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

12,904 profile views
  1. Nobody really addressed this part of your question. What inspection clause do you have in the contract? 52.246-24, Inspection of Services - Fixed Price? Anything else? Paragraph e of that states: e) If any of the services do not conform with contract requirements, the Government may require the Contractor to perform the services again in conformity with contract requirements, at no increase in contract amount. When the defects in services cannot be corrected by reperformance, the Government may (1) require the Contractor to take necessary action to ensure that future performance conforms to contract requirements and (2) reduce the contract price to reflect the reduced value of the services performed. If you decide to take action, it may be different that just suspending payment of the key positions. You need legal input. If you want to reduce the contract amount, you need to calculate value of the reduced performance. If you just want to withhold payment until resolution, that’s something different.
  2. Agree that a Wifcon is a CoP for general knowledge, learning and shared experiences. In fact, it’s the best anywhere. My prior comments address specific CoPs to implement and improve contracting at an agency, organization, or business level. For example lots of information is out there on any given contracting subject. CoPs are ideal for implementing and improving practices. Take source selections. Numerous ways to do it when you’re at detailed levels. However just because something is an innovative or best approach at one agency doesn’t mean it will work at yours. There are lots of barriers often to overcome. Some are cultural, others policy, and procedural, and still others are training and educational. CoPs are great to change, adopt, and improve.
  3. I’ll give you a general answer without resorting to specifics. CICA placed some rules that impacts the answer. The scope of the contract, whether competitive or non competitive, is based upon what was competed by offerors or approved in a justification. In addition optional items that are not part of the competitive or non competitive approval, must be priced and part of the selection or approval. So in your case, phone devises weren’t part of the competition process (assuming it was a competitive action) and can’t be ordered under the contract, especially in the dollar value you indicated. The exception requires a modification action to the contract that must be justified and approved in advance. So if you’re looking for some monetary threshold or percentage, there really isn’t one. From you you said, it sounds like a new contract action of some sort is needed to buy the phones.
  4. I’ve known several CoPs over the years. The most successful focused on one aspect of the process instead of something broad like contracting in general. For example the practices were based on things like source selection, IT, PBA, and professional services. They met regularly like monthly for brown bag lunch sessions. They covered items like best practices, new and innovative concepts, GAO decisions, and ways to educate and standardize procedures. Members often contributed and shared things in between meetings using group email, SharePoint, and informal get together. The most successful were built on a clear purpose and a sense of collaboration and teamwork. More recently with so much telework and virtual work, I’m not sure how successful they are.
  5. Here’s an example why answers are not easy and...”it depends...” http://www.asbca.mil/Decisions/2018/61096 Ruby Emerald Construction Company 11.6.18.pdf
  6. Looking back, I see we didn’t help wc79 much. The question is there a limit on extensions. Somehow it evolved in excusable delays and how should delays be calculated. Lots of reasons exist for delays outside of FAR 52-249-14. Common ones are resignation of key people, equipment malfunctioning, inventory of supplies depleted, and capacity conflicts. Sure those all should be part of contingency planning, but plans often fail. If the government wants to negotiate an extension that’s acceptable and receives consideration, what’s the issue?
  7. For anyone interested, Bob has much of this summarized here http://www.wifcon.com/bona/bonafide7.htm
  8. I think NEC refers to the Army Network Enterprise Center process which approves purchases of IT in advance.
  9. I completely agree with Joel.; You should be using FY 18 funds for what you described. I wouldn’t let local finance people blow you off about not having FY 18 funds because they certainly should. If not it needs escalated to use funds available to Army.
  10. Here’s some info on the most recent awards. Hopefully you can find someone to talk with you about the most recent strategy. https://www.va.gov/opa/pressrel/pressrelease.cfm?id=5175 I’m not sure what the new contracts looked like but in the past, the strategy was list all needed CPTs and offerors were free to propose percentage increases or decreases to current Medicare rates. So the actual contract rates were calculated using another list of prices and adjusted by percentages in the contract. There were several national medical and dental networks interested and numerous regional and locals. One of the challenges was letting offerors know how much work to expect. Originally the intent was make the contracts mandatory and allow existing agreements to slowly expire. But many providers, VA program and doctors, and veteran groups objected. They all felt existing patient relationship should be maintained, VA doctors should be able to refer patients to whomever they felt best, and veterans wanted a say. So the mandatory nature went away.
  11. You are dealing with a touchy, complex, and challenging issue. As Carl mentioned, this is something DoD and VA continuously deals with. DoD has Tricare which is so complicated, I can’t even begin to explain it here. VA struggles on an ongoing basis with the notion. They tried to implement a nationwide program a few years ago with multiple awards based on their regions. It never made it to award for many reasons, some contract, others program, and still others policy. The big hurdle they face is providing coverage across the territory covered that ranges from congested metro areas to isolated remote locations. Within that many patients have long term relationships with doctors that may not get covered by a new contract. Plus VA doctors have strong preferences with local doctors in making referrals so this is another reason why any single contract may not work. There are several other reasons I won’t go into. As far as contract type, they are set up as IDIQ using CMTs (medical profession codes) and Medicare established rates. The contracts are based on percentages of those rates. If your agency proceeds with this, the task can be relatively simple or extremely complex depending on your circumstances. For example in comparing costs between offerors, how to you deal with a patient with limited mobility in a remote location where one provider has local support while another requires the patient to be transported? My suggestion is sit down and talk with VA people before doing more.
  12. Joel, you keep quoting me on TfD. I didn’t bring it up to begin with - ji29874 did. I agree we know almost zero details so Im surp4is3d we’re talking about it. In all honesty, it’s a huge investment in administrative time and expense. Contractors often appeal to the BCA. One agency that tracks legal and procurement office labor costs to bill program offices said a small manner cost them $120,000. With a cost reimbursement contract, nothing much is gained except less fee involved. There’s no excess reprocurement charges. The contractor gets a black mark but is that worse than an unsatisfactory CPARS. I have a feeling the OP is simply asking about a extension with no change in existing contract costs.
  13. As far as when, I think that need started early enough to give time to thoroughly understand agency needs and preferences. Some of that requires lots of analysis too because views may be different depending on agency sources. Often companies take for granted everything in the RFP covers the stated need well. That often isn’t the case. People writing the RFP may not understand 100% of the issues or aren’t articulating it correctly. Same with the evaluation plan. So when evaluators see proposals that say “we understand your situation and know how to make things better and here’s how”, it resonates. The proposal might say things really meaningful or provide familiar thoughts previously unspoken or unwritten to the government. It may include things the evaluators or drafters hadn’t thought of. On the other hand, proposals that just restates RFP language may not. So it’s vitally important for companies to gather as much information as practical and early in order to propose something hitting the mark.
  • Create New...