Don Mansfield

12 hours ago, Atlas STS said:

@Atlas STS 

1) Am I being unrealistic to expect over 10-15% profit on a FFP contract?  This seems very low to me.  Is the Weighted Guidelines Method required for contracts with Certified Cost and Pricing Data?  Are their any alternatives to this method?  The contracting officer said they have to take our contract before a board and they will not approve anything near our profit request.

2) Is it typical to put technical/schedule/execution risk contingencies or mitigations elsewhere in the proposal?  What are those costs called?  What pool do they fall in (overhead or G&A)?  I bid a reasonable "best case" proposal, but I know that issues will spring up based on the nature of our product and past performance.  How do I correctly capture those risks in my proposal if not in the profit?

Any insight or guidance would be greatly appreciated.

1. A profit exceeding 10-15% is not necessarily unreasonable. The Weighted Guidelines method is required in some instances for the Government to arrive at a prenegotiation objective, but it does not limit what a prospective contractor can propose. It has as much relevance to the negotiation as the method the prospective contractor used to develop their prenegotiation profit objective. As far as what the contracting officer said about the board, that may be true. But that doesn't mean you have to lower your profit. The Government will need to decide if what they need is worth agreeing to what they consider an unreasonable profit. Is the Government ok with your bottom line price?

2. See FAR 31.205-7 regarding the inclusion of contingencies in cost estimates.

17.205 is preaward.

DoD uses the clause at DFARS 252.204-7022, Expediting Contract Closeout.

@chadinark

If you want to demonstrate knowledge of the FAR, then I would recommend getting a CFCM from NCMA.

No need for a written determination and I see no benefit in doing one.

Condition yourself to avoid red tape whenever possible.

Well, ASN(RDA) relieved STRL from the burden of the making the determination. How do you think they would react if you did it anyway?

I'm confused, too. It doesn't make sense.

Having said that, I think the deviation relieves STRL from having to comply with FAR 7.107-2 for contracts < $50 million.

56 minutes ago, Guitarsit said:

If you want to award to the company that's been selected, asking the question creates an opportunity to blow it up, because if the answer is "no" you can't then award to them.

Yes, you can--by conducting discussions and getting revised proposals.

2 hours ago, Retreadfed said:

That means that there may be FAR/DFARS clauses in the subcontract that are not included in the prime contract.  For example, if the prime contract is a cost reimbursement contract but the subcontract is a firm fixed price contract, there may be several clauses in the subcontract, such as a payments clause, that are not in the prime contract.

Why would these be FAR/DFARS clauses? Why wouldn't the prime use its own payment clause?

22 hours ago, Neil Roberts said:

. "Business" clauses are not prohibited by a prime contract for inclusion in purchase contracts but are not included in the prime contract. Think of it as the business boilerplate often found in non-government contracts.  

I think I wasn't clear. I was referring to the list of FAR/DFARS in the subcontract--not all clauses. 

It's a common tactic by primes, and I'm sure many subcontractors put up with it. It can take a lot of time and effort to determine which particular clauses should be flowed down and mistakes can be made, so one can understand why primes do this. 

You could go back and forth with the prime on each clause that you don't think applies and some subcontractors do that. I think a more elegant solution is to get the prime to agree that, notwithstanding the list of clauses in the subcontract, the only clauses that apply are those that are 1) included in the prime contract and 2) require inclusion in your subcontract.

A lot has already been written here about what they like and don't like about the DEA's procedure and the GAO's decision that I won't repeat or challenge. However, I think the most remarkable part of the Logan decision was the DEA's rotation procedure. They disclosed their intent to rotate purchases among BPA holders in the solicitation and nobody protested before quotes were due. When Logan tried to protest the rotation procedure after establishment of the BPAs, the protest was untimely. So it seems DEA was home free to rotate purchases among the BPA holders.

19 minutes ago, ji20874 said:

The Logan decision goes farther than the text of FAR 13 on the topic of BPAs, and has not been codified in a FAR update.  Logan's premise should only be used by competent and careful practitioners.

That said, I like it!

Me too.

2 hours ago, Retreadfed said:

This seems to contradict the notion that the government does not buy hours under T&M/LH contracts.

I don't think Formation is right on this point. I would not consider T&M/LH contracts to be "level of effort" contracts. I agree with @ji20874's description.

But this is beside the point.

So, effort is time spent working?

@Seeking2Award

Are you familiar with the concept of forbearance?

https://www.wifcon.com/discussion/index.php?/topic/16491-forbearance-vs-change-order/

You didn't say that. It was from the guidance you quoted.

1 hour ago, Me_BOX_Me said:

No. I was referring to this part: "At the end of performance no one compares what was described in the winning proposal to what was actually received and writes a comparative assessment." 

Just saying that what Vern has proposed hasn't been attempted, certainly not at scale. So socializing what that comparative assessment might look like would be helpful to people who are interested in improving outcomes or reform similar to what Vern suggests. 

None of what I quoted talked about how to write better evaluations, it was about what we do with those documents post-award, if anything. 

I think there is a comparison between what was promised in the contract and what was delivered. That's the purpose of a CPAR. 

I think what Vern is referring to is the kind of BS you find in technical proposals (e.g., technical approach) that tends to weigh heavily, probably too heavily, in source selection decisions. If we were to compare that information to actual results, I think we would find two things. First, there is not much correlation between a proposed approach and the actual one used. Second, it doesn't matter that a contractor didn't use their proposed approach during contract performance. Contract performance depends more on the contractor's ability to adapt to changing circumstances than their adherence to a preconceived approach based on speculation of what the future will be. 

Hopefully, we would draw the conclusion that evaluating technical approaches is a waste of time. 

4 hours ago, Seeking2Award said:

Generally, there must be "consideration" whenever a contract is modified. 

I think that's an overstatement. Some modifications require consideration, some don't. A lot of modifications that adjust contract terms pursuant to a clause don't require any new consideration.

8 hours ago, Me_BOX_Me said:

This seems like the most actionable part of the dialogue. This could easily be a part of an integrated project team as they start market research and acquisition planning. Even better would be collecting this data throughout the contract. That would be true continuous improvement. Vern et al - It would be helpful for wifcon to facilitate sharing knowledge and tools to help professionals establish these initiatives within their agencies. Unfortunately for senior managers to sign on, something would either have to be very well developed already. My group likely has the capacity to take something like this on in the coming years. We have the centralized data, expertise, and willingness to try.

What exactly are you requesting? Guidance on writing better evaluations?

4 hours ago, Patrick Mathern said:

Are there allowability requirements specifically related to bankruptcy filings?  

No, but some bankruptcies involve reorganizations. Those costs would seem to be unallowable according to FAR 31.205-47(f)(2) and 31.205-27.

This one, too...

21 hours ago, Fara Fasat said:

But in a case where fraud or corruption leads to the selection of an inferior product, then yes, eliminating protests leaves the government stuck with that inferior product.

Why couldn't the Government suspend or T for C and re-evaluate?

15 hours ago, Vern Edwards said:

No CICA stays, no preliminary injunctions. No agency-level protests. No GAO or COFC protest. No GAO recommendations or COFC retraining orders or injunctions.The protest tribunals should be able to provide only monetary relief.

That's it.

I like it.

If the purpose of the trip is business, then one should fly business class. Anything else would not make logical sense.

This should apply to Government, too.