formerfed

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.

I believe the commercial services example is just symptomatic of a much larger issue. That’s the 1102 workforce is risk adverse. Nobody wants to try anything new or do anything different from what worked in the past. Any new work or requisition assignment starts with searching to find a past example that can fit. Nobody wants to be criticized or blamed. The chances of being rewarded for trying something new is small compared to the magnitude of being faulted for making a mistake. If you notice, few new initiatives or major changes immediately get implemented. Rather most wait until new detailed policies and instructive are written and issued and training is prepared and conducted. By following the step by step instructions of the policies, adhering to the training, and copying examples, the 1102 reluctantly proceeds.

Yes. Agree. I’m encouraged by seeing some agencies lately requiring more contracting training for PMs and CIO staff

I may get some riled up here, but why do acquisition personnel need training strictly and succinctly about commercial products and services? It’s not complicated. What’s needed is a basic understanding of the specific market and that’s easily acquired through some time online and maybe one-on-one sessions with some industry concerns. I agree with your comment about the acquisition team playing the role. But often the team looks to the contract specialist/contracting officer. If that person can’t suggest ideas and lead to a sound path, we are doomed.

One attractive but never achieved benefit of commercial is adoption of efficient buying practices. The government really doesn’t know how to do that. If the government doesn’t understand a specific market segment, a good starting point is market research. Find how who are leading commercial sources. Invite a few to talk. Have them explain how customers typically acquire their services/products. Ask them about best practices and success factors. What are the indicators and attributes of the best performers. How are companies selected? What are potential pitfalls and how to best mitigate?

This has happened in a couple instances I’m aware of. In both times it was documented as an administrative oversight. A senior contracting official (HCO and HCA) remedied it. In one instance the CO warrant was revised to include the higher amount. In the other instance, the contract was modified to designate another CO with the proper level. A lot really depends on the exact language in the warrant. Without knowing what the warrant says, we are just speculating.

Here you go Pages 3-10 through 3-14

Yeah I would be surprised to see a COR appointment letter authorizing this type of action.

Yes, that’s an unauthorized commitment.

Yes. When the value is order the SAT, you have two choices: You probably are confused by subparagraph (A) when it refers to e-Buy. e-Buy is not the GPE. Rather it’s a GSA built system that notifies Schedule contract holders of an opportunity.

To save you time going through all the clauses and background, GSA published this a few years ago. 5.15 answers your question ODC. Also see 3.5 saying that everything must be commercial.

This is really good and detailed guidance. CPARS section 5.1 answers your question. You need to do the report now even if the pop is 24 months

@CuriousContractor_22 Some questions. Are you asking about T&M contracts in general or just task orders under GSA Schedules and other types IDIQ contracts? You mentioned special item number and that usually refers to GSA Schedule. What’s your source for saying fee isn’t allowed on ODCs?

I Good point. But if market research is done properly, there shouldn’t be surprises. It’s pretty easy to ensure sufficient responses are received.

Since the hypothetical is done using FAR 8.4, an easier approach and alternative to two-phases is conduct market research upfront. Only solicit sources with known experience.

I believe the scope of the BPA is limited to needs of the IRS Enterprise Program Management Office. That excludes Treasury. So without knowing more, I would say no. Occasionally someone can make a case that another organization like Treasury has an integral piece of the IRS EPMO needs so funds are transferred to the IRS to acquire the needs of Treasury. But usually is a stretch though. Edit: I’ll add this for the sake of readers thinking “we do this all the time.” Yes, agencies do. They often cite the Economy Act, FAR 17.505-2 as authority as well as some basics out of appropriations and funding legislation including use of intragency funding transfer. This has gone on for years with little criticism by oversight officials. But it often isn’t proper.

APS29, it’s important to understand the main purpose in identifying discounts in labor rates to GSA. GSA uses that information to evaluate proposals and negotiate for award. They usually don’t get into specifics of every line item but instead focuses upon two things at a high, overall level - sales to other customers with the chief emphasis on commercial and discounts offered to the various categories of customers. Their goal is awarding contracts at discounts to the government equal to or better than the most favored customer. When you structure your offer, the primary focus is clearly explaining what you are offering and how that compares to your sales to other customers. In the most simple terms, you show a discount to GSA compared to discounts to others. The more different discounts and varying labor categories you have, the more complicated the offer becomes. But the overriding principle is that the GSA CS/CO fully understands your offer. You might use a spreadsheet showing details or elaborate with lots of narrative attachments. But take care to fully explain and disclose everything. My advice is complete your offer as best as you can and submit it to GSA. The assigned contract specialist will get in touch with you to ask questions and perhaps negotiate. If they don’t understand something, they will let you know. The important thing is that you take time to explain in clear and complete terms what you are providing.

CFO, the FAA is not subject to the FAR. They have their own acquisition regulation with associated clauses. It’s called the Acquisition Management System. You can do a search to gather information. But I doubt a clawback clause is part. What does the RFP say? If you don’t understand, ask the FAA contracting officer.

Neil, I think he’s talking about specially crafted clauses that says the prime will pay the sub after the prime gets paid. For example, the prime pays the sub within 15 days after the government pays the prime.

The Court seems to want to justify its jurisdiction and explain protestors standing in as many words as possible.

The most common contract type used for these type services is IDIQ with fixed unit prices. Certain program individuals are designated as ordering officials. They are authorized to place oral or other orders for tests. The contracting officer then issues funded blanket orders periodically such as quarterly to cover the oral orders.

First time I’ve seen this. It also uses the Contracting Cone and the Periodic Table to better visualize everything. It looks like a great training tool for pretty much everyone involved in the acquisition process.

Agree. One of the most positive work related experiences I had was in an acting capacity for my boss. He oversaw contracting, budgeting, accounting and strategic planning. Seeing and understanding how it all relates and integrated was eye opening. That, and several other influences, showed me that the goal of procurement is not the award of a contract. This NCMA article is one of the most profound readings out there.

Thanks for sharing that Jamal. Disappointing that someone with that level of influence with NCMA can purport this.