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
    Not Telling

Recent Profile Visitors

12,522 profile views
  1. formerfed

    Relevance of the Defense Acquisition Corp

    Agree. One thing that really stands out to me is the old workforce had a small group of highly knowledgeable, experienced, and capable individuals unmatched today. These people acquired that through self motivation, learning, training, and OJT. In many cases they happened to be in the right job in the right organization at the right time. At the same time, large pockets of the workforce lacked training and expertise. They practiced tasks based on what was passed down to them by word of mouth and traditions, many of which were wrong. That's the way they learned to do work and those were reinforced by agency practices and even policies. Despite all the issues existing today, I think things are a whole lot better now.
  2. Thanks for that. I searched unsuccessfully here to see if it was discussed. I also went back but not far enough - the protest is dated just a day before Vern's post! He's on top of it.
  3. I ran across this GAO decision. In it GAO recognizes a scheme of award to highest technical rating with fair and reasonable prices. GAO states: Agencies putting in place multiple award IDIQ contracts usually struggle with evaluating price/cost. It's tough figuring out a rational, defensible, and efficient way. Often what happens is agencies devise some evaluation model that recognizes overall contract life costs. They also may include sample tasks for offerors to propose against. Under Alliant 2 GSA just evaluated and ranked the highest technical proposals. They pre-established a certain number of awardees and examined only the highest rated ones for price reasonableness. There wasn’t any comparison of prices between one offer to another. There also wasn’t any competitive range – just the highest technical scoring proposals with fair and reasonable prices. A protest followed alleging under a best value procurement, CICA requires consideration of price in selecting sources for award. GAO disagreed that this was a best value tradeoff procurement. Rather it’s just another type of best value procurement like LPTA on the best value continuum that’s not mentioned in the FAR. This really is a big benefit in establishing a multiple award IDIQ contract pool, especially those with a huge number of anticipated responses. It speeds up the process and allows only the highest rated technical sources to receive awards. Then price gets considered and negotiated at the task order level where it should be. The decision is here http://www.wifcon.com/cgen/4135593.pdf
  4. formerfed


    The article further down brings up something I heard in training once. The person said his golf score reflects how good he’s doing as a leader. If he mentors and trains subordinates well, he has more time for golf.
  5. So many variables exist, a "one size fits all" model won't work. Standards and metrics might be fine for routine commodities and even placing orders for many supplies and services. But for the bulk of actions, they aren't beneficial. Take an example of a program manager who knows just a little about the contracting process. He /she needs something. One approach is describe the need, prepare and submit a requisition, and let a contracting officer buy it. That might be relatively quick to complete with the lowest priced offer getting an award. Another approach involves talking with the contracting officer, describing the need, and having options explained. The options could include use of simplified acquisition, FSS, order under multiple award contracts, OTA, assisted acquisition by another agency, competitive RFP, and so on. The end result might be a contract under FAR 15 tradeoff procedures that involves much time and effort, especially for the contracting officer. In the first instance, a quick and easy award is made. However the wrong thing could be acquired quickly. In the other, the program might be much more successful but the award took three times the time of the contracting officer. That's not something easily measured.
  6. formerfed

    Vern's Words of Wisdom

    Really good! I forgot all about this list of attributes. The one area I would add under Knowledge is specific understanding of their agency's mission, programs, and supporting acquisitions. I've seen way too many contract specialists not able to advise program people on how best to structure an acquisition, lead negotiations in a meaningful and productive way, or even handle change orders with contractors for lack of knowledge on what the contract is about.
  7. formerfed

    Reserving MACs for SBs

    I don't know if this is GSAs position but I would argue this. I'm doing a multiple award IDIQ contract vehicle for IT needs. It has extremely high order limitations so I know small business can't meet all the order requirements. But I anticipate small firms can perform on some orders. This meets the FAR 19.502-3 criteria for a partial set-aside. So I award Alliant on a full and open basis and Alliant SB as a set-aside to cover all the potential order needs. It complies with the rule of two and everything else.
  8. formerfed

    Reserving MACs for SBs

    Agreed. I would assume that by going to Alliant, the Rule of Two was applied and small firms couldn't meet my need.
  9. formerfed

    Reserving MACs for SBs

    My thought is since both Alliant and Alliant SB are very large IDIQ contracts, the scope is relatively open. Individual needs are met at the task order basis. So ordering agencies decide which vehicle to use based on the specifics of their work. The work is the same for both (same section c and labor categories); it's the magnitude of the jobs that differentiate.
  10. formerfed

    Reserving MACs for SBs

    Napolik, Back to your original question, it seems to me GSA did exactly that with Alliant. They determined that a total set-aside is not feasible so they did a partial. The partial is Alliant SB.
  11. If you have confidence in the government estimate, why not? I would tell each company that the government desires paying no more than $98,000 and what's their best price.
  12. The first question I would ask the technical office is the reason for the "how" to prescriptive elements. If something needs accomplished in a set way, make that part of the "constraints" section of the SOO. In other words you say "these are the objectives of the acquisition, however certain items listed as constraints need complied with." For example security reasons or interfacing with another project may require work to be performed a certain way.
  13. It doesn't make sense. I'm guessing the original intent got lost someplace along the way
  14. formerfed

    RFP states a proposed solution

    I worked at an Army location where all awards had to result from contracts prepared from scratch. Contracts couldn't be a simple unilateral acceptance of offers and everything was done via SF26 signed by both parties. If a solution resulted in a contractor selection, the pertinent parts of the proposal along with the essential parts of the SOW were put into the contract. Then the contractor was called in and the CO went over all the language as well as all the clauses with the contractor. The contractor and the CO essentially agreed to everything the contractor is required to do in clear terms. A lot of work but well worth it in most instances.
  15. formerfed

    Acquisition Support Personnel

    Excellent advice! OP, you are a contractor and an employee of that company. If things aren't going right, you raise the issue within your company. Your boss tells you what to do. It really shouldn't matter to you what the BPA says. That's something your employer deals with.