Jump to content

Vbus

Members
  • Posts

    93
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by Vbus

  1. No, like I said, there has been no guidance or communication of any kind from the leadership in my office on this subject. Perhaps I will suggest it.
  2. Silly? I don't think so. I think CO's in general would feel much more secure proceeding if they had that piece of paper. I don't think it's too much to ask an HCA to sign one class deviation to let everyone in your contracting office know that you understand the issues and to instruct CO's on how you want them to proceed. There has been no guidance or communication of any kind from the leadership in my office on this subject.
  3. When the Test Program for use of Simplified Acquisition Procedures for Certain Commercial Items expired in January 2008, the Chairman of the Civilian Agency Acquisition Council sent out a memo to all civilian agencies that served as "consultation" for a class deviation to extend the use of the Test Program until the FAR was rewritten to reflect an extended date that had not yet been promulgated. The memo said in part: "Pending issuance of a final rule effecting the change, it is recommended that civilian agencies authorize a class deviation in accordance with FAR 1.404 to extend the program." In fact, the CAAC has sent out several such mass memos in the past to civilian agencies to recommend class deviations to many different parts of the FAR, including two this year. Here is a current listing: https://www.acquisition.gov/comp/caac/caacletters.htm If the CAAC sent out a similar such "consultation" memo to agencies recommending a class deviation to allow parity among HUBZone, 8A, and SDVOSB firms, each civilian agency could authorize their own class deviation and put this issue to rest until the new law is passed and new rule promulgated into the FAR.
  4. I am posting the following situation and question for a colleague: Situation: Contracting Officers and Contracting Officer Representatives are responsible for the solicitation, award and administration of very high dollar level Government contracts funded with taxes paid by the U.S. taxpayers. The ability to make sound and ethical financial decisions on behalf of the Government is crucial in these roles. Question: Should Contracting Officers and Contracting Officer Representatives be subject to a credit check and minimum credit score requirement in order to be appointed?
  5. Here is the link to the Rapiscan case originally cited by the poster: http://www.gao.gov/decisions/bidpro/4017732.htm
  6. Appendix S of The DoD Commercial Item Handbook makes reference to an instance such as yours where an IDIQ contract will have orders that may be commercial or noncommercial: "The initial contract should include provisions that reflect the Government?s buying power (e.g., caps on prices for defined tasks, and capped hourly rates). If a multiple-award task and delivery order contract is to provide access to products or services that fall both within and outside Part 12, the contract must include the Part 12 clauses for commercial buys. " [underlining added] The handbook is found here: http://www.acq.osd.mil/dpap/Docs/cihandbook.pdf From this guidance it appears that you should include both commercial and noncommercial terms & conditions (provisions and clauses) that will apply seperately when an order is either commercial or noncommercial.
  7. It was right about a year ago that the charge to change the HubZone rule was taken up by Congress following two unflattering reports by GAO on HubZone abuses. Here's the story with links to the reports: http://www.govexec.com/dailyfed/0309/03260...tm?oref=rellink
  8. When discussing simplified acquisitions, its important to note that according to the current FAR Matrix: - There are 6 FAR provisions and clauses that are required in all Simplified Acquisitions - There are 308 FAR provisions and clauses that are required when applicable in Simplified Acquisitions - There are 78 FAR provisions and clauses that are optional in Simplified Acquisitions - Your agency FAR supplement will have provisions and clauses that are required, required when applicable, and optional in Simplified Acquisitions as well These figures are pulled only from the "SAP" column of the FAR Matrix however, depending on your specific acquisition, the inclusion of other provisions and clauses may be necessary. Some may argue that no provisions or clauses should be included if not indicated in the "SAP" column of the FAR Matrix, but depending on the circumstances and the prescription, you may need such a provision or clause. For example, if you may require optional quantities you may include 52.217-7 Option for Increased Quantity - Separately Priced Line Item. This clause is not noted in the "SAP" column of the FAR Matrix. Also, the figures above do not apply to commercial item simplified acquisitions which have their own provisions and clauses, the prescriptions for which can be found in FAR 12.3. However, even with commercial item acquisitions, be sure to note FAR 12.301(e) which states that a CO may include other FAR provisions and clauses when their use is consistent with customary commercial practice, and be sure to note FAR 12.301(f) which states that agency supplements may require the use of additional provisions and clauses in commercial item acquisitions. Again, this is for SIMPLIFIED acquisitions.
  9. Here's another short guide on this topic that advises removing the word "shall" from legal documents altogether. It cites several good references: http://www.plainlanguage.gov/howto/guideli...c/writeMust.cfm
  10. Duke, As an intern (and perhaps as a computer savvy young person [?]) you've likely come to work with many automated software programs that perform acquisition-related functions for you. That being the case, I'm not surprised by your question, though in the case of clauses and provisions appropriate for contracts and solicitations, looking for a computer program to "do it for you" is more than a little concerning. Prescriptions for the inclusion of clauses and provisions are sometimes very complex and almost always depend on the individual circumstances of your acquisition. Many times determining whether or not a clause is appropriate for a certain acquisition requires a CO/CS to delve into the text of the prescription and clause/provision text itself to decide if it is appropriate. There is no computer program that can do this. Additionally, remember that clauses and provisions are important terms and conditions of your contract and solicitation. They can require performance, inform the parties of important information, protect interests of the parties, and implement Executive Orders. As a CO/CS, it is vital that you know not only what clauses/provisions are included in your contract/solicitation but also what those clauses/provisions say and mean. Read them. Know them. It is the sole responsibility of the CO/CS to include appropriate clauses/provisions in contracts/solicitations. No one else in the acquisition process will do this for you... not your customer, not your contractor, not a peer reviewer, not a legal reviewer, and certainly not a computer program. Do it the hard way... you'll be glad you did. -
  11. Question: Would the packages for different vehicles be different based not only on the Make and Model, but also on the Year? For example, would a package be different for a 2009 Ford Explorer vs. a 2010 Ford Explorer? This may make it especially tough to price if you want to get future pricing on packages for vehicles that aren't in production yet, i.e. the 2015 Ford Explorer.
  12. [underlining added] I agree with Navy, it depends on which agency.
  13. Woops85, Before this topic gets going, I think you've mis-copied your citation: [hyphens added]
  14. Vbus

    AIMH DSJ

    Bob, Thank you for this story and thank you for wifcon.
  15. The "Three Tests" proposed by the authors concern me a little, specifically what they define as "taking the easy way out": Bold added. If the definition of "taking the easy way out" is not doing an action because you are following the rules, then you are giving people an ethical loophole to not follow the rules. In fact, one could argue that by this "test" it is not ethical to follow the rules when the rules prevent you from getting the job done. That's absurd.
  16. Don, Sorry for the late reply... I enjoy your scenarios! To your point, no, I don't think there is anything inherently wrong with structuring a contract with options that could exist in mutually exclusive situations. I think under the right circumstances, adding multiple optional arrangements may be very advantageous and may offer the Government a wide range of possibilities and flexibility under a contract that could account for future uncertainties such as changes in technology or changes to the program budget. To your scenario question, I see nothing wrong with structuring a contract that way to best cover the Government's need in an uncertain situation. In fact, it sounds totally reasonable. I think the problem arises when you try to perform a price evaluation inclusive of all options. I don't believe you can combine the price for Base CLIN 001 with Option CLIN 002 and Option CLIN 003 to reach a total price to be evaluated knowing the Government has no intention of exercising both Option CLINs 002 and 003. I believe that based on FAR 17.206(a ), the CO would need to determine which of the two Option CLINs he/she anticipated that the Government would most likely exercise (e.g. based on the odds of Circumstance A occuring) and perform his/her price evaluation based on that. So if the CO determines that Circumstance A is not likely to happen and that the Government is more likely to exercise Option CLIN 003, then the total price evaluation should include CLINs 001 and 003 only, and Option CLIN 002 should not be evaluated. If Circumstance A does occur and the Government wants to exercise Option CLIN 002, then the CO must follow the procedures for contracting without providing for full and open competition in accordance with FAR 6.3 (assuming the contract was awarded pursuant to FAR Part 14 or 15). I think this is what the FAR says and what GAO would say. Bringing this back to the discussion of how to evaluate the option at 52.217-8, I think COs would be wise to include the potential 6-month option in their total price evaluation assuming that it is likely that the Government will exercise the option at the end of the contract (which is what I see most often in my office). The CO should also require offerors to submit price information for that 6-month span, possibly in increments if the CO did not want to commit to a full 6-months. So when it comes time at the end of the contract and the Government requires additional performance up to 6 months, the CO may exercise the option. If the Government does not want to continue the contract to the end by exercising more option periods and wants to exercise the option at -8 for up to 6 months at any time before the end of the contract, then the CO may exercise the option only after complying with the procedures of FAR 6.3.
  17. I could see a situation where if a contract contained many options that the Government did not intend to exercise, that including them all in the evaluation might make an offeror's overall evaluated price less meaningful and would less accurately reflect the expected value of the contract. For example, if Offeror A proposes high prices for the base requirement and low prices for the unlikely optional items, while Offeror B proposes low prices for the base requirement and high prices for the unlikely optional items, the two offerors may end up having overall evaluated prices that are closer together than what would have been had the unlikely option prices not been evaluated. In fact, Offeror A may end up winning the contract based in part of their overall price, when Offeror B may in fact be a better value for the "real" requirement. If you include the prices for a 6-month option for each contract year in your price evaluation, you are essentially evaluating 7.5 years of contract performance that is only anticipated to run 5 years. Since not only is it unlikely to exercise a 6-month option period five times during the life of the contract, it's downright impossible, I believe its improper to include that many potential options in your overall price evaluation. It just doesn't seem right to do it that way.
  18. Thanks Don. So it's not the case that if you determine in accordance with (a ) that it is likely you will exercise the option, you shall evaluate the option unless the exception at (b ) applies? I'm honestly trying to get the right read on this. -
  19. If 17.206(a ) states that a CO shall evaluate options after making a determination that the Government is likely to exercise the options, does that imply that a CO 1) shall not, 2) should not, or 3) need not but may evaluate options that the Government does not intend to exercise? (Before going straight to 17.206(b ), note that (b ) is an exception to (a ) and states that a CO need not evaluate options if it makes a [separate?] determination that evaluating the options is not in the Government's best interest.) I think it would be impossible for a CO to determine that the Government intends to exercise the Option to Extend Services for 6-months at the end of each contract year. That being the case, is it improper for a CO to evaluate them all?
  20. woops85, How will you evaluate each potential 6-month option period in terms of total contract price? Per your example, if you have a Base + 4 Option Year contract and must include in your evaluation the prices for exercising the option at 52.217-8 for 6-months at the end of each of those years, how are you expected to include that option pricing in the total contract price given that you cannot exercise a 6-month option at the end of each option period? Including all option prices in the total price I think would be inappropriate. Also, how will you describe the Government's price evaluation to offerors in the solicitation?
  21. duke38, This might sound simplistic, but did you try "Google" like Marquette suggested? I did and searched "DOD IT GWAC" and the first entry was: http://govitwiki.com/wiki/Popular_GWACS
  22. I am jealous. I hate using our procurement systems. Just as formerfed describes, you answer a few questions and the software inserts clauses/provisions, fills in blanks on forms, and formats your solicitation/contract. Instead of learning how and why clauses go into contracts, COs and CSs learn how to "answer those questions" in order to get their action to clear the system. Acquisition Office Managers seem more focused on the financial data that these systems generate than whether the contracts that get spit out are proper or not. Often if you want to ensure your solicitation/contract is structured properly or contains the proper clauses/provisions, you must "fight" the system in order to get your action right. As a matter of fact, I believe several of the mainstream COTS procurement systems don't allow you to modify form data directly, meaining your SF 33 (or whatever form) can only be modified by the program based on the info entered. ("Open the pod bay doors, Hal!") Many in this forum will likely state that procurement systems are leading factor in the death of professionalism in the 1102 series. I don't disagree. There is value in having software that gathers procurement data... whether or not the pros outweigh the cons is up for debate.
  23. It is in the wifcon archives: http://www.wifcon.com/discus/messages/8520/10260.html
  24. Don, of course, you are right. Though again, the proposed rule seems to be pushing the requirement that FSS orders and IDIQ orders be included, that were not required before.
  25. I agree that the proposed rule does not require that past performance shall be used as an evaluation factor, but that the proposed rule would require that past performance be considered in every acquisition greater than the SAT as part of the responsibility determination. This would require that past performance be considered in every acquisition (> SAT). Though I take issue with the proposed language at 9.104-6(a ): "Before awarding a contract (including an order under FAR Subparts 8.4, 13.3 or 16.5)..." since a CO is not currently required to make a responsibilty determination for orders against Federal Supply Schedules or other IDIQ contracts. Agreed.
×
×
  • Create New...