formerfed
Members-
Posts
2,119 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Reputation
0 NeutralProfile Information
-
Gender
Male
-
Location
Washington DC
Recent Profile Visitors
15,853 profile views
-
I saw sec 809 authorizes a pilot program “…to explore the use of consumption-based solutions to address any defense need, hereafter ``anything-as-a-service'', that is feasible to provide users on-demand access, quickly add newly released capabilities, and bill based on actual usage at fixed price units.” For those not familiar with the concept, it allows a quicker and more efficient was of acquiring and managing IT. It means the government just needs to identify requirements in terms of speed, storage, access, and security. Then industry proposes solutions. The winner is selected and the government pays on a consumption basis. There’s no need to identify hardware, specific software, security packages, communications, etc. One major potential glitch is acquisition people need to learn quickly how to buy this stuff. The learning experiences with things like cloud, technical services using LPTA, and Agile showed the need for better understanding upfront.
-
It doesn’t make any difference. You’re conflating language of FAR 13 BPAs which always existed under FSS contracts and what is done using now with the multi-million dollar BPAs. The former could be “charge account” with verbal and informal calls. I recently saw one of the F8.4 actions with a $500 million ceiling and initials orders in excess of $20 million. These are BPAs in name only. It was a poor choice of words but GSA thought they had to come up with a term for what several agencies were doing with zero dollar orders containing IDIQ type language. By the way I know for a fact the term originated with GSA and not the FAR drafters. There’s no need to continue this because it’s really a moot point. But it’s flat out wrong to all them “charge accounts.” It’s no different than calling IDIQ contracts “charge accounts.” Let’s just say we disagree and move on.
-
Yes, it’s common. Sometimes agencies don’t have sufficient in-house expertise. Occasionally, they want independent views. Other times they seek buy-in from another agency through the other agency being part.
-
It wasn’t. I was involved a long time ago when GSA did it. GSA encouraged use of FAR part 13 BPAs for decades. But FAR 8.4 came across as completely different. It was devised as something akin to IDIQ contracts after a few agencies established initial orders with the capability of placing “sub orders” under it. As Vern posted in the old thread, it’s a shame GSA chose the same term. When you get down to it, it’s just a means to down-select to either a single or a few contractors for future task order work.
-
When one looks at the current practices and matches it against the regulations, I don’t think it could be called misuse. Now if one compares it against practices from years ago, someone might shake their head in wonder. The current processes evolved over time for the benefit of ordering agencies, contractors, and GSA. FAR 8.4 can’t be labeled as a Simplified Acquisition method because it’s unique.
-
The “charge account” terminology is an oversimplification. In practice these BPAs are similar to IDIQ contracts and the orders are placed after offerors often submit very complex proposal responses to RFQs. In fact the ordering process often resembles a full blown FAR compeitive technical/price tradeoff acquisition
-
I don’t believe it’s 27. It seems like the three exerted a total of nine hours (3 x 3) hours. The time watching isn’t expending energy or exerting for the stump removal.
-
Vern, I scanned through an old physics textbook as well as some PM training material. I combined two excerps to come up with this: Effort is the physical or mental energy exerted to achieve a purpose or result. It can be measured in various ways, depending on the context. In a physical sense, effort can be measured by the amount of force or energy expended to perform a task. In a mental sense, effort involves applying skills and knowledge and can be measured by the level of concentration, determination, or perseverance required to accomplish a goal. Effort can also be measured by the time and resources invested in a particular endeavor.
-
But FAR 8.405-3(b)(2) requires an RFQ be either posted to eBuy or sent to a sufficient number of contractors to reasonably ensure at least three responses are received. This applies when the estimated value exceeds the SAT. One alternative to what CBP did is conduct market research to identify viable sources and solicit enough sources to comply - that may be as few as three!
-
It doesn’t to me. Having more than one contractor to compete on individual task requirements often is good. By that I mean a group of 2 or 3 companies. But most of these contract actions involve contractor pools of dozens and often many more. If nothing else, the administrative time and expense to compete task orders can be huge. Complying with Fair Opportunity can be tedious time consuming and that’s even before task order competition even begins. Apart from the task order competition, the award of the basic contracts is burdensome. The current CIO-SP4 procurement is a tragedy. Acquiescing to potential protests and letting complaining offerors into the award pool is common. The Navy Seaport contract has 450 contractors for 23 functional areas. Or some cases the governments makes entry very easy like STARS3. GSA initially awarded 426 contracts and later added another 557!
-
So many of these actions (multiple award IDIQ contracts or BPAs) are protested, especially set asides. Some reasons are companies don’t want left out of the future task order competition, they see their competitors winning and it makes them look bad, over zealous marketing people oversell opportunities within the company and are worried about their jobs, and the companies want another shot at winning. There are lots of historical instances where protesting lets companies back in for additional consideration and award. This all gives agencies incentive to just make one or two large IDIQ contract awards on an unrestricted basis where the successful contractor can perform all the required tasks. In addition just developing strategies so the entire scope of work gets divided up into bite size pieces so small companies can participate on segments is difficult.