Witty_Username

23 hours ago, Kim H said:

Their argument is that it will be easier to move money around if needed.

This may be an oversimplification of a key stakeholder interest (or my explanation may be an overcomplification of something really simple 😜). But this could point to the need for a leadership discussion among key stakeholders (contracting, fiscal, requiring activity, etc.) to settle on a contract structure that balances the competing interests of all parties. Contracting may want simple administration and compliance, fiscal may want a particular funding commitment/obligation profile, the requiring activity may want flexibility (i.e. to move money around); and everyone will probably be happier with the outcome in the long run if you take all these things into account in creating the contract structure...

1 hour ago, C Culham said:

binding letter of commitment

So, a requirements contract? Otherwise we'll end up in a discussion of consideration for what could be a credit card buy...

19 hours ago, NotEnoughMoney said:

the customer wants to have a bus ready to go the second this person dies to get them down to whatever location they need to go

This sounds like either a requirement for a definitive contract awarded now with clearly defined availability and response timelines (if market research indicates buses may be scarce), or a pre-planned GPC buy/oral solicitation (e.g. have a market research report with local vendors, etc.) if you are confident there will be busses available from someone.

The single BPA seems to risk unavailability of a bus when you need it, but will give people misplaced confidence that there is a solution in place.

29 minutes ago, Sam101 said:

I don't think I ever mentioned non-price ratings in a price reasonableness determination... but is there a good reason to include the fact that one or more offerors' prices whose price you're comparing the apparent awardee's price to rated marginal for a nonprice factor in a price reasonableness determination? Or does it not matter?

I think we're talking about "price analysis techniques and procedures to ensure a fair and reasonable price" as described in FAR 15.404-1(b)(2)(i), which says "Comparison of proposed prices received in response to the solicitation. Normally, adequate price competition establishes a fair and reasonable price (see 15.403-1(c)(1))."

FAR 15.403-1(c)(1)) has two main components, (A) "Two or more responsible offerors, competing independently, submit priced offers that satisfy the Government’s expressed requirement" and (B) "Award will be made to the offeror whose proposal represents the best value (see 2.101) where price is a substantial factor in source selection."

So the first question, regarding whether you can include a marginally-rated offeror in your "adequate price competition" would seem to depend on whether they "satisfy the Government's expressed requirement." Since the concept of Marginal could differ across solicitations there is probably no single answer to the question of whether a Marginally-rated offer satisfies the Government's expressed requirement. It depends on what marginal means in your situation.

The second part, "Award will be made to the offeror whose proposal represents the best value" is a little less clear, some people seem to take this to mean that the very existence of a best value competition automatically makes all acceptable offers F&R, but I think if you think a bit more about how a best value tradeoff is made, e.g. The difference in price is/is not worth the difference in quality, then you find yourself much closer to the meaning of fair & reasonable, a price that is "worth it" for whatever you're getting. So I take this to mean that if you don't include the non-price details in your comparison (e.g. whatever likely brought you to a marginal rating) then a simple comparison of proposed prices received won't get you to F&R.

The next question would be whether you can still use the price proposed by a marginal or even unacceptable offeror who clearly does not satisfy the Government's expressed requirement in some other form of non-FAR 15.404-1(b)(2)(i) price analysis. I would argue that you still may be able to, but you would need to know and explain how the marginal/unacceptable stuff affected the price, and again, you couldn't do a direct trade-off comparison.

On 4/4/2024 at 6:43 PM, Goldenreef said:

a CH needs a special designation to order from Federal Supply Schedules

My impression is that someone discovered that FAR 1.603-3(b) says that "Agency heads are encouraged to delegate micro-purchase authority [and] Individuals delegated this authority are not required to be appointed on an SF 1402" and that per FAR 13.201 micro-purchases must be made using Part 13/Simplified Acquisition and so cannot be made using Part 8, or 16.5 for that matter. So basically the standard micro-purchase authority delegated to cardholders only enables them to make purchases using Part 13, and they would need separate authorization (either using something like that special designation you reference, or even requiring an SF 1402 depending on the card-issuing authority's interpretation) to order via GSA or any IDIQs. The only loophole I found (to my agency's interpretation, which was that an SF 1402 was required for a cardholder to place any order at any value via GSA or a GWAC/MAC/other IDIQ) was to establish non-GSA BPAs (or BOAs or BAs) for cardholders to order against under Part 13.

14 hours ago, chadinark said:

If so, is there any type of education program or civilian-equivalent FAC-C certification that a non-gov't employee job seeker can obtain?

There are certifications like NCMA Certified Professional Contract Manager or Certified Federal Contract Manager, but they are not FAC-C or DAWIA equivalent. Depending on the hiring manager they may or may not get your resume a closer look. But most Federal contracting jobs will have an experience requirement at the time you are hired but you'll have a reasonable grace period to meet any contracting certification requirements, giving you time to take the required FAC-C or DAWIA classes once you're in the position.

I thought it would be a good idea to negotiate basic agreements to facilitate GCPC (credit card) ordering where the vendors' standard commercial terms and conditions contain things we can't agree to. Unfortunately most vendors have not been willing to negotiate their T&Cs for low-value transactions, but maybe if the agreement covered a large enough number of cardholding activities to have a high volume of low value transactions it would be worth their while.

On 7/31/2023 at 4:27 PM, joel hoffman said:

Contracts are firm fixed price because the  agreed unit prices were  generally independent of the contractor’s actual cost/expense.

The other question, though, is whether the quantity of fixed unit price items to be provided is at the discretion of the contractor (e.g. T&M, variations in quantity), of the government (e.g. BPA call, IDIQ order), or of some third party/random event (I can't think of a good example but I'm sure this happens).

My office often ends up jumping through approval hoops to use T&M, a contract type apparently intended to allow the contractor to vary the FUP items (e.g. labor hours), when in reality the government is "ordering" the specific quantity of hours to be provided by approving the use of already-obligated funds on the T&M line item, we just don't have the days or weeks necessary to get a funding document through the complex approval process and onto a call or order written by a warranted contracting officer (or even a micropurchase GCPC cardholder) with the obligation recorded back through the complex financial system.

If this is really a FFP order then the management costs are irrelevant, the contractor can use the funds they receive under the FFP order however they want. If you're trying to move funding from one CLIN to another via contract modification (e.g. partial termination of the base year and reuse of the deobligated funds for the option year) you may be able to find a way to do it, but it's going to be an appropriations law question dependent on the type of funds, base/option period of performance relative to the fiscal year, availability of exceptions to the bona fide needs rule applicable to your agency and situation, etc.

On 7/26/2023 at 9:02 AM, Don Mansfield said:

Why not create a line item for the option?

You lose flexibility if you create a line item with a specific period of performance (in terms of both start date and duration). With just the "-8" clause and no specific line item if you decide not to exercise all available "-7" or "-9" options, or if you just need an additional month or two of service for transition to a new contract, you can unilaterally use as much of the "-8" as you need to at any point.

Yes, both of those options seem appropriate, particularly if you explain exactly what you are going to do in the solicitation.

6 hours ago, meganmarie5009 said:

One solution is to create a BPA with each vendor, where each order would be a micro-purchase order using WAWF invoicing system.

How about creating a BPA for micropurchase calls, and then placing the calls via GCPC as the method of purchase, vice the method of payment? Then you should avoid any of the complications of loading a contract in the US Bank system, since to them the calls will look exactly like stand-alone GCPC purchases.

You may be able to do the same thing with an IDIQ and GCPC ordering, but my higher headquarters has decided that anything outside of FAR Subpart 13 requires a warrant in addition to the GCPC appointment letter, even below the micropurchase threshold, so the BPA thing is easier for us.

Our customers still don't like it because GCPC purchase request generation/approval/transaction matching, etc. has become so burdensome they would rather use WAWF, but we're trying to comply with DFARS 213.270 as often as possible.

1 hour ago, Vern Edwards said:

"Additionally, any projected costs for terminated work are not recoverable because, when the contracts were terminated, the Government had no further legal obligation under the contracts because the guaranteed minimums had already been met.""

What does that mean?

I think the point CBCA gets wrong in that sentence is that there should be no "work" to be terminated under the IDIQ, which only requires that the Government order the guaranteed minimum and the contractor accept properly-placed orders. Any "terminated work" would be on a task/delivery order which would have established new legal obligations above and beyond those in the IDIQ. 

8 hours ago, Vern Edwards said:

I think it would be possible to develop a worthwhile advice Bot.

I think even a really great advice Bot will suffer from the same problem as DAU's Ask a Professor: A simple authoritative statement, even if all the references/logic/justification are included, doesn't contribute to understanding an issue in the same what that the back-and-forth discussion in this forum does (for participants or even just readers).

I read about a study recently that showed users gained a better understanding of an issue via traditional Google search, where they have to review and determine the validity of the search results themselves, than via an AI search which simply provided them "the answer" to their question without requiring any thinking on their part.

On 2/28/2023 at 5:49 PM, Self Employed said:

https://www.fargpt.com/

 

Decent for basics, but, yet another attempt.

In time I would expect better, commercially funded or even organically developed government applications with much more utility.

Saw an interesting interaction with fargpt.com from a colleague. After giving a decent enough answer to one question, on the next question: "Can I award on a sole source basis if my requirement is under $250k without competing the requirement? What about FAR 13.104", FARGPT gave an answer that included "This is in accordance with FAR 13.104 which states: 'The dollar threshold is not a prohibition against publicizing an award of a smaller amount when publicizing would be advantageous to industry or to the Government' (FAR 13.104(a)(1), page 197)" which appears to be an entirely fabricated reference (since FAR 13.104 says nothing of the sort, and the quoted language is actually in FAR 5.301).

I had read about chatGPT doing something similar, making up plausible sounding, but incorrect, references. Since we can't see under the hood of AIs we'll have to learn to trust them through experience. Not there yet...
 

On 2/17/2023 at 4:53 PM, govt2310 said:

Well, situation that prompted this question has to with research on "agile software development" and "agile acquisition."  In "agile," the agency doesn't define the requirements up front.  While it defines the scope by making a "Product Vision" (just 1-2 sentences), it doesn't do any more than that. 

The Agile Contracts Primer referenced in this thread explores multiple contract pricing arrangements (and is a great read in any case). It seems like T&M may be the basic starting point for a Government agile contract, but it has some other ideas.

As for FAR authorities which would allow you to use a quasi design-build concept outside the construction arena I'd recommend considering a single-award IDIQ that describes the general scope of services to be acquired under the contract (FAR 16.504(a)(4)(iii)) as a starting point.

39 minutes ago, Voyager said:

I want to say you meant performance-based contracting principles here.  Is that an acceptable substitution to your post?

Hmmm, I think what makes performance-based contracting performance-based contracting is including the required results in clear, specific and objective terms with measurable outcomes in the contract at the time of award (solicitation really); and I don't think you can generally do this for service quality, timeliness, responsiveness, creativity, and the other outcomes you actually want from a professional support service contractor in most cases. 

So I actually was thinking trying to apply relational contracting principles including output or outcome-based models (although not necessarily defined in advance and objectively measurable as required by PBSA); a more collaborative relationship; and an emphasis on relationship management rather than just contract performance surveillance. For example I think meeting regularly to discuss the intangible aspects of performance and providing draft CPARS assessments with constructive feedback on how to get from the satisfactory to very good or exceptional CPARS rather than simply surprising the contractor with a final rating at the end of each year is a more collaborative approach than we often take.

I guess on reflection it is really cherry picking some aspects of performance-based contracting and some aspects of relational contracting and adding them to an otherwise LOE contract; I'm just generally more suspicious of calling anything "performance-based" because the vast majority of so-called performance-based contracts are absolutely not performance-based and we probably haven't hit the point where we're overusing relational and calling everything a relational contract (yet!).

1 hour ago, Voyager said:

reverting to the simpler reliance on the FAR 52.246-4 inspection clause better be a solid plan B, or else your contract will fail.

Even 52.246-4 relies on inspection of whether or not services "conform with contract requirements" so the contract still needs to contain some enforceable contract requirements to measure conformance against, which loops right back to the original issue that it is difficult or impossible in many cases, particularly long-term professional support services, to create measurable service output requirements that will remain useful for the life of the contract.
But since we still have to write contracts, I might add a third possibility, which is to use input-based level of effort requirements (e.g. FTEs) to establish a contractually enforceable baseline, and then apply relational contracting practices regarding the output (service quality, timeliness, responsiveness, creativity, etc. whatever the undefinable, subjectively measurable actual things we want to achieve are) with encouragement via CPARS.  Not saying it is a perfect solution, but I think it is an improvement over the typical pretend performance-based contracts with a "PWS" but no defined or definable measurable outputs or inputs at all.

Not that we've found. Best we can do is track changes in total numbers of CPARS on the status report in Contract Status "Due" or "Overdue" and Evaluation Status not "Completed". That at least lets us see overall trends in overdue/incomplete CPARS and when the numbers start to rise we dig into the details manually using the Status Report and the To Do List reports.

You could probably use Excel or Access to compare one Status Report spreadsheet to the next and see what is new and what has moved a step down the evaluation status line, but even if you have that you're still just going to have to ensure everything is assigned to someone to work and then encourage them to work it to get it done.  We've made the most progress by graphing the overall overdue numbers on a control chart weekly to see when CPARS in general needs management attention. When the numbers start to climb we ensure everything overdue on the Status Report is actually on someone's To Do list (and not languishing waiting for action by a role without someone assigned) and then contact that person and encourage them to move it along.

6 hours ago, C Culham said:

Fair Opportunity is an order placement process not a competition.

I was specifically referring to how the price would be established for the order as something an acquisition plan reviewer might be interested in knowing. Since 16.505(b)(3) (I believe, that is a difficult citation to figure out) says If the contract did not establish the price for the supply or service, the contracting officer must establish prices for each order using the policies and methods in subpart 15.4 I thought it was reasonable to summarize the 15.404-1(b)(2(i) method of Comparison of proposed prices received in response to the solicitation as "competition."  

But now I do see that 16.505(b)(1)(iii)(A) actually says Each order exceeding the simplified acquisition threshold shall be placed on a competitive basis so it seems like it would be ok to refer to the fair opportunity process as a competition.

On 9/2/2022 at 2:15 PM, joel hoffman said:

Perhaps “a [multiple][single] award (as applicable) IDIQ” with firm fixed-price task orders."

One additional piece of information related to contract type that might be necessary to explain to approvers/reviewers is whether firm-fixed task orders will be based on unit prices established in the base contract or will be competitively established under fair opportunity (multiple award) or negotiated (single award). That piece of information has a significant impact on the actual future operation of the contract.

So maybe “a [multiple][single] award IDIQ with firm fixed-price task orders [issued under fair opportunity/issued based on fixed unit prices/negotiated at the task order level]."

3 hours ago, Confused1102 said:

At least the guide doesn't apply to FAR Part 16 competitions

But for some reason it still encourages agencies to "use these procedures for orders under multiple-award contracts" which certainly doesn't seem innovative or streamlined...

On 8/23/2022 at 10:26 AM, C Culham said:

I would suggest this is not in accord with regulation unless the IDIQ was issued under a deviation to the FAR.

Interesting, I had not thought enough about this.
Sure enough, FAR 16.505(b)(1)(iii)(B)(2) says "[The contracting officer shall] Afford all contractors responding to the notice a fair opportunity to submit an offer and have that offer fairly considered" which certainly strongly implies that offers should be obtained under fair opportunity procedures for multiple award contracts. However this doesn't appear to be the interpretation of at least NIH NITAAC and NASA SEWP multiple award IDIQs, both of whose ordering guides explicitly allow for the use of quotes. I'll have to do some more research...

46 minutes ago, Boogie_Down said:

 So practically speaking in my office all three RFQ, RFP, and IFB are offers even though an RFQ doesn't always have to be an offer but can be.  Am I understanding that correctly?

Contract formation via RFP, IFB, RFQ and any other method will all eventually involve an offer and acceptance at some point, however neither RFQs, RFPs, nor IFBs (requests or invitations) are offers themselves. I found this recent thread on the subject of using a request for proposal (i.e. a request for offers) under Simplified Acquisition Procedures informative:

I think it's useful to think about the plain language meaning of offer that you might use in your daily life and then apply that to the various contracting scenarios you describe. If you offer your friend some milk, "Would you like a glass of milk?" they can accept your offer, "Yes, please," at which time an agreement is formed. You made the offer and they accepted. But maybe they don't want milk, so they come back with a counter-offer "Could I have some water?" which you can now accept "yes you can have some water" or decline "no you can't have some water". They become the offeror and made the counter-offer and you accepted. You can see how the offer constitutes a promise to do something, if it is accepted: if after offering milk to your friend and them accepting you offer "Yes, please" you subsequently said "Too bad, we don't have any milk" that would be socially awkward. Once you have offered something the expectation is you will come through if the offer is accepted, which is the definition of an offer.

A quote has a different feel to it: Your friend might ask "Do you have milk", to which you respond "Yes I do", but no one has made any promises at this point, and if they subsequently ask if they can have some and you say "Sorry, it's only for my coffee" that would be OK, no promise should have been inferred by answering that you did in fact have milk.

So you can apply that same intuitive understanding of whether something constitutes a promise to do something if accepted to different contracting scenarios to figure out at what point an offer is being made and who is making it (although the milk analogy lacks consideration): 

Request for Quote: Gov: "How much do widgets cost?" Vendor: "$20 each" feels like a quote, the vendor hasn't promised anything, and if the government attempts to place an order and the vendor says "sorry, we don't have any in stock" no one would have broken any sort of agreement. But now if they government says "OK, I'd like to buy 10 widgets at $20 each please" you can see that that is a promise to buy them if accepted (an offer) and if the vendor builds them and hands them to the government they government won't be able to say "No thanks, I didn't really want them." In this scenario the government requested and received a quote, and then the government made an offer to buy at the quoted price, which the vendor accepted.

Invitation for Bid or Request for Proposal: Gov: "How much will you sell me 10 widgets for?" Vendor: "I will sell you 10 widgets for $20 each" feels like an offer, the vendor has promised that they will sell the government the widgets at that price, should the government accept. If the government accepted the offer to sell them the widgets for $20 each the vendor would not be able to suddenly increase the price. In this scenario the government asked the vendor to provide an offer and they did, which the government accepted.

For a task/delivery order it would depend on what the base contract says and what/whether the government asks for from the vendor. As stated in a previous comment, if the base contract requires the vendor to perform upon receipt of an order there is no quote/offer/acceptance involved in the order at all; all the agreements have already been made, the government orders and the vendor performs. In some multiple award scenarios the government might ask for offers from multiple contract holders, which they could then accept; or they may ask for a quotes, which they could then base an offer on. (I think the BPA scenario would be much the same: it depends on what was already agreed upon in the BPA, and what the calls themselves say).

Why does any of this matter? For one thing contracts are formalized human relationships, and I think these concepts stem from the way people have always interacted. More specifically, making promises costs something (e.g. it ties up resources because I have to be ready to deliver, it increases risk since I have to keep my promise) and so in cases where availability is high it is probably more efficient to minimize the number of promises (offers) required in a transaction and the time the promises are left open. In a request for proposals scenario the government might obtain offers (promises) from many different offerors and require them to remain available for acceptance for many months. In a request for quotes scenario the government will generally only make one offer, and it will only be available for acceptance by the vendor for a short period of time.