• Content count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

0 Neutral

About kitty

  • Rank
    Copper Member

Contact Methods

  • ICQ
  1. Mere symantics my friend since I am referring to this gentleman's specific question and scenario. It is under a CPFF contract, and he is in a sole source environemnt, and I am not aware of other circumstances to make assumptions. A cost analysis may be used to evaluate data other than certified cost or pricing data... (4). Let's help the professional out by offering useful information.
  2. This is an easy one. If the Government is requesting new work to be added to an existing CPFF task order, then ask the Government customer for a revised PWS (preferably with track changes), an IGCE for the new work, funding evidence and other information that your organization requires for the package to provide to you as the contracting professional. If you have everything that you need to make a determination that it is within scope and it should not be competed, then create an RFP for this Contractor and let them know exactly what is expected of them for a Cost Proposal submission. Do not forget that task orders are subject to TINA (review FAR Part 15.403-1 for exceptions) if applicable. The cost proposal will be a sole source action; therefore, a cost analysis will be required. If TINA is applicable, follow Table 15-2 under FAR 15.408 and include this information in your request to the Contractor. Then you will need to perform a cost analysis (FAR 15.404-1© once you receive the Contractor's proposal submission). Remember under the scenario of New Work, the fixed fee is to be re-negoatiated based on the level of risk of the New Work. If this work is an overrun, no fee will be considered. If the customer tells you the Contractor just did not finish work that is already in your PWS, and you have validated this, then it is an overrun. If the Government has the funds, and is willing to increase the ceiling through modification, then document that it is an overrun and be very clear that no additional fee will be included in the ceiling increase.
  3. As a Chief of the Contracting Office, I know it is incumbent upon you to document any attempts to the Contracting Officer this incident. The CO's response to you is unacceptable. Vern is correct, in that, this is what we refer to as personal services, and the Government has no right to dictate what you should pay your employees. If you are paying what is obligated by law (under DOL), or appropriate exempt salaries that were determined to be reasonable at the time of award, the Government should not be involved. If the Contracting Officer does not respond in a responsible manner and/or threatens your livelihood, then take it up to the next level. If the CO is the highest in that particular office, find the organizational chart for the agency, and report an incident of personal services to the next person in charge. If more Contractors pursued this, the Government abuse would slow down. I will remain optimistic! Make sure your documentation is organized and captures the essence of the entire incident. Good luck.
  4. My final recommendation to you would be to call the GAO Hotline or email them (this is on the GAO website) by indicating you are seeking an informal decision regarding your matter. Give them as much information as you have regarding the circumstances. They will forward it to the appropriation attorneys who will respond within 72 hours. And, good luck.
  5. I just had a discussion with a GAO Attorney regarding this very issue. It is acceptable to exercise an option, let's say for 1 October, in the month of September, contingent upon availability of funds on 1 October; however, if on 1 October, funds are not available via a CR or actual funding, there is no contract. The Contractor should not be performing, and the Government cannot purport that it will pay in the rears or be paid retroactive. This is an antideficiency since you are obligating the government when there are no funds available.
  6. I,m not sure why a Contracting Officer would provide you with this guidance, especially as a new specialist. If you do not include an evaluation of the technical approach (moreso than staffing), how can you reasonably determine "how" the Offerors are going to accomplish the work or determine what innovative approaches they may bring to the job? Where would the discriminators be in a best-value, trade-off analysis? If you want the most competent contractor to perform the work, I would suggest you create factors and criteria that will provide you value at the end of the day. Doing nothing should not be an option, even if the FAR does not speak to it specifically. Ensure that you do what you say you are going to do in your evaluation plan, and a protest will not be invited. If your task order is performance based, then, I would suggest -- if the contractor does not perform in accordance with your PWS and standards in your PRS and QASP, then the KO should act to ensure remedy is immediate. As I look at it, I don't care if they bring Mickey Mouse to the table as long as the work is performed in a Satisfactory manner or better. Staffing factors do not provide any guarantee that the people they bring to the table are competent. What matters is what happens on site.
  7. I agree with the other comment that additional information is required to adequately respond; however, I refer you to GAO case file B-401472 regarding an extension of task orders or contracts on the basis of Clause 52-217-8. GAO is challenging this premise if you did not price the extension at the front end of the contract. They see it as a new procurement.
  8. I am interested in an extended response to this one as well. I have a similar situation in which the requiring activity wants to put a task order in place that has a base year and 2, one-year options. The ID/IQ contract expires half way through the first one-year option. What authority allows you to exercise the second option year? I agree that the fill-in to clause 52.216-22 should have identified an end date, but it appears, it was left blank.
  9. Good morning and thank you for your comments. The scenario has changed slightly, albeit still within the same realm. The request is to treat the task order as an ordering instrument wherein they award a task order for let's say 12 months. The task order would consist of 50 subtasks which would be treated as though they were options. For consideration, the government would "exercise" one of the priced subtasks at time of award (contractor will have priced all 50 preaward (based on a general description and estimated number of Small, Medium, and Large sites). During the 12 months, they would "order" when the customer called with a location, job and funding. It is an IDIQ within an IDIQ at the task order level. I agree with you wholeheartedly, but would like to turn over as many rocks to understand how those who have done it work out the details (or not). It appears to have too many risks for both parties, and in my judgment -- does not meet the intent of the FAR for IDIQ/Ordering.
  10. Perhaps your questions invite people like myself to provide some scenario information so that you can provide your valuable insight. This is all part of the learning process and the purpose of WIFCON. And we appreciate these by the way! My first paragraph is the only part of this scenario I know for certain. The remaining pieces are all based on a number of "what if" conversations with the customer. At this point, making reasonable judgements of the methods we acquire services is my primary focus. Needless to say, I want to know who has done something similar to the above, and what authority did they use to do it. Realizing transparency is important to the current administration, I don't want to be trying something that is not tried, true and ethical.
  11. The "Task Options" are priced out on the front end of the task order as "Small" "Medium" and "Large" sites. Each of these is defined in general terms based on historical information (even though the specific location will dictate unknown conditions of the site). For the Task Order, they may state, "there may be up to 50 Task Options during the life of the task order (not sure if 1 or 2 years)." Prior to the "exercising" of each of these task options, a customer (or multiple customers in multiple locations) will call and say they need work to be performed at their site. The customer will state whether they believe the site is a Small, Medium or Large. The task option is exercised at the price the contractor provided at the front end of the task order based on the definition of a SM, Med and Lg. Once the contractor arrives to the site, they may determine the job is really a Medium instead of the Small that was priced. In this case, the KO would do a modification to the Task Order and price it at a Medium. The variable may be the condition, access and age of the infrastructure that services will be provided.
  12. I wish you were right -- but no. We have done task orders with Option Years in past; however, this is the first time they are asking for task options wherein the time of "exercising", availability of funds, and location of work to be performed (and to what extent) is not known until a customer calls them with a specific need. Other than the first 6 months of identified work, the timing of these "options" may occur within the next year or so. The argument presented is, "the FAR does not state you can't do it." However, my concern is that they are treating the Task Order as the ordering instrument and options as defined under FAR Part 17.2.
  13. I have a customer who has a requirement for a Task Order against our MAC IDIQ contract. The Task Order would include a 6 month Base Period that includes defined work and a deliverable that would be due NLT the 6 mos date, plus numerous "Task Options" that can occur at any time thereafter. Another words, in lieu of an Option Period tied to the task order, they would like the contractor to price multiple "Task Options" that may occur sometime after the first 6 mos. base period ends. There will be gaps between the Base Period and potentially every "Task Option." The task options would need to be exercised when the funding, location, work and dates are identified by yet another customer. What authority allows these periods to be exercised, independent of the base period and with gaps between under the same Task Order? And, how do you exercise a "Task Option." Typically, an option is exercised while a Base Year or Period is underway and prior to it expiring. In this case, the Base Period will have expired. For example, a deliverable is expected to be submitted during the base period of 6 months. Then a few months pass, and a task option may be exercised with a POP of 2 months; then another task option may be exercised a few months later. Task Options would occur as the customer calls with the funding, location and work identified.