Constricting Officer

No and No. Good day.

The average new contract specialist hired is in their late 20's or early 30's - in my experience. I was 26 when hired as a GS-5 Procurement Tech on a ladder to GS-7/9 CS. I know no person in my org under 25 or over 70. The most productive work years of any individual, in any field is in their late 30's and 40's. This statement looks like pleading to hire more kids out of college that are mentally weak, poor workers, none driven and want more time off than a person capable, retiring out the contracting arm of the military. "Personnel is policy." - Michael Knowles

Why don't you ask the POC?

What is the solicitation number?

Wanted to get the pulse of the community. I came into the field after they went away. I would think the contracting workforce would have to touch them at some point. I know some good journalist lost their jobs over in-depth reporting on them at one point. My initial thought is "bad." Good, bad or indifferent? Congressional earmarks are coming back — with new constraints (axios.com)

@sackanator, let me fill in some blanks for my own understanding. You/or someone has been awarded a "fixed price" single-award (SA) IDIQ for "whatever." It has a "base year" and "4 options" which are "one-year" in length. Each has a specific "fixed rate" for the period you are in. Those were "negotiated/proposed and accepted" which lead to the award. Is the above correct? Also, Vern is correct. When u see language of "at least 2/3" it is a competition requirement. If you have a SA-IDIQ, then competition requirements have been achieved/satisfied. See 52.216-18 and the agency supplement for ordering procedures.

In your opinion, do you have CS who should not have a warrant? What type of contracting are you doing? Commercial supplies and NASA R&D are different things. See above: Do they have their own workloads? Do they only manage reviews for the CS? Also see above.

I can't really remember any meaningful legislation passed through official channels in the last year (House/Congress/President), outside of spending more money that is. Living in the world of EOs we are acquisition warriors.

"In doing so, the Federal Acquisition Regulatory Council shall specifically consider whether any such rules should limit or prohibit Federal contractors and subcontractors from seeking and considering information about job applicants’ and employees’ existing or past compensation when making employment decisions." Yea - this will be enforceable. Maybe another clause they can make to add another signature to an offer/quote (LOS).

@WC79 you will also find that language in FAR 15, 16 and 22. Think about it this way: NASA contracted with SpaceX to build them a spaceship. Ship built, accepted, went to space, and came back (warranty period ended). Now prepping for another flight, they have a system error. Would NASA be better off going to SpaceX to fix a problem or should they ask Blue Origin first?

That's an interesting business model. Can't say I blame them if there is no oversight. Those things can get pricey. I believe @ji20874's advice above is the best. Tailor whatever your local security clause is to add. I would also add a notification requirement from the contractor to the CO/COR to keep track of such occurrences.

Figured you would be able to explain yourself. Glad I could be of some entertainment to you posting my end of week remark.

A simpler example: A FFP contract for a product (commercial or non). CLIN 0001 is for the product itself. CLIN 0002 is for the installation. CLIN 0001 will be evaluated as a tradeoff, based on warranty length (ex. - 5 v. 3 years) and value (ex. - limited v. unlimited). CLIN 0002 will be evaluated as LPTA. Forgive me, but I don't think that "n" goes there - 😁

Haven't seen one, but it is an interesting idea. I don't see why not, but would like Vern's question answered before getting myself in trouble.

Nope - just giving an example for Q&A options. The topic extends to both commercial and non-commercial acquisitions.

Identify and ask your questions early. As @ji20874stated, It can lead to the government defining its need better (better proposals). This helps everyone. In construction, I formalize the Q&A period because some contractors will send them in constantly. There are some assumptions that have to be made. With that said, I have also seen questions lead to some pretty substantial redesigns of poor drawings.

Bottom line: Legislative Branch (Congress) - "Here is $X,XXX,XXX.XX in funding. You can spend it on these things." Offeror - "I have a pencil, without an eraser installed, and they cost a $100 a piece. Executive Branch (CO) - "That sounds like a perfectly fair and reasonable price. I'll take 27 of them. Here is you FFP contract." Not saying it's smart or prudent, but it ain't illegal if the steps above are followed.

Got to love a judge with a sense of humor. Frankly, it better than some of the others we refer to as "art" these days.

I believe the word is "exercise." How about this: 1. Option 1 is exercised to cover a period of 03/01/2022 through 03/01/2023. 2. Option 1 contains CLINs: - 1001: - 1002: 3. Tash orders may be issued against CLINS (above) up to 10 times during this ordering period. The OP said 'TO" so it has to be attached to come form of IDC contract. Therefore ordering (FAR 16.505) would be the correct word. I just don't like how it how it is laid out. Let's not dig into the weeds on this one and save it for something more entertaining.

I don't see a problem, but it is confusing. I personally would use different language: "This option may be ordered against a maximum of 10 times."

In the areas where there are few or no restrictions is where innovation happens. It's the thinkers (practitioners) that innovate. The heavy-handed policy people 99% of the time just want to put limits on the right and the left of the full realm of possibilities.

I propose the COs do their jobs. Making a fair and reasonable determination, with the best information available at the time, is not rocket science.

Additional background: "On May 15, 2019, the Committee held a bipartisan hearing examining a DOD OIG report that found TransDigm received $16.1 million in excess profits on 46 of the 47 parts reviewed. After Committee Members called on the company to refund the money during the hearing, TransDigm repaid the full $16.1 million to DOD." Price Gouging in Military Contracts: New Inspector General Report Exposes Excess Profit Obtained by TransDigm Group | House Committee on Oversight and Reform

Competition is the best tool to determine fair and reasonable. With no price realism determination, I can't think of a reason for a price breakdown outside of the factors already being evaluated.

The more occupations covered, the more employees they (DOL) can justify hiring. Higher leadership grades and all. Not being political - just saying it fits. "Actually, a government bureau is the nearest thing to eternal life we'll ever see on this earth." - Ronald Reagan/1964