Maureen

Members
  • Content count

    33
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

0 Neutral

About Maureen

  • Rank
    Copper Member
  • Birthday 08/19/1961

Contact Methods

  • Website URL
    http://
  • ICQ
    0

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Female
  • Location
    Fort Hood Directorate of Contracting
  1. Understood. DAU actually already has an online course for risk management, CLM017. Just for me, online has nothing on face to face. So I will suggest our HQ think about a custom DAU course. And I understand what you are saying in regards to a short course not providing that solid understanding I so desperately want. We are just so short staffed and overwhelmed with work - I was hoping for something to kick start us into getting some sort of foundation. As the lead PA and trainer, this is something I am going to have to devote time to learning and teaching - on a continuous basis, of course. Thank you for your recommendations.
  2. Services acquisitions for a military installation, anything from solid waste management to transportation motor pool to operational testing (a mission we have here). Majority of our work is commercial FFP, but we do have cost reimbursement contracts as well. Much are done on IDIQ contracts. I admit to not having the best understanding of this concept. In our acquisition strategies, we are required to address AFARS 5137.590-6(a)(2): "Provide an assessment of current and potential technical, cost, schedule and performance risks, the level of stated risks, and a risk mitigation plan." Our template type documents further provides guidance such as for cost risk we are to address current and potential cost risks such as the competitive environment, resource constraints, funding shortfalls (personally, I think that focuses too much on the acquisition process and not enough of any cost risk that could occur during performance). DoD does have a Risk Management Guide for Defense Acquisition Programs (December 2014), which I will read all 100 pages at some point (I hope). Sometimes much of the "official" guidance that is available focuses on systems acquisitions and leaves us poor red-headed step children at installation contracting offices with no practical format or guidance to follow. We did have some HQ training on this concept a year or so ago, but it was a one day and not as in-depth as I would think is necessary to ensure a solid understanding. From what I understand, conducting this risk assessment/management review is critical to developing a quality PWS, not to mention PRS and the evaluation factors in our solicitations. As it seems that risk management is the foundation for so much of what we do, we need to better understanding what it is and how to do it.
  3. I am getting that sense, that there is no already developed course for this. I appreciate the suggestions for Fed Pubs or Public Contracting Institute. Probably won't make our FY17 wish list, but it is something to check out. Thanks!
  4. I am in the process of putting together our FY17 training wish list. I very much want risk assessment training brought to our organization. Requirements would be generally as follows: 1. Classroom setting, size approximately 25. 2. Discussion covering what risk assessment is, how to conduct it, how it relates to the PWS, PRS, evaluation factors, pricing, etc. 3. Hands on working through several examples. This is a tough concept. I'd like to work through easy example at first, then build to more complex work. This will be for an DoD installation level contracting office, NOT systems acquisition. I am looking for sources of such training that you highly recommend, that was successfully performed for your organization. Your help in this market research is most appreciated. Thank you!
  5. Yes, it appears that price realism can be done. To be honest, I don't believe our RFP language was necessary. The requirement is a very standard installation support requirement (albeit possibly not as clearly defined as it should be). Nevertheless, we have it in the solicitation. We have some hiccups to get through (not the least a "get it awarded now" date), but everyone's comments have been helpful and are very much appreciated. You all are awesome and I very much appreciate this site. Been going here since 1999 for help and have never been disappointed. Thank you.
  6. As a matter of fact, it did.... "Unrealistically low and/or unreasonably proposed costs/prices may be grounds for eliminating a proposal from competition either on the basis of lack of understanding of the requirement or unreasonable/unrealistic proposal. Proposals that fail to me the requirements set forth in FAR Clause 52.212-5, Instructions to Offerors (and its Addendum) will be rated as unacceptable."
  7. Great case, right on point. Thanks you much!
  8. I will check out the case. Many thanks for helping a Monday befuddled brain.....
  9. A contractor can certainly propose lower than an IGCE. And I do not want to penalize the company. However, I don't want the Government to be 6 months down the road with a contractor who is going broke because he misunderstood the requirement and does not have sufficient funding to hire the appropriate personnel or appropriate number of people. The Government's estimate and the other competitors are closer in agreement. This outlier makes me nervous. Maybe it's a factor of ensuring the technical review is spot on and can support the decision to award to the outlier. But I do believe our C&P team has an obligation to point out the fact that the offer is definitely an outlier and the KO better be sure the technical review is sound. Thanks!
  10. Scenario: FFP requirement with options, IDIQ. Several proposals come in priced within reasonable range of each other and the IGCE. Another comes in 30% below the IGCE. Cost/price analyst will be conducting unbalanced pricing assessment IAW FAR 15.404-1(g). If we were to find unbalanced pricing issue, I know I can rely on what 15.404-1(g) says in terms of the risk of paying unreasonably high prices. However, my gut tells me that all line items will be lower. And this is still a risk. Problem: I want our team (policy/C&P team) to be able to articulate to the specialist and KO why this is a performance risk. I can craft an argument addressing whether the outlier fully comprehended the requirement, as evidenced by how removed this offeror is from the rest of its competition. Naturally, a technical review can mitigate this concern. However, I would like to be able to find policy, case law, whatever, that I can use to say hey, you need to consider this. Does such a thing exist? The Contract Pricing Reference Guides focus on Part 14, or the assessment of unbalanced line items. I kind of want something that talks about a proposal in its entirety being suspect. Hope this makes sense. It's Monday morning after all. Thanks!
  11. Don, Martin - thank you very much. It helps to have folks to "discuss" policy issues with. I know I could ask my counterparts higher up, but this was quick and easy, and confirmed what I thought (although I missed FAR 17.502-2 (B ), shame on me - thank you Martin). I think I would have gotten there if I wasn't so overwhelmed (training five interns at the same time ). Thanks again, much appreicated.
  12. The Economy Act and FAR 17.5 is the bane of my 1102 existence. I am the only one in the office who knows basically what FAR 17.5 and 17.7 covers and thus have become the go-to person. I am trying to advise my customers on documentation requirements, and would be grateful for some help confirming what I think is the right way to go for this specific action. Intent is to offload a requirement under $500K to a GSA FSS. Per FAR 17.500(c )(2), FAR Part 17.5 does not apply to orders of $500,000 or less issued against Federal Supply Schedules. Am I correct in interpreting this to mean that the Economy Act Determination and Findings required in FAR 17.502-2 is also not required under these circumstances? Thanks.
  13. Thank you, Mr. Edwards, and Mr. Mansfield. I guess my competitive solicitation hat was on too tight and I could not let go of the need to do an "evaluation" by including some sort of criteria. Both of you provided good advice. I just want to take the opportunity to say how much I appreciate this website, and your involvement. I have been relying on you whenever I get stumped for a good fifteen years, if you can believe that. Again, thanks!