Posts posted by DCDOD2020
What’s the MATOC?
23 hours ago, Don Mansfield said:
Your proposed plan is not a new idea. Assuming that you are DoD, see DFARS 217.204(e)(i):
So on my reading e(i)(A) says you can’t have a base period exceeding 5 years, and e(i)(B) and (C) I read as saying that you can have a options, however the sum of the base period of the IDIQ and the option period can’t exceed 10 years? Thus, my idea isn’t in contradiction to it?
I agree, however I have PM is risk averse and would rather not trying anything new, but instead do it the old fashioned way. It’s frustrating, but I do have a supportive boss, and he reminds me, the Contracting office decides the contract type not the PMO.
Also, someone said FAR part 22 might forbid my proposed plan, but I think they are confused with a straight 10 year contract vice what I have spelled.
13 hours ago, Vern Edwards said:
MATOC? Go on, I’m unfamiliar.
I am working on a follow on IDIQ for general support services ( not Advisory and Assistance Service or IT) and historically like the current generation the Base IDIQ had a 5 year base and no options with TO's awarded with a one year base and 4 one year options.
My thought process right now is why don't we do a 5 year base+ one 5 year option and to be compliant with the FAR when it comes to the TO's to then re-compete the TO's as needed for the option period and perhaps not exercise the option for underperforming contractors and have an open season to bring on new contractors as needed to compete. I don't think for the TO's we could have a similar structure and that they would need to be rec-competed?
Currently and in the past, planning would commence towards the end of year 3 and I think it would be save immense resources if we could save a lot time with the scenario I outlined above.
The value for 5 years is about 700 MM, so with the option period I outlined it would have a value of over a billion and thus require more oversight and sign offs ( which some people would rather avoid).
Thoughts? Any examples of similar IDIQ's with such a structure?
I am working on a enterprise service contract follow on effort for a DoD 4th Estate agency, and looking for any enterprise service RFP's that you can share the RFP link from beta.sam.gov. The RFP can be for a multiple award IDIQ ,single awardee, or anything in between. It can be from a non DoD agency as well. The purpose of casting this wide net is to get ideas, see any innovative source selection methods etc. If your RFP/program requires fully burdened labor rates, even better!
If a link isn't available from beta.sam.gov and you'd need to email me the RFP, send me a message and I will provide you with my work email.
Thanks in advance!
This is through a IDIQ task order and as I had mentioned it’s being filled through a labor category that aligns with the requirement. We released a draft RFP and made revisions based on the feedback received. As I stated it’s not merely a call center position, as I used that descriptor to illustrate the sort of work that will be performed. Really, it doesn’t matter, as the question comes down to more of a philosophical question of how you want to interpret the FAR with respect to the unique circumstances of this requirement. The way I described it was “call center with lipstick.” There’s coordination responsibilities, some data work, etc.
I’m going to have a talk with the PM, esp re contract types for the next gen IDIQ program. Industry seems to prefer FFP LOE. Other than this task order, which is a outlier, the rest have predictable hours 8 hours a day. The task orders lay out all the positions job description and duties, some of which are very technical. There’s also optional positions that can be exercised. So I think, FFP may be more appropriate, and have the invoice terms reflect invoicing based on actual hours using the negotiated FBLR from the IDIQ that’s discounted on the TO further. Like I surmised previously it comes down to the terms and how you tell them to invoice. A lot of what many of us do in the 1102 field is kind of maintain the status quo and repeat what others have done-even though it’s not actually right.
I don’t think I agree with the PM’s view that unless you get into gnarly details of duties that “general terms” is represented by duties such as “take detailed notes in meetings, conduct analysis of x, monitor y etc.”
“General terms” I would take to reflect no specificity of what you intend them to do.
Basically. It’d be a bilateral de-scope to the effect of reducing the hours for positions A/b/c/d from xx hours to yy hours.” Contractor could propose price increase in that instance.
Ha. The powers that be have said we will go with FFP-LOE. The PMO is interpreting FAR 16.207-1(b) to mean the hourly labor rate not a “lump sum.” Further since we outlined specific hours that they must work while reserving the right to reduce them as conditions warrant. Further, the PMO is interpreting that FAR 16.207-1(a) “general terms” to mean general duties-answer phone, handle data collection, coordinate with xyz” which is what the SOW vice “80 percent of calls need to be answered within 50 seconds” to meet the definition of “general terms.” “Fixed dollar amount” and “general terms” aren’t defined in the FAR and thus per the FAR unless it says otherwise you can do please within reason. I’m not sure I’m fully onboard with his opinion, but it’s above my pay grade. I intend to have conversations with the PM on the next generation of the IDIQ and the types of contracts that will be used for the subsequent TO’s.
In the SOW we included our baseline hours expected hours. 12 positions, 40 hours a week M-F. But we stated in the SOW that that could be subject to change based on conditions and could change and sufficient lead time would be provided for contractor to adjust.
Right, the government is dictating the hours. The labor rates are fully burdened.
So I think going back to what I originally said is that “pick whichever, and just specifics how to invoice.”
The base IDIQ states contractors are to invoice actual hours. So that’s partially what drove me to think simplistically. The duties are clear as they have been performed by gov folks up till now.
All the other task orders from the IDIQ are LOE and invoice twice a month based on actual hours worked. The difference between those and this particular Task Order is that hours could change.
And no. Not WHS.
None of them fit perfectly, but the LH sounds like it would be most appropriate, considering that we aren’t definitely sure how many hours may actually be needed at the end of the day, though as I stated previously we established positions with FTE and PT, but noted that hours may change as conditions warrant.
So then it sounds like we should have the task order as a LH, which would allow for the contractor to invoice based on actual hours worked with hours NTE the maximum hours per each of the positions? Rate would be the negotiated FBLR based on the IDIQ and discounted for the TO by the contractor.
13 minutes ago, General.Zhukov said:
True. With a few caveats
For a new call center, my guess is straight FFP is not appropriate, I'd guess there is unknown and/or unpredictable call volume, or whatever, aka you cannot accurately estimate anticipated costs with any degree of confidence.
A call center is very much a 'commercial item,' so I would suggest follow commercial pricing practices to the extent possible. Which, I would guess from what you wrote, is LH. If it is, and all is well with FAR 12.207, and you get approval to do it that way, by all means, do it that way.
If its Call Centers As a Service (PSC DC10 & DC01) it probably uses typical 'As A Service' pricing - which is pay-for-usage. Which is often T&M. Or if-necessary to comply with some mandate to used firm fixed price, some complicated pricing monster that is legally FFP, but sorta works for cloud services, and makes everyone unhappy (one of my specialties).
The real experts may weigh-in here, and I pre-emptively defer to them.
The IDIQ has labor categories and we selected the LC that is basically for admin related work. Then we created the SOW with the duties. And as I previously stated the rates are based on the IDIQ with a slight discount. So it’s a bit like a call center, but with lipstick if you will.
With straight FFP for services, is it correct to say that you basically “guarantee” the hours, even if you break it out by positions? But, you in theory can always de-scope to reduce hours from what’s in the SOW.
The CLIN has a value that’s based on the current hours expected to be working by the dozen or so positions referenced in the SOW.
And it’s fully funded.
The threads on wifcon and NCMa are all over the place on the topic.
My takeaway has been basically that call it FFP/loe/lh, but what matters is how you tell them to invoice lol-but I’d rather get it right and know why, rather than relying on the “oh, it’s just because that’s how we always have done it!”
Thanks for the reply. I concur with your position that LOE is intended for R&D which this is not. It's to staff a "Covid call center" of sorts with contractors, vice government employees.
In the SOW we established what we anticipate the hours will be for all positions, and noted actual hours may vary. So while we have folks as FTE's ( 40 hours a week), we stated it could be more or less demanding on call volume and we would provide a week or so notice of any fluctuations in staffing hours.
When you say that for FFP the actual hours would be irrelevant, then FFP wouldn't be proper here then, if our intent is to pay out based on actual hours worked at fixed fully burdened labor rates? Continuing my example, if week 2 the 10 contractor's worked 4 hours a day for 7 days, that comes out to 280 hours and they would then invoice for 280 hours. But under FFP, if I understand you correctly, it wouldn't matter how many hours per se, because they will get the FFP value of the contract based, assuming they perform to the terms of the contract.
So should it then be LH, since hours may fluctuate? It's all shift work.
Rates are based on the IDIQ rates and are fully burdened.
Now, we can T4C, if need be, if we no longer need the services ( but that's another discussion).
I recently started working in IDIQ Service Task Order environment with primarily SOW. That being said, as a starting point the maximum number of hours for a given position is 1820 and the duties and tasks are not open ended with the type of work expected clearly laid out. For the SOW's the number of hours for the respective positions are stated for the base period and out years - ie "Position 1- 960 hours," for a 6 month base period.
Some of the TO's are LOE, LH, or FFP (right or wrongly).
My team recently awarded a TO and it was my position that it would be FFP. The SOW stipulated that hours and positions may be trimmed/increased based on conditions related to workload, but the tasks of the contractor is clearly defined. The SOW established expected hours for the respective positions.
The TO has a 9 month base, a 3, 6 month options, with fixed labor rates (fully burdened) based on the rates negotiated at IDIQ level.
Further, the duties are defined and not ambiguous and are more administrative than anything.
The Contractor said it should be LOE, vice FFP. I disagree.
For FFP LOE per FAR 16.207-1(b), with respect to FFP LOE, it reads that the government pays the contractor a fixed amount, which I read is to basically guarantee a fixed amount of money, regardless of whether services of equal value were provided. Further the work is not "for investigation or study in a specific research and development area."
For LH: The application of LH reads FAR 16.601(2)(b) "Application. A time-and-materials contract may be used only when it is not possible at the time of placing the contract to estimate accurately the extent or duration of the work or to anticipate costs with any reasonable degree of confidence. See 12.207(b) for the use of time-and-material contracts for certain commercial services."
We set the contract up with a 9 month base and the option periods based on our expectation of how long the services may be needed and the option periods to serve as a contingency if you will. So I don''t think the above, allows for use of LH in this situation.
Thus, I think FFP, whereby the contractor invoices based o the number of actual hours worked is the most sensical approach. In simplistic terms, if 10 contractor's work 5 hours a day for 7 days" then they'd invoice for 350 hours for that period.
I did some research and there seemed to be different philosophical views on whether a particular service contract should be FFP LOE/FFP/LH and it almost seemed like people prefer one over the other, not because its right, but because its just how they've always done it.
My previous experience was in commercial FFP EPA IDIQ supply contracts, so I don't have as much familiarity with service contracts, so I appreciate anyone's thoughts/perspectives.
IDIQ For Services 5 YR Base + one 5 Year Option
in Schedules, GWACS, MACs, IDIQs
In theory yes, there is a GSA medium available, but that decision is way above my pay grade with it being leaderships prerogative to have our own in house program.
Some of the downsides of the 5+5, is with respect to labor rates and economic price adjustments . I think you’d have to have a way to address the situation of rates not reflecting market conditions in say year 6. Heck, we even have that issue now in our 5 year IDIQ, with some labor categories, where all IDIQ holders have said “our rates are no longer in sync with the market so therefore we can’t submit an offer for a new TO requirement” (year 4 of 5). Management wasn’t interested in re-opening rates to address the specific issue. We then punted it to the open market/GSA buy team.
I had come from working on supply IDIQ and we’d have items and pricing and would have language that pricing was to remain fixed for a minimum of 12 months after award and then after that the price couldn’t go up higher than a certain percentage under the EPA with supporting info. Where I work now we don’t reassess rates even if market conditions change significantly-instead leadership tells our customers “go to GSA” which begs the question , why not use GSA for the whole program. I don’t have an answer, but again that’s above my pay grade and involves office politics and the like.