest in addition to learning the ropes in that way, seek out one who appears to have the most knowledge of your team's main acquisition focus (supplies/services/construction/etc.). Think of this person as a mentor. He/She won't be hard to find after a couple of weeks there and isn't always the person making the most money either. Suggestion: Don't let it burn you out, because it can in weeks if allowed. Being a CS is rewarding, fun and exciting career field, but comes with a lot of moving parts (Agency Supplements/FAR/USC/etc.) to catch onto.

1102ByMistake, Acceptance must be completed by the government: FAR 46.101 states, ““Acceptance” means the act of an authorized representative of the Government by which the Government, for itself or as agent of another, assumes ownership of existing identified supplies tendered or approves specific services rendered as partial or complete performance of the contract.” Also, FAR 46.502 make it very clear: Acceptance of supplies or services is the responsibility of the contracting officer. When this responsibility is assigned to a cognizant contract administration office or to another agency (see 42.202 (g)), acceptance by that office or agency is binding on the Government. It does define this as services and supplies. I know of nothing directly tied to construction. I think we can reasonably agree that the same guidelines should apply. Would be a bad business practice to let the contractor tell us it is good-to-go. Inspection/testing is another matter: FAR 12.208 Contract quality assurance. “Contracts for commercial items shall rely on contractors’ existing quality assurance systems as a substitute for Government inspection and testing before tender for acceptance unless customary market practices for the commercial item being acquired include in-process inspection. Any in-process inspection by the Government shall be conducted in a manner consistent with commercial practice.” FAR 46.202-2 Government reliance on inspection by contractor. (a) Except as specified in (b) of this section, the Government shall rely on the contractor to accomplish all inspection and testing needed to ensure that supplies or services acquired at or below the simplified acquisition threshold conform to contract quality requirements before they are tendered to the Government (see 46.301). (b) The Government shall not rely on inspection by the contractor if the contracting officer determines that the Government has a need to test the supplies or services in advance of their tender for acceptance, or to pass judgment upon the adequacy of the contractor’s internal work processes. In making the determination, the contracting officer shall consider- (1) The nature of the supplies and services being purchased and their intended use; (2) The potential losses in the event of defects; (3) The likelihood of uncontested replacement or correction of defective work; and (4) The cost of detailed Government inspection.

All, Could some please point me to the authority governing such equipment leasing (use an MRI as example)?

Talked to a friend yesterday about the same problem. Leave is my suggestion. Bad leadership cannot be overcome.

I am surprised I have not been guided to a recent forum. Is this new or not addressed?

Exactly. We need to figure this out. I appreciate all of your feedback. All facets must be addressed.

Thank you formerfed. what do u think is a good way to address? I would think a agency wide policy to be followed by required training. From the macro level of course?

All, I would like to request your view/comments on why acquisition professionals seem to ignore (completely or partially) the guidance located at FAR 7.4. The following link was a report on a few agencies concerning the purchase of heavy equipment as oppose to leasing it: https://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-18-295 What I would like to see is why you think this simple business/acquisition analysis is being overlooked by many of fellow professionals. Not just heavy equipment, but everything from real property to medical equipment?

They can be seen as the same meaning easily in my mind. I would refer back to solicitation to decide what is and is not covered/stated.

Only the PWS.

The only occasion I have incorporated a proposal into a contract was when using a Statement of Objectives (SOO) as the guidance to competition. The contractor provided their general performance approach and price. After the award was made, we had a kick-off meeting to finalize their submitted approach (timeline/performance measurements/etc.) and modified that into the contract under section D (commercial format) with a simple MOD. That is the only scenario where I would go out of the way to do so.

ConMan, I agree the modification of the option periods would not change the scope of the work (service) being performed. My concern is that maybe there are additional vendors who would have been interesting in competing for the work if the changes you are suggesting were a part of the original solicitation. When concerning protest, GAO will go back to the solicitation to determine whether they are in-scope or not when a MOD is awarded. Example: If a janitorial solicitation/contract states, "provide all labor . . . . to perform janitorial services for the XXXXXXX facility" then it covers the facility as a whole. If half of the facility no longer needs those services (lease ends or demolition perhaps) then you can MOD down the work within-scope. If however the solicitation/contract states, "provide all labor . . . . to perform janitorial services for 562,000 sq. ft. . . . " and then try to half the requirement, another business (perhaps a lower socio-economic concern) amy have been willing to compete for the work. The above example relating to commercial v. non-commercial, best interest of the government and terminating a portion of the work will change depending on the contract/agency/CO. If you as the CO determine it would not change the availability of competition then it is not out of scope in my opinion.

While I agree with the stance to innovate and tailor the contract to fit actual needs, ji20874 is correct. While you aren't in all reality changing the work under of the contract you would be changing it enough to allow additional competition.

Don, right there in front of my nose. . . Thank you. I have tendency to do that from time time-to-time. NAICS # 423490: "The industry comprises establishments primarily engaged in the merchant wholesale distribution of professional equipment and supplies (except ophthalmic goods and medical, dental, and hospital equipment and supplies)." The requirement is for a hospital, but is not medical in nature. Best match I could find.

That's the problem with this. All of the contracts reported in FPDS with the company are either reporting it as a supply NAICS/service PSC or vise-versa. The program office didn't bother to provide one with the package. Joel, The requirement is for a Weight-Based Inventory Management System to be purchased and installed. I see what you are getting at and yes a long-term contract to maintain the system would be a service contract.

C Culham, Thank you for the additional source to provide clarity to the meaning. I replaced the section of my OP that used the definitions to make a relatable wording to use with the CFR reference. The situation that sent me down this rabbit hole was a requirement I received to purchase $1.9 million worth of supplies and have them installed for $250K. It sure don't sound like the "principal purpose" is to in that case is to provide services. Not trying to get out of the work (as I am almost done with the requirement), but simply to make the case to leadership. Thanks