formerfed

Answers to a couple questions will help with advice. How often over the course of a year are arbitrators needed and how large is the potential pool of BPA holders?

Great point! I’ll add past experiences over the life of the existing contract.

Again,Bob, thanks for all you do with this site. An amazing resource with enjoyable discussions as well. @Voyager thanks for sharing this. Great tip!

This also is potentially way above a contracting officers discretionary actions. I would get the agency budget officer and congressional liaison officer involved. They can check with the committee staffers.

Nope. Google gsa advantage and you’ll see everything it’s used for

Many agencies do use the SF-182 for this if the speaker is presenting educational or informative information.

Where does Vern’s reference support use of agreement?

Sorry, I meant my comment was directed to Carl and others interested here edit: @Vern Edwards Thanks again for the informative and comprehensive response

16.603-1 Description. A letter contract is a written preliminary contractual instrument that authorizes the contractor to begin immediately manufacturing supplies or performing services. It’s a contract and not an “arrangement” whatever that is

From DFARS 217.74

@FrankJonThis also is similar language used by GAO on page 17 of the report linked above by Vern. We can split hairs on contract terminology all day but a contractor performing under a UCA is essentially reimbursed. That’s why it’s critical to definitiize a fixed price contract as soon as possible.

We don’t know what, if anything, the successful offeror provided to the government in way of explanation. I’ve seen situations where a contractor feels they will learn processes well over time and develop methodologies, tools and techniques to become more efficient. The strategy is replace staff over time with lower paid employees. This would be a good point to discuss during the debriefing.

Right

Assuming the parent company has a valid GSA Schedule contract, they must propose their own fixed price hourly rates matching their contractual LCATs. If they want to include their subsidiary in performance, the subsidary must perform under the parents rates and qualify as fully meeting the appropriate LCAT standards. In other words, the parent is free to subcontract to the subsidiary using the parents rates. If for whatever reason, the subsidiary labor doesn’t work, the parent is free to propose the subdiary as “open market”, which is covered under FAR 402(f)

Except many government payment systems won’t allow invoice payments exceeding the CLIN amount.

It never changed from decades ago when schedules were mostly used for supplies (equipment). It allowed ordering agencies to factor in items other than price in such as warranties, special feature, etc. and conclude the selection is the lowest cost alternative. GSA and OMB have tried to change it https://federalnewsnetwork.com/commentary/2024/02/providing-best-value-through-the-multiple-award-schedule/ https://www.gsa.gov/system/files/Cleared - GSA MAS Best Value Legislative Proposal.pdf

That might be true if we had a solid enterprise wide contracting workforce. But we don’t. One of the big reasons I hear contracting people admit is they like LPTA because it’s easier and quicker and it puts all the burden on program officials. We just don’t have enough experienced and capable 1102s. And it’s getting worse. Lots of bright people are entering the 1102 workforce. Most quickly progress but then drop out because they hit a wall where they are no longer challenged by the work or can’t get promoted. Some of the complaints by many of the top companies is they won’t propose on LPTA for all the obvious reasons.

Professional Services Council. I wasn’t going to say the name until they announced it. @Vern Edwards Edit: more information from the PSC website. Should be interesting

A major organization is currently examining LPTA procurements and what they see is a lack of COs conducting proper price realism analysis. They think companies intentionally propose low rates to receive awards and then convince agencies later in performance to allow higher price labor categories to be added to enhance performance. They also think government program personnel are underestimating the amount of required work including labor category positions in their planning estimates which contributes to problems.

Off topic but one thing that really bothers me is the government taking long periods in performing evaluations. Often a company requests additional time for proposal submissions. It may be from the agency not allowing sufficient time initially or substantial revisions are made via amendments but the due date isn’t extended. Too often the contracting officer response is something like “this requirement is critical and we can’t afford another week.” Then the agency takes many months to evaluate. But they expect offerors to have the key personnel initially proposed available!

Really good explanation, Carl

I’ve had lots of experiences with conferences and I completely agree with Joel. Speakers are often selected as those participants most want to hear and think as beneficial. Agencies just don’t compete speakers. If you need documentation for your file, it should be easy to write assuming the amount exceeds the micro purchase threshold.

No doubt hijacking of the terms has a lot to do with the way current SAPs evolved. I’ve seen several ways BPAs are used, some of which are probably improper. But without seeing details or agency documentation and rational, it’s hard to pass judgement. For example: Synopsizing upfront the intent to competitively award BPAs. The synopsis includes the scope of the BPAs and orders are not further synopsized regardless of dollar value Competition at the order level is limited to BPA holders Program office individuals are authorized to place calls for supplies and some services and contracting officers later consolidate all calls on a recurring basis such as monthly Program officers may solicit quotes from BPA holders directly A single order is placed as bulk funding and subsequent orders for supplies/services draw down from the bulk funds As many BPAs are for commercial items, orders can be significant in terms of dollar value Noncompetitive orders are justified in narrative terms with only contracting officer approval or selection of a specific source is based upon past performance

Yes. I’ve seen similar situations all across the government in both DoD and civilian agencies. The practices vary but they are for the most part just as you described. In some instances, individuals in program offices are designated as ordering officials and place “calls” through use of P-cards.

One large difference is FAR 36.207 is just about construction contracts. But I see your point.