Jump to content

dsmith101abn

Members
  • Posts

    49
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by dsmith101abn

  1. Yes you can accept a discount. It’s almost always beneficial to accept price/payment terms that are more favorable to the government if they come to light after a proposal or signed contract. Invoices for things that say 2/10 n 30 (pronounced two ten net thirty) is supposed to incentive a business (or government) to pay earlier than a due date. It’s generally in your best interest to pay earlier to get the discount, but if cash flow is a problem it may not be.
  2. I think that's it's own thread. Think of Amtrak, deficits or trillion $ debt. Boeing is pretty creative with their accounting but no business could survive a Government model. I'm off topic and dipping out before a scolding endures. Be @ canyon beach. Happy Tuesday!
  3. If you're asking for yes or no, then my opinion would be yes for both. With the exception of miniscule areas that you could argue over until blue in the face that in reality have little impact moving agency missions forward, complicated yes if you've never had exposure. I think sometimes people forget how hard it can be in the beginning. Complex, yes. Consider most agencies follow the FAR, agency supplements (2 different ones for the VA until a year or two ago), Supplements called Agency name Acquisition Manual, various acquisition policy memorandums (usually more than one type such as acquisition procedural manual, policy dashes, information letters, etc.), GAO decisions, other agency regulations such as the SBAs 13 CFR, DOT programs at 23 USC, VA at 38 USC, and many more that you have to put all together to ensure you legally follow all the rules depending on where you work. Does Bonneville Power Administration, Tennessee Valley Authority, the FAA, Architect of the Capital or any other agency that doesn't follow the FAR have the types of issues you think reform might solve or why reforms have failed? I apologize if you were only wanting a yes or no answer as I gave you a word dump.
  4. I suppose the part i'm confused about is if the procurement was protested to the SBA and GAO based on challenging the business size of the contractor who got the award, and the SBA denied that challenge, and assuming GAO will tell you they don't have jurisdiction over deciding on small business challenges, then what corrective action is the agency taking and why?
  5. Admittedly I don’t fully understand every aspect of your situation. It seems you were all sketched out the Government was doing something improper when you received a T4C notice a year ago, but actually they may have just been correcting an error made in their initial evaluation. I don’t feel I have the whole story, or I don’t understand why the agency did what they did. You said there was a protest to the SBA last year. Those protests don’t take a year, they generally take less than a month. I suppose an appeal could take longer but not a year from my experience. You would normally stay the award given a protest, so I understand your stop work order. If the contractor protests a size standard issue to the GAO, normally, GAO will just tell you they don’t have jurisdiction to decide on the matter. Of course I haven’t seen the protest. There’s generally nothing wrong awarding bridge contracts. would you expect an agency to go without a service or thing they need just because someone whines about it? Sure DOD gave up on Jedi, Homeland security and lots of other agencies have gave up, but I assume we’re not talking about a multibillion dollar effort here. Give the CO the benefit of the doubt that they are working the procurement in a good faith effort and will let you know what you need to know when you need to know it. That’s my red eyed, tired, Monday morning proceeded by preseason football weekend unsupported amateur thought.
  6. Did you look at FAR Part 19? To my knowledge the answer to you question is not in the FAR. Sometimes you need to look at other regulations to find acquisition answers. Do you know the regulations of the SBAs world? Have you looked at Title 13 of the CFR? How about 13 CFR § 121.404? Could be yes could be no.
  7. Maybe not a PMP but I could think of a few reasons; however, since you're asking I'm assuming you are requiring certain certifications and nobody knows why. Did you ask whoever wanted it in the solicitation, or the CO if you're industry?
  8. Thank Bob. Wonder why green globes wasn't touched on. been a while since I've been involved with vertical construction, but I remember at the time green globes was preferred to LEED. Maybe the thought has changed, I don't know.
  9. Yeah what you describe is probably the gist of how it's allowable. I think the ordering procedures in the contracts i've seen need a little creative writing to make it clear we would follow the framework of 36.6 and give fair opportunity. JJ, if you were going down a path that leads to a differing opinion feel free to continue. If not I appreciate everyone's input on this topic. I don't have anything further to add but if anyone has other input I'll continue to participate.
  10. I grew up as an enlisted soldier in the Army and grew accustomed to using derogatory words, a trait I've found to be difficult to ditch and not entirely acceptable in an office environment. I took a class called Crucial Conversations and they tell you to use words like unwise or ill-advised instead of brainless or laughable and precede statements with phrases like "in my opinion" which you did, so in my opinion you're post isn't offensive in my eyes.
  11. the IDIQ would allow for labor hour and fixed-price task orders. for discussion assume task orders would be for a fixed-price final deliverable.
  12. This is what I had concluded before my post, that you must still use a qualifications based selection when placing orders for A/E services against MATOCs. Here's what prompted my question - I've been a CO for about 10 years and have worked in three different civilian agencies. From what i've seen all three of those offices had established MATOCs for construction Design services and selecting firms at the task order level is not done as a qualifications based selection IAW the framework of 36.6. What i've actually been seeing is the CO, with the assistance of an engineer on the Governments side, would determine who would be the most qualified for a specific project based on what they personally knew or what was submitted with the request for qualifications before the award of the IDIQs, and then go directly to a single A/E firm for a price proposal. So if you can't use initial SF330s at the time of IDIQ award at the task order level to determine who is the most qualified, and write ordering procedures to state that's how fair opportunity will be provided then I can't figure out how the practice is allowable as the idea of getting 3 firms, holding interviews, etc. isn't happening from what i've seen.
  13. It would suggest if one was issuing a task order for A/E services against a multi-agency contract you would have to follow the procedures @ 36.6. If one was to place an order against a MATOC that was not a multi-agency contract, you would have to provide for fair opportunity unless an exception applies, which there is not one for A/E services.
  14. Do you want a task order for (choose one)-- billable hours? or - Sometimes - I assume you mean a labor hour type task order. a real A-E deliverable? - Most of the time - I assume you mean a fixed price task order with a final deliverable (100% design). You say you already have prices at the parent IDIQ level -- are those (choose one)-- real prices that you can actually use for a task order? or hourly rates? - This. Hourly rates that can actually be used for a task order, whether a labor hour type task order or a FFP task order with a deliverable being 100% design. Forgive me I'm not entirely sure how to interpret the first bullet point and differentiate it from the second bullet point the way it is written. Really? So, the IDIQ contract holders have already been ranked... Does that ranking apply to your new task order opportunity? (choose one) YES NO Why not both? I have firm A highly qualified at vertical construction and less qualified at horizontal construction. i have firm B highly qualified at horizontal construction and less qualified at vertical construction. I have a requirement for vertical construction, without going thru a qualifications based selection i already know firm A is the most qualified. Maybe i have a requirement for a study or technical writing i need done and i don't know who the most qualified would be without going through a qualifications based selection.
  15. Thanks. I guess i'm not the first to pose this question.
  16. Did you ask for a citation from the person that told you that saying it's a thing? Unless someone thought it was a good idea to make an imperative statement in the IDIQ that such a thing was going to happen i don't know of anything that requires what you are describing.
  17. From an established MATOC? Situation: Awarded a MATOC with 5 IDIQs for A/E services. The scope of the MATOC is for design services associated with construction and most of the services would be subject to the brooks act. During the solicitation phase we received 10 qualifications from A/E firms. The firms were ranked most qualified to least qualified and a price proposal was sent to the five most highly qualified firms. All prices were eventually mutually agreed on and thus how we got the 5 IDIQ contracts. Now, it’s Task Order time to buy some work, what do you do? 1. Go directly to the highest qualified firm since we already evaluated qualifications and should know who the most qualified firm would be already? 2. Still follow the selection of firms @ FAR 36.6 since 16.500(d) suggests we should? 3. Follow the ordering procedures @ FAR 16.505 for ordering while providing fair opportunity unless otherwise justified? 4. Some hybrid model or something else completely? My ordering procedures could say whatever you want them to say. (yes this is not something being actively worked on yet) I have my own opinion and from what i've seen other people apparently also have their own opinions. What are Wifcon participants opinion or what questions do you have? Thanks
  18. That's a good question. I don't want to take away from the discussion, but as a non-management working level CO if you will, administratively, I'd have a hard time with a contractor not registered in SAM at time of award, or shortly thereafter. Some offices are probably more setup for some of the SAM exceptions at 4.1102, but at least in my agency, our contract writing system searches for contractors with active SAM registrations and it will not allow a user to manually enter certain contractor information. Sure i don't necessarily need a contract writing system for contract formation, but when you click that award button, it reports information to FPDS, USASPENDING, eSRS, CPARS (thru FPDS), agency accounting software (e.g. A/P), agency scheduling and construction administration IT systems, etc. Though I've never tried and I'm not saying it can't be done, I think it would be several helpdesk tickets given the user access I have and how everything is interconnected with different agencies managing different IT systems.
  19. Thanks @C Culham I'll keep that in mind. i had directed them to the Federal Service Desk. While far from perfect they've come a long ways since CCR/ORCA timeframe. I've received mixed feedback from contractors depending on what their issue was. According to the PTAC website, it tells us to allow for 12-15 business days after you submit a SAM registration. In my case it took 3 calendar days, well at least that's when i noticed the contractors registration was active. Had I needed to wait the better part of a month, that could cause an issue with different fact patterns.
  20. Thanks JJ. Honestly I didn't realize that exception was a thing. Now that I'm looking at this a little different I can see how it's a responsibility issue not responsiveness. Something I have learned is the FAR lets you do a lot of different things and has a lot of flexibility, but administratively, at least in my experience, there are limitations either from information technology, office processes, etc. that keeps you from doing what you want. At my last office the COCO was a GS-15 in the same building and getting the approval at 19.602-1(a)(2)(i) would have been fairly easy. Where I'm at now they are an SES on the other side of the country and getting to that person is a little harder. Administratively probably take longer to get approval than the 2-3 days the SAM registration takes. I think the contractor will perform, well the actual work anyways. The requirement is for geotechnical drilling for a road in the middle of a national forest. They're going to drill holes and take soil samples. What I have seen is a lot of these contractors are small 1-2 person shops that have a drilling rig and they're really good and operating the rig and getting into hard to access sites, but struggle with administrative or clerical tasks. Anyways, I appreciate everyone input. I've learned something new.
  21. @Vern Edwards lol too many words to tell the agency they were wrong. Thanks Vern.
  22. See https://www.gao.gov/products/b-419111 and https://www.gao.gov/products/b-419515 I have a sealed bid solicitation that was set-aside for small businesses and opened bids yesterday. The low bidder was not registered in SAM.gov at the time their submitted their bid; they actually were not aware they were supposed to register in SAM (apparently they generally perform work at a State and County level). The IFB included FAR Provisions 52.204-7 System for Award Management (Oct 2018). On the surface my initial reaction was the low bidder should be non-responsive. After reading the two GAO cases above, apparently GAO looks at SAM registration as a matter of responsibility. I can't see how a provision requiring registration in SAM prior to offer is responsibility. I suppose 9.104-1(g) leaves room for being eligible for award. 52.204-7 changed in 2018. It used to say offers had to be registered in SAM prior to award and now is at time of offer and with these two decisions it's basically unenforceable. What am i to do, refer the matter to the SBA for a certificate of competency? What I'll do is just tell the low bidder to register and be done with it, but I think these two decisions, together with the FAR provision 52.204-7 is ridiculous. So is GAO right or wrong in their decisions? either way i think they should be wrong or they should revert 52.204-7 to a similar pre-2018 change.
×
×
  • Create New...