Jump to content

JTSurfah

Members
  • Posts

    15
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by JTSurfah

  1. Great stuff! I especially appreciate the somewhat out of the box analysis from Vern. Thanks everyone.
  2. Are there known issues with establishing Q&A deadlines in RFQ's? How about closing a solicitation when a question is received just hours before the closing date/time, but after the Q&A deadline? I was just told that our legal department will not support enforcing a Q&A deadline even if one is established. I don't necessarily agree with the position since it puts us at the mercy of any KTR whose strategy could very well be to ask last minute questions in order to extend a proposal/quote submission deadline, but thought I'd look around a bit before I discuss it with counsel.
  3. Ooops...read the posts out of order. I just got retreadfed's post: "recodification of title 41 brought the statutory language up to date." Is it weird/appropriate to place a Wifcon thread in a contract file? Thanks for all your help!! Aloha...
  4. Thanks! The contract is FFP, but it is for non-commercial services (>50M). That rules out exception (6). You stated: "I would further assert that, for purposes of CAS applicability, read the phrase "cost or pricing data" as "certified cost or pricing data" in reference to 9903.201-1, CAS applicability, (15) Firm-fixed-price contracts or subcontracts awarded on the basis of adequate price competition without submission of cost or pricing data. This is exactly the determination I was hoping someone would help me make, but I'm still left wondering how you came to your conclusion. It seems to me that since I am requiring in depth cost and pricing data...just not certified cost and pricing data....that CAS might be appropriate (if not actually required). Do you have anything that speaks to reading the phrase "cost or pricing data" as "certified cost or pricing data"?
  5. So, even though it is an FFP contract, since we are requiring "cost data" with the proposal but not "certified cost data" CAS DOES apply. Correct? **no other exceptions to CAS apply**
  6. Question: Does CAS apply to an acquistion over the applicable thresholds when "cost and pricing data" is required, but not "certified cost and pricing data"?
  7. I could use a little advice along these same lines. We are doing a source selection for non-commercial, fixed price services > than $50 Million. In the past, CAS was not included/required, but I'm thinking it might have been an oversight. Looking for a good answer one way or another. Email chain from this morning follows (mine is the response). -------------- Hi JT, I was talking to ___________ and had asked her about why she did not include CAS in the current contract. She said that CAS applies more for cost type contracts and she also looked up the CFR reference. So under item (15), CAS is exempt. Hi G, Thanks! However, price and cost data was submitted (not "Certified" but price/cost was still a required proposal volume). Also, price/cost was evaluated as significantly less important than technical and past performance when those factors were combined. Because of this, I find it a little difficult to see how we can say the award was made on the "basis of adequate price competition." Really the award was based on a trade-off between cost and non-cost factors with price/cost being the least important of all the factors. Based on this, I think that CAS does apply to the contract. One thing that would sway me on this would be if someone could show me that the phrase "submission of Cost and pricing data" in the reference you mentioned actually refers to the old days before we switched to making a clear distinction between certified and non-certified cost and pricing data. In other words if (15) read: "Firm-fixed-price contracts or subcontracts awarded on the basis of adequate price competition without submission of CERTIFIED cost or pricing data" then CAS clearly would not apply....but "certified" is not included in the sentence. It's possible that it's implied....but I wouldn't know how to make that determination based on the information available. I guess I probably need to check the GAO website for precedent. ------------- Any thoughts on above thread would be appreciated! 9903.201-1 CAS applicability Exemptions: (15) Firm-fixed-price contracts or subcontracts awarded on the basis of adequate price competition without submission of cost or pricing data.
  8. Interesting. But, if a FFP CLIN is constrained by NTE isn't a "pot of money" effectively set up? In my head, I've always thought that it meant the contractor could invoice up to, but not exceed whatever the CLIN was funded for. I also assumed that the "acceptor" or the "certifier" could reject an invoice for material that is not provided. Is this incorrect?
  9. Hello, I'm working on a non-commercial, communications facility O&M source selection. I've seen the reimbursable repair parts CLIN's done in a few different ways, and I'm trying to figure out which way is correct and/or a best practice. Caveat: I'm an intern, and I had nothing to do with the way these previous contracts were designed. Please don't kill the messenger. One of the contracts I'm consolidating has all CLIN's as FFP, but the FFP repair parts CLIN(s) have language like "Repair parts will be reimbursed at cost plus ____%" The soliciation had no percentage listed, and the award has a number filled, so I guess the strategy was to have the vendors compete on fee? The ACQ strategy doc doesn't speak to the issue. This doesn't make a lot of sense to me since we are already paying supply technicians, along with the associated overhead, G&A, and profit under a different CLIN. In my opinion, I see no reason - or justification - for allowing a fee for material purchases on top of the reimbursable cost....but that's the way it's being done currently. Another contract (different office) is basically the same, except that they used a cost type CLIN and the description included the exact same language. Both strategies give the contractor additional fee/profit for....? Not sure. They are already being paid for the labor used to make the purchase. I'm fairly new, so it's very possible I'm missing something. One more note: the contractor is only responsible for the first 2k in costs (per incident). Also, 75% of the initial CLIN value (on both contracts) is de-obligated after award (and at the beginning of each option period) and used to create an OPTAR which the contractor uses to order parts through the supply system. **A suggestion for a better way to do this would really be appreciated also** Anyway, my procurement analyst talked me out of using a cost type CLIN on a predominantly FFP contract. Now I'm considering a FFP CLIN with a Not to Exceed Constraint. Unit of issue = group. No profit/fee allowed. I feel more comfortable calling that CLIN what it is: Cost Reimbursement, but I'm being told that the administrative overhead involved isn't worth the trouble (total contract value between 50 & 100 million). Any thoughts?
  10. OMG, I would be lost without this website! Thanks! If you charged a small monthly fee, I would gladly pay. I was considering paying (bribing?) my procurement analyst to help me answer some of these questions...but I'm pretty sure she would just laugh and walk out at 7.99 hours. Really, WIFCON has become how I get my job done.
  11. Thanks! You helped with my secondary questions. For what it's worth, many SATCOM and CE (communications electronics) contracts are done non-commercial - including the predecessors to the consolidated group I'm working on. I appear to be going slightly against the grain. Anyway, there's a long history behind why I asked seemingly obvious, possilbly even stupid questions, but I won't bore you with the details. The primary question was whether or not I am required to use an 1149.
  12. 53.215-1 -- Solicitation and Receipt of Proposals. 53.212 -- Acquisition of Commercial Items. Between the above, and 12.102? which states that "when a policy in another part of this chapter is inconsistent with a policy in this part, this Part 12 shall take precedence for the acquisition of commercial items" it looks like I'm stuck with using a 1449? Is it possible to use the UCF with a 1449? In case it matters: I'm doing a > than 50 million dollar source selection for commercial services for O&M of communications equipment and facilities, and IT support. In the past it has been done as a non-commercial acquisition, but after much debate, we've made a commercial determination this time around. Feel free to shoot holes in this determination as well. Thanks!
  13. I agree, but the CBA effectively sets the base....and it's not necessarily competitive. In fact, I would argue that it is rarely competitive. The labor rates in the CBA I am reviewing for this effort are consistently 15 to 25 percent above area wage determination rates for the same or similar work...before adding in the premiums for shift work, lead, haz pay, etc. On top of that, the Health & Welfare rate is 172% above the SCA H&W rate!
  14. Thanks for the reply. Advice taken. I'm wondering whether a CBA constitutes "prices that are established in the course of ordinary trade between buyers and sellers free to bargain and that can be substantiated through competition or from sources independent of the offerors." My gut feeling is that they do not satisfy this definition. I guess I'm going to stick with the non-commercial determination. Thanks again for your help!
  15. My first WIFCON Post I need some help with determining commerciality on a requirement for SATCOM, HF, VLF, EHF, UHF, and IT services (umbrella K). Past contracts have been determined as non-commercial, but I'm not the type to do things "because we've always done it that way." After some research (see below), I found that some of the military communication systems that the contractor is expected to support are not "of a type customarily used by the general public or by non-governmental entities for purposes other than governmental purposes." This leads me towards a non-commercial determination. However, in Competitive Negotiation (Cibinic & Nash, 1999), the authors point out that there is a second type of commercial service known as "stand-alone services." My reasoning after reading this reference is as follows: The contracts we are recompeting are all covered under CBA's. Since the labor categories are basically sold commercially at hourly rates e.g. Electronics Tech, Antenna Mechanic, Facilities Supervisor, Maintenance Mechanic, etc., and can be found in AWD's generated by DOL, in addition to being found in the CBA's, this effort qualifies as commercial under the stand alone services criteria (see ref pg's 22-23). One more twist: We recently did a mod to one of the current contracts which resulted in an additional labor category. Unfortunately, they called it something very specific (BMD / MIDAs operator), in the CBA. Does the fact that they were so specific, and that the labor category now links back to a very specific, non-commercial system, defeat my premise in the last paragraph? If I were advising on the process I think I would have asked that they name a more geneneral category like "Communication Systems Operator III" ....or something along those lines, but this all happened before my time. Here are some links to some of the systems being supported: Non Commercial (my opinion): http://www.janes.com/articles/Janes-Milita...ted-States.html http://www.eis.army.mil/dcats/n-04-09-02.html http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wideband_Global_SATCOM_system http://www.afspc.af.mil/library/factsheets...eet.asp?id=5582 Commercial (my opinion): http://www.fas.org/spp/military/program/com/an-fsc-78.htm I'd really appreciate any advice. I keep swinging back and forth on this, but I have to make a decision quickly in order to generate/assign a solicitation number for the upcoming RFI. It could get messy if I change my mind later, and then generate a new solicitation using a different form, and number. Thanks for reading!
×
×
  • Create New...