Jump to content

formerfed

Members
  • Posts

    2,131
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by formerfed

  1. 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!
  2. Really good explanation, Carl
  3. 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.
  4. 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
  5. 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.
  6. One large difference is FAR 36.207 is just about construction contracts. But I see your point.
  7. I’m posting this from LinkedIn. It’s a Ryan Connell comment. Interesting and shows promise that our acquisition process can be more responsive to our nations needs. Here’s more information on Tradewinds https://www.tradewindai.com
  8. A good PM should be free to utilize whatever performance management they feel is best for their project. Mandating EVM as “one size fits all” doesn’t seem wise. I wonder if anyone looked at project successes over the past few years, comparing pre and post EVM mandated ones, to determine if there is any differences?
  9. @Vern Edwards Most agencies I see have too few supervisors to perform this. Plus not all supervisors are the best at teaching. There are some really good 1102s that just enjoy their jobs and don’t want to supervise.
  10. Vern, I just quickly did this. It’s not good but I think the idea should come across Provide developmental assignments, conduct oversight of work, provide guidance and assistance, and provide educational instruction as needed Allow trainee to assist in and participate with completing own (Mentor’s) advanced work assignments. Allow trainee to “shadow” mentor in meetings, events, and other activities.
  11. Joel, your description is often typical. That’s because “mentors” are assigned based because management sees no other useful purpose for them. I’m talking about assigning bright, insightful, and highly knowledgeable people that love to teach and help individuals grow and learn. The process also is a two way street where the trainee is the right fit. I’ve seen it done successfully many times. Off the top of my head I can quickly think of three current SESers that advanced that way.
  12. Maybe the most beneficial training method I’ve seen involves mentoring. But the mentor has to be among the wisest as you put it as well as enjoy teaching and imparting knowledge.
  13. 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.
  14. There isn’t. It’s negotiable. In fact, assumptions often are included but subtlety overlooked. Offerors make assumptions in proposals and contracting officers then incorporate technical proposals as part of the contract. It’s a sloppy way of doing business but quite common.
  15. Whatever. Apparently you wanted to argue this charge account terminology with your post yesterday in response to Vern’s question. I’m done.
  16. 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.
  17. He was but I can’t remember exactly what his role was. I think at the time he represented DoD when the ideas were kicked around. But he ultimately approved the FAR changes when became the SPE at GSA and was one of the FAR signatories.
  18. 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.
  19. 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.
  20. 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.
  21. 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
  22. 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.
  23. 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.
  24. Wholeheartedly agree. I was going to post something similar. The basic strategic problem is CBP is trying to interject the small business program where it doesn’t fit.
  25. 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!
×
×
  • Create New...