Constricting Officer

This is an unacceptable distinction!

My agency, once all requirements are met certifies (FAC-C) the employees. That being said, we board COs and if they fail their cert level, it becomes a problem. No sure where you work, but it feels like a not-so-good environment for growth. Just saying . . .

Voted this morning. Some Impact. As of 1 hour ago, told to go work from home for 20 days as someone in an office 500 miles away may have come in contact with someone that might have the CVD10 virus. Ha!

Currently. Could change today to total work from home.

Generally, you hear bad things about the VA, but I work on a team with a good supervisor and stable personnel. It wasn't always this way, but after about 2-years of getting things in good shape, life is good. I haven't worked OT to get "my" job done in about 1.5 years. Generally, bad management leads to that bad balance. Good leaders create good working environments.

PMP is almost a requirement in the commercial market place from my understand. That being said, you are thinking about this move. PMP certification' test require 5 years if experience to take the exam.

Personal Opinion: The above statement is based upon the decision of a county, city or state. It should only be a concern within those municipalities and their tax payers. People outside should not have to be held accountable for such decisions (federal taxpayers). In addition, the DBA/FLSA/SCA are all based upon data collected and mined by DOL to come up with actual fair labor rates by county. This is what happens when laws, regulations and "opinions" of entities below the federal level are bundled together for decision making. Doesn't work in federal contracting.

I say supply, but as this conversation never seems to go away, suggest that the CO (yourself/some one else) make the decision and move forward.

Why not "SUPPLEMENTAL AGREEMENT (Block C)" and cite 52.217-9 as your authority? Why not "OTHER (Block D)," cite 52.217-9 as your authority and in Section E check they are required to sign? Both make it bi-lateral . . . 52.217-9 is in the contract to provide the authority to exercise options and also requires the notification. If the contractor waives the notification requirement (which most do when a deadline is not met) then your authority to exercise is still the same. It only changes it to a bi-lateral signature.

I understand the argument industry has against such acquisitions procedures, but the largest arguments are coming from large businesses who aren't to fond of small business preference in the first place. Appropriate MR findings for tiered evaluation or "cascading" generally are based on not being able to identify capable and interested contractors at the different socio-economic levels or a concern about fair and reasonable pricing being able to be achieved. It is definitely not a strategy that should be used often (good MR conducted), but on occasion is a good tool.

Yes, that is what I am referring to.

Do I dare bring up "tiered-evaluation" here if there is in fact a problem regarding the acquisition timeline?

For example, the VA has it's own database for SD/VOSB certification as part of the Vets First Contracting Program. GSA says they are, but most are not for that agency.

Personal preference v. productivity?

I would suggest going line by line of FAR 7.105 and answering each question in detail based upon the procurement. If not applicable, then explain why. If applicable address.

I agree with ji. A requirements contract is a guarantee to order all XXXX from one contractor. If the obligated funding is more than ordered/accepted amount it would be admin action for de-ob. That being said, if you ordered 10 and only accepted 9, your would be "terminating" a portion of the order and it has to be a bi-lateral MOD. Maybe USPS messed up the shipping. . . If question not answered, need more information then the OP.

I am old school. Need to be at the office for focus and sound-boarding when I need. Nothing against tele-work though. Know a lot of people that do their best work from a quiet/controlled space. That being said, it is hard (for some employees) to hold them accountable for the government. P&G and other companies have key-stroking software to track actual production. Wish we could do it, but the union is a problem there.

I have nothing against telework or open (cubes) offices, but I have found that a good mix of time with piers/leadership (facetime) and having the ability to close the door and focus on the task at hand is best for me.

Personally, I agree that the SF1449 is not the correct form for non-commercial acquisitions (literally says for "Commercial Items" at the top of it). That being said, The FAR is so far from perfect it is disturbing. Just leave the choice of the form used to the CO and let it go at that. Dealing in different parts of the U.S.C (and therefore the FAR). FAR 12.000: "This part prescribes policies and procedures unique to the acquisition of commercial items. It implements the Federal Government’s preference for the acquisition of commercial items contained in 41 U.S.C. 1906 , 1907 , and 3307 and 10 U.S.C. 2375-2377 by establishing acquisition policies more closely resembling those of the commercial marketplace and encouraging the acquisition of commercial items and components." FAR 13.000: "This part prescribes policies and procedures for the acquisition of supplies and services, including construction, research and development, and commercial items, the aggregate amount of which does not exceed the simplified acquisition threshold . . " I like simple as well, but that is not what Congress generally deals in.

Formerfed, I agree with you. I would add that the first time I went threw the article, it struck me as more of a 10-15 year plan as oppose to a 5-year one your would see in the commercial world. We can all ignore it if we want, but these electronic contract writings systems were once a thing born out of myth. Just saying.

No recourse available that I am aware of. It is the rights of the government to solicit offers and award contracts. Coming in second doesn't give you a "next in-line for award" position. the NPS could have lost the funding, had second thoughts about the project or one of a hundred other things leading to their decision.

65% over manufactures price fair and reasonable (F&R)? Maybe . . . GAO Case B-278371: " . . . in view of the congressional policy favoring small businesses, contracts may be awarded under small business set-aside procedures to small business firms at premium prices, so long as those prices are not unreasonable." (EA) GAO Case B-209234: " . . . IN VIEW OF THE CONGRESSIONAL POLICY FAVORING SMALL BUSINESSES, A FAIR PROPORTION OF GOVERNMENT CONTRACTS MAY BE AWARDED TO SUCH FIRMS, EVEN AT PREMIUM (ALBEIT REASONABLE) PRICES." (EA) Maybe Not . . . GAO Case B-415818: "The VA received quotations from four SDVOSBs, the lowest of which was 42 percent higher than the agency’s independent government cost estimate (IGCE). Id. The contracting officer concluded that none of the prices obtained were fair and reasonable, and canceled the RFQ." (EA) At the end of the day it is the COs determination of F&R that will stand, as long as there is a reasonable basis for the determination. There is a lot of case law out there on this. These are just some that I had readily available. Personally, I would not determine it to be fair and reasonable, but my name and warrant number is not going on the award document.

I don't believe that kind of thinking is allowed . . . Example: Plain Writing Act of 2010 = nothing in USC/FAR/Agency Supplements being re-written.

All, Not a overly complex question, but one I was struggling with. Thank you for the information, viewpoints and redirection needed.

All, When consulting FAR part 6, we find at 6.301 (b), "Each contract awarded without providing for full and open competition shall contain a reference to the specific authority under which it was so awarded. Contracting officers shall use the U.S. Code citation applicable to their agency. (See 6.302.)." We know that the authority for agencies outside of DOD, CG and NASA is located at 41 U.S.C. 3304. For example, FAR part 6.302-2 (unusual and compelling urgency) is cited as 41 U.S.C. 3304 (a) (2). My question concerns SAP. When using FAR part 13 procedures, at 13.106-1 (b) (1) (i) FAR states, "Contracting officers may solicit from one source if the contracting officer determines that the circumstances of the contract action deem only one source reasonably available (e.g., urgency, exclusive licensing agreements, brand-name or industrial mobilization)." This citation is for below SAT, once we reach 13.5 (above SAT), we are referred back to FAR part 6 for guidance. I have been looking through U.S.C. and cannot find authority for the text at 13.106-1 (b) (1) (i) added through the passing of FASA in 94. Question. Did FASA create a SS authority under SAT, that doesn't have to be referenced back to U.S.C. or am I just not finding it?