Jump to content
The Wifcon Forums and Blogs


  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

0 Neutral

About formerfed

  • Rank
    Contributing Member

Profile Information

  • Gender
  • Location
    Washington DC

Recent Profile Visitors

12,960 profile views
  1. Certainly you could make it applicable. But why? The first sentence of the clause implies it’s largely for recompetitions. You worry about the contractor not retaining or able to recruit. But if you’re buying commercial professional services, you shouldn’t be asking for that kind of data. Plus most procurements for professional services use a trade off selection process. Price usually has a low priority. And probably the most important thing is an incumbent doing a good job doing professional services shouldn’t lose a competition. If you do bad work, cutting rates won’t usually help you win.
  2. Off topic but here’s an interesting twist. Companies are offering car subscription services https://www.cnbc.com/2018/12/01/forget-leasing-or-buying-a-car-these-companies-let-you-subscribe.html
  3. I’ll add one more comment and quit this thread. The reason industry characterizes this type of work as a service is for short term use, the customer isn’t really responsible for much and has restricted use. The company delivers the backhoe, sets it up, instructs on use, and comes back later and retrieves it. There’s never any semblance of the customer taking ownership, even for a limited time. They are providing the capability to dig. But this entire area is fuzzy. There doesn’t seem any answer and convincing arguments exist for each side.
  4. The card threshold is $2500 when the SCA is applicable
  5. This thread is a good example of why the procurement profession receives so much criticism. Despite our beliefs, a contract is not the end result. 😀 Rather we are there to support various agency programs and achieving mission needs. In this instance we are talking about short term backhoe rental. The commercial industry describes itself as a service. Government accountants say it’s a service. The applicable code to report work is a service. But we want to disregard FAR part 12 because the government looks at this differently. Then we complicate with asking if the SCA applies. Next is an analogy to argue with about an ancient court case that covers a year long vehicle lease. Lots of good arguments are made with more recent decisions. Of course GSA offers short term rentals which they tell agencies to fund with service money. Regardless of it being a supply or service, who cares? A program needs a backhoe. It doesn’t matter as long as it’s there. If we pick one method, who’s going to prove it wrong? The part of this that really stretches logic is whether the SCA applies. Read the purpose and intent of the Act. It has very little to do with DOL current philosophy. Our job is providing acquisition support to the government. It’s not saying we did a contract that’s 100% compliant with regulations, didn’t receive any nicks during contract review processes, and is protest free. It’s about getting the agency what they want, when they need it, and represents economy and efficiency.
  6. We have to be careful with words here. That FAR quote talks about leasing. The point I made is about short term rental. Accounting makes a distinction in that lease is “A lease is a contract to rent an asset, be it land, a building, or machinery, for a set period of time and for set payment terms. Leases often come with many conditions in terms of the allowed use of the asset and even required maintenance terms. A typical lease is often long term, ranging from 1 year to as many as 10 or 20 years. Significant penalties can be incurred by either party, the lessor (owner of the asset) or the lessee (user of the asset), in the event that either party violates the lease.” Rent often is an more or less informal agreement with terms of a day or two up to a month or more. There’s never intent to take title. Vehicle rentals are a good example. You lease a car for three years, for example. You agree to provide insurance, maintenance and keep in proper condition. In essence you are completely responsible for it. You also have various options at the end including keeping it. Not much different than a Hertz rental.
  7. I asked someone who is a CFO and over a procurement office. He said it’s an accounting issue. For short term rentals the asset remains the property of the supplier. They own the asset and depreciate it. Revenue from the lease is treated as service income because there’s not an intent for the customer to ever take title. The example he used is rental cars. When government employees rent vehicles, it’s funded with 21, service money. Employees pay to use a vehicle for transportation and return it when finished. States that charge sales tax on products but not services don’t generally collect taxes on vehicle rentals. Carl’s NAICS code point agrees with that as does the WO23 PSC for vehicle rental.
  8. There are FAR clauses like this https://www.law.cornell.edu/cfr/text/48/52.204-22. Plus lots of agency instructions that are similar. The idea is you may not want to disqualify an offeror for being non responsive but you are open to other ideas. So you use the worded you described. If the offerors qualifying proposal is acceptable, they are in the running. If you like their alternative, you amend the solicitation to allow it.
  9. Interesting that responses to IG reports gets escalated to same status as congressional testimony and GAO reports. IG reports are common, numerous, and often covered very specialized and technical subjects. While important, they hardly have the signifance of the other items. For example this is their website. Among other things, note the 13,000 reports https://www.oversight.gov/ i see why government officials need to be responsible and accountable for responses by their personal involvement and perhaps complete preparation of the other items. But not necessarily to IGs. Often government must rely on specialized expertise of the contractors with government endorsement to address detailed replies to things they lack expertise. So I don’t see any problems with contractor preparation of the replies with government approval and signature - thus taking ownership. Wonder if the IG council had an influence?
  10. I completely agree with ji20874’s comments. As far as the second bullet on adding new work, you must comply with competition requirements as stated. You can do that as a supplemental agreement to the existing contract or do a new contract. Lots of people think a new contract is the only way to go but why do that? The existing contract, if still open, has all the terms and conditions right there.
  11. Maybe this isn’t complicated. Agencies get a certain amount of money during a CR. They have latitude on what they fund. They can do contracts in whole or in part, largely based on the type of contract. The appropriation and OMB determine the amount of money available. Without knowing details, one guess is the agency erred in this case and went beyond what was available. So now they are backtracking. It’s not that unusual.
  12. That instance makes sense I guess. But where the improper stuff happens are contracts for routine support - IT development, operations, advisory & assistance, engineering and professional services, and technical consultants. I constantly see and hear PMs say they need to interview new hires to see how well they’ll fit in, they want to ask tough questions to see if the new hires knows what the resume says, or if they like the person’s attitude! I’ve done lots of interviews and see numerous resumes and am amazed at how frequently people’s jobs change. Reasons given are government requirements for the individual position changed, cut back in government funding, company lost the recompete, and a government PM wanted someone else. So the employee is just let go.
  13. This practice of government approving candidates prior to starting always bothered me. It’s something both government and contractors need to jointly stop. If the government did a good job with source selection, they should completely trust the contractor will provide high quality employees. If they can’t do that, make the source selection process needs tweaking. If employee characteristics and capabilities are important and how the company provides those, that’s easy to evaluate along with past performance. Otherwise this practice borders on personal services. The other side is I personally wouldn’t want to work for a company that employees based on a government job. So employment starts and ends based on specific engagement?
  14. Based upon the confusing information presented, Joel’s response is the best anyone can do. No one here understands the situation well enough to respond. Govie, since you don’t know why your management wanted a REA submitted, it’s apparent you don’t know the full story either. One thing I hope you and other readers learned from this is never write a similar type contract.
  15. Interesting discussion but I’m not sure how pertinent it is to many situations. The bulk of orders with added clauses are agency/office specific requirements. For example, the clauses pertain to security, building access, pre-clearance of contractor personnel, and complying with CIO/IT methodologies and operating constraints. They are added when placing orders against other agency contracts like MACs, GWACS, and GSA Schedules. Those contracts usually make it clear agency clauses can be added to orders as long as they don’t conflict. For example, this is from GSAs website on FAQs When an agency does they own IDIQ contracts, they usually consider the agency variety of needs and include all applicable contracts in the contract. If something new comes up, they modify the contract so orders don’t add other clauses. EDIT: ji20874 and uva posted while I was responding. I agree with both their posts.
  • Create New...