Jump to content
The Wifcon Forums and Blogs

Don Mansfield

Members
  • Content count

    2,195
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by Don Mansfield

  1. Don Mansfield

    Use of 52.217-9 to extend IDIQ Ordering Period

    What can be asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence.
  2. Yes, we do. SBP 210: Subcontracting.
  3. An example would be using "Proposed Participation of Small Business" as an evaluation factor in source selection. There's an incentive for offerors to propose high participation to win the competition. However, during performance the contractor is only required to make a good faith effort to comply with its plan. When I researched this, I could not find a single case where the Government actually assessed liquidated damages for the contractor's failure to make a good faith effort to comply with its plan. That tells me that it is very hard to prove. I was told of an instance of NAVFAC doing this, but I think it's very rare. The changes that you reference will create more paperwork for contractors, but I don't think it will be enough to change behavior. The carrot for proposing high participation is significant, but the stick for failing to follow through is not.
  4. This is not uncommon. I think this happens because the Government creates incentives for contractors to behave this way.
  5. So, the issue is the prime says they are going to subcontract to you in their proposal to the Government, but during performance they don't. Correct?
  6. Don Mansfield

    DAU Matrix

    BostonStrong, I never thought about commercial subcontracts. I just looked at the particular clause and saw if it required flowdown to subcontracts. I would have to add a column for flowdown to commercial subcontracts. That wouldn't be that difficult. I'll put it on my list of things to do. Thanks for giving me the idea.
  7. Don Mansfield

    A Hiring Challenge

    1. Yes 2. Accept 3. Very Well
  8. Assume you are evaluating cost realism for the award of a competitive cost-reimbursement contract using the tradeoff process. You receive two offers--one from Edwards and one from Hoffman. You've determined that the most probable cost for both Edwards and Hoffman is $100 million. However, the probability of the cost being $100 million dollars differs between the two offerors. The probability of Edwards's cost being $100 million is 80%. There's a 20% chance that the cost will be $120 million. The probability of Hoffman's cost being $100 million is 60%. There's a 40% chance that the cost will be $120 million. For purposes of conducting tradeoffs, what values do you use for Edwards's proposal and Hoffman's proposal?
  9. Don Mansfield

    Probability Problem #2

    Not quite. I wanted to see how people would react to information about possible, but less probable, costs. jayandstacey reacted the way I think most contracting people would--they ignored it (I'm not picking on you, jayandstacey). I think standard practice when it comes to cost realism is to determine a most probable cost point and use that when making tradeoff decisions. There's no consideration given to how probable the most probable cost is, and what are the probabilities of other costs. An alternative to using the most probable cost is to use the expected value. This is what Matthew calculated. This takes into account every probable cost and its probability of occurring. Given a probability distribution function, we can calculate the expected value. In my opinion, that's a better number to use when making decisions than most probable cost. There's a good illustration of two different probability distributions in Figure 2 of this article: https://www.dau.mil/library/arj/_layouts/15/WopiFrame.aspx?sourcedoc=/library/arj/ARJ/arj62/Dorey_ARJ62.pdf&action=default Using most probable cost, we would favor the red cost estimate. However, if we factor in the probability of the all potential costs, both the blue and red cost estimates are equal.
  10. Don Mansfield

    Probability Problem #2

    Assume the method was reasonable. Not in my example. There's only two possible cost outcomes for each offeror. Please don't fight the hypothetical.
  11. Don Mansfield

    Master Degrees

    LucyQ, I have an MBA from the University of San Diego. Looking back, I think a JD or JD/MBA would have been a lot more valuable in my career.
  12. Don Mansfield

    Probability Problem #2

    So you think using the expected cost would be compliant with FAR 15.404-1(d)?
  13. Don Mansfield

    Probability Problem #2

    Assume the RFP says "We will perform cost realism analysis in accordance with FAR 15.404-1(d)".
  14. Scenario: Assume you are an interested party who would like to file a protest against an agency. You intend to start with an agency protest, then if you lose file a GAO protest, then if you lose file a COFC protest, then if you lose file an appeal at the CAFC. You have a 20% chance of winning at each forum. Question: What is the probability that you will win in at least one forum?
  15. Don Mansfield

    SCA Seniority

    It's reassuring to know they are getting paid the prevailing wage.
  16. Don Mansfield

    SCA Seniority

    I was looking through this the other day and found "carnival worker". It made my day.
  17. Don Mansfield

    Bridge Contracts

    Who knows? But, that would be a stupid thing to say. The KO should just explain the facts--for acquisitions under FAR part 6, they don't have the authority to limit competition unless it's justified. A lack of advance planning is not justification for limiting competition. Unless there's a legitimate justification, the problem will have to be solved a different way. Here are some other things we can do...
  18. Don Mansfield

    Successive Bid Protests

    If the exchange must be classified as one of the three, then I think it would be clarification. The purpose would be to enhance the parties' understanding of the prospective contract, allow reasonable interpretation of the proposed contract, but not permit revision of the proposal. However, I don't think that such an exchange needs to be classified as one of the three. You've identified a risk that the contracting officer takes when awarding without discussions. This exchange mitigates that risk. I don't see anything in the FAR that would prohibit such an exchange.
  19. Don Mansfield

    Successive Bid Protests

    Vern, Would you please clarify your position? Are you saying that a contracting officer should talk with a prospective contractor (to ensure common understanding, etc.) before awarding a multi-million dollar contract? Or are you saying a contracting officer should conduct discussions with offerors before awarding a multi-million dollar contract? I think a contracting officer could have a professional talk with a prospective contractor to go over terms and conditions in order to try to confirm a meeting of the minds, determine that discussions are unnecessary, and award without discussions. I don't think that would be insane.
  20. Not until July 1. We're still in the old days.
  21. Don Mansfield

    NASA SEWP and BPAs

    @FrankJon, I think you are in the land of FAR 1.102(d).
  22. Don Mansfield

    SDVOSB resellers and work percentage

    That doesn't make sense. FAR part 12 does not contain a distinct set of procedures for solicitation, evaluation, and award. When using FAR part 12, you do so in conjunction with FAR parts 13, 14, or 15. See FAR 12.203:
  23. Don Mansfield

    Fee on Negotiated Changes

    @PepeTheFrog Are you advocating deception in negotiation, or are you just saying that it's common and that you should be prepared for it?
  24. Don Mansfield

    SDVOSB resellers and work percentage

    Do the contracts contain FAR 52.219-27? If so, have you read paragraph (d) of the clause?
  25. Don Mansfield

    SDVOSB resellers and work percentage

    Are you referring to set-asides? Are the procurements over the SAT?
×