formerfed

@Fara Fasat Thanks for clarifying and I now understand your argument. But I’m not extending what you said originally. If fact this is what your post concluded with

I’m not following you. Are you saying a protest helps ensure the government gets the best product or service? If so, “the government is stuck with a second-best, or worse, product or service?” I don’t agree with this logic saying “Should the government have to accept inferior products or services because we took an ax to the protest system?”

I really like it. But will agency reviewers and particularly legal counsel add comparable delays in scrutinizing files before awards?

That is a good point. I understand how inexperienced or contract specialist/contracting officers lacking in knowledge can get in over their heads and receive protests. But there’s no excuse for agencies to allow those actions obviously at fault to proceed to GAO. How about the agency SPE and head legal advisor certify they personally reviewed the contract file/protest response and support proceeding? I don’t see the agency fining itself as beneficial but I do think some of the protests will be resolved by the agency itself if the SPE and Chief Counsel personally verify the actions as sound. Their reputations are at stake.

I think in practice a large share of recently awarded AOs are contracting officers. Even then when they aren’t, 1102 contract specialists are involved in varying extents. More FAR and DFARS type clauses are being added all the time.

So true Vern. I’m now remembering lots of stories about improper use of OTAs over the years. The most pathetic was something I heard from a private industry representative. He asked the contracting person why the document looked like a regular FAR based solicitation with all the FAR prescriptions, instructions, and clauses. He was confused and didn’t know what he was responding against. The contracting response was “our contract writing system can’t produce an OTA document so I generated what the system allowed!”

@Vern Edwards Thanks for sharing that article and podcasts. I let myself get angry going through them. It’s the same old thing we see over and over again - a new concept with great potential get gradually watered down and over controlled with added rules, policies and procedures.

Thanks for posting and sharing that Carl. I encourage anyone interested to read the latest DoD OTA Guide. The link is near the end of this article. One thing that bothers me is the guide is filled with much more bureaucratic processes than with the past. I know many thought the OTA procedures need more clarity, but I’m afraid this guidance in providing more detailed instructions and structure as well as management controls, adds delay in making awards. In fact the guide admits that OTAs might take as long to award than a competitive FAR awarded contract, especially if an elaborate source selection process is utilized. It seems like OTAs have evolved differently to what Rand recommended in an Air Force report three years ago. In it Rand suggested more case-based training, information sharing, mentoring and managing the OT workforce as well promoting a more calculated risk taking culture. Edit: revised prior confusing wording

That’s overly complicating things. I wouldn’t even bring that issue up in a solicitation. If travel is involved, request estimated travel costs and a brief explanation of the company’s travel policy. Should an offeror propose business class, discuss the subject with them. But I’m sure just about every company says coach for employees.

Here’s a great example of market research by CBP. They learned from DoD, FBI, and others. They issued a solicitation, gave offerors three months to respond, used a Justice lab for testing, had field personnel (inspectors, agents, etc.) involved in actual live firing and evaluation of offeror products, conducted negotiations and made award seven months after receipt of responses. Their award was large in size because it covers all of DHS. I think just having a team of knowledgeable people in the acquisition and personal weapons processes and spending the effort to understand industry capabilities made the difference. It doesn’t require an 1102 to be a firearms expert. Not does it require a PM to be a contracting expert. But a team of members that understand the landscape leads to success. CBP

This is the crux of the issue. Under the situation in the original post, the contracting officer can include upgraded travel. But is it wise to do so? As Joel said, it’s negotiable. There may be valid reasons for or it could be just a perk the contractor is providing their employees at government expense. It’s gets down to the contractor and the contracting officer reaching agreement.

Agreed.

What really leads to excellence is market research - understanding the marketplace, knowing what differentiates top providers from the others, finding out from experiences of others what approaches work and what doesn’t, and especially gathering and applying lessons learned from other buying organizations.

I prepared a response yesterday but got sidetracked before sending. I see Carl already answered your question but I’ll just add the practice of reimbursing travel for technicians at actual cost is fairly common for scientific and lab equipment work. This is normally done without regard to FAR 31 principles. So unless your contract clause contains restrictive language, you are fine.

Getting a little off topic here but I’ll add so many problems we have is due to lack of careful and objective thinking. We tend not to be creative in conducting acquisitions. One of the first things 1102s to with new assignments is look for examples to copy. Then we impose what we know best and comfortable with from past experience even when it really isn’t that applicable. That’s why so many simple things like Simplified Acquisitions, FAR 8.4 actions, and OTAs get fouled up. The regulations and policies for these aren’t complicated. But instead of reading them closely and just proceeding with the acquisition, 1102s get nervous. They want to be told what to do and shown what worked in the past. So we end up with FAR 15 principles injected with FAR 13 and 8.4 transactions. When OTAs were pushed more heavily, many agencies gave them to contracting officers to do. We ended up in many instances with FAR 15 lookalikes including terms and conditions which don’t apply. Going back to the topic on hand, I think commercial item contracting isn’t hard if it’s done properly. All that’s needed is someone reasonably intelligent, has an open mind, isn’t reluctant to do something outside their comfort zone, and skips over methods that don’t apply. There’s no need for searching for prior examples or detailed training because FAR 12 is straight-forward.

FAR part 12 is short in length. Someone can carefully read through it in a couple hours. Sure, it departs from many standard practices but so many of us are really stuck with tradition. We know only certain ways to process tasks. We are ingrained with cookbook approaches and must rigidly be adhered too. We try way too hard to avoid criticism from peers and superiors and even more so to avoid protests. i think someone without being burdened by all this baggage and a few years of serious contracting experience could successfully do a FAR contract and conclude it’s not complicated.

That’s a bureaucracy problem is so true. A program manger in charge of a military weapons program with a 350 page specification won’t be swayed by any contracting person. That person knows exactly what he wants and how they are getting there. Senator McCain’s report has some excellent thoughts on alternative approaches. If the Special Forces uses off the shelf weapons (or ones slightly modified), most soldiers could as well.

I remembered something a senior contract manager said (HCO) about this FAI/DoD competency model. He said many 1102 know how to do this stuff. But his problem is they don’t practice good solid contracting support. Rather than doing technical/price tradeoffs when it’s best for program offices, they try and force LPTA. That’s because it’s easier for them and protest chances are less. So he was seeking help from a couple other agencies to adopt their practices for career development, performance appraisals, and recognition.

Leigh, a common problem with efforts like this is it creates a very simplistic, one size fits all situation that really doesn’t work for most. The NCMA career path is a perfect example. All we really hear from that is nit picking as to why it’s not good. What is much better is creating an approach specific to your own organization. If done properly, it provides a vision for employees to progress, train, and learn. It should reflect what managers and supervisors ultimately want out of employees. It should also have input from employees as well. In essence, it says “if you want to succeed here, these are the skills, experience, and demonstrated performance expected.” If you are government, a basic starting point is position descriptions ranging from GS-05 to GS-15 or whatever. That’s a foundation but those likely will need revising at a later point. Then talk with supervisors, managers, and senior management of what they want to see out of everyone. Get HR involved too. This usually isn’t a quick and easy task and usually involves multiple sessions. Getting clear and distinct goals is essential. This also may involve lots of non contracting attributes as well, depending upon unique requirements of the office/agency. From all this prepare a blueprint. It should allow employees to plan and prepare for advancement. Employees and their supervisors then prepare and individual development plan. That should then show employees where they are now, what’s expected of them in the future, and what they need to do next.

Hopefully this helps. Joint venture Your ANC should know the answer. If not they need to ask their SBA rep

Don, I’m not in a position to check now but I don’t think the contracts have a maximum. Or if they do it’s very large. Even the maximum order limitation just about went away although the contracts contain a threshold where contractors have the option to decline orders.

These are the two key points in my opinion.

If the BPA is for FSS contracts, ceilings aren’t unusual. So yes, agencies have reasons for ceilings of which I can think of several. As far as third party protests, I can see how a party might prevail. An unsuccessful quoter can claim the BPA exceeded the extent of the competition.

HHS does this all the time. Whoever at your agency (program office side) that’s arranging for the evaluator just needs to ask HHS. They usually want to prepare the agreement for salary reimbursement. Contracting doesn’t need to be involved unless someone decides a non-disclosure is required as Carl suggests.

GSA has taken this position for a long time. So far there hasn’t been conclusive evidence or decisions proofing it’s wrong. On the other hand, several people argue differently. They say a BPA awarded consistent with FAR 8.405-3 (either competitively or justified sole source) is a contract and consideration conveys with the GSA contract holder providing added benefits to the government while knowing order competition is either limited to only BPA holders or themselves. I really don’t know.