Jump to content
The Wifcon Forums and Blogs


  • Content count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by Weno2

  1. The government has an IDIQ K (does not have option periods), and because of mission requirements, no longer has a need for the services. The government has met the stated minimum quantity. When the government notifies the contractor, could the KO send a letter to the contractor, informing the contractor that the government will no longer place orders against the contract? Or could the KO issue an unilateral modification, cancelling the contract? Thanks
  2. Source selection, tradeoff process. The contracting officer requests the technical evaluation team chairperson, for a briefing after the technical evaluation of each offeror. KO's rationale is it would save time, and be allow the KO to be active during the technical evaluation process, instead of getting the evaluations at the end of the technical evaluation processs. The chairperson refuses the contracting officer's request. Was the KO's request unreasonable? How involved/proactive should a KO be in the process?
  3. The rules in this Department, is the chairperson provides a preliminary report to the KO. After the KO blesses the preliminary report, chairperson finalizes the report. The person responsible for the decision, sees the report (final) after KO approval. Joel, the chairperson brought up the exact scenario regarding possible changes. I said not an issue, b/c I've seen evaluation teams make adjustments during the process, and I've allowed such adjustments. I gave the chairperson two actual examples of when the team realized their "perspective' changed, so there were some scoring adjustments. If we were located in the same location, I would sit in and observe the evaluation process, serving as a neutral party, to make sure the process is fair and consistent. Stop by a few times just to take the temperature of the evaluation process. I learned a lot about the program, (i.e., what the government was buying, how it meets the mission, and the dynamics of the evaluation team) while sitting in and/or making occasional visits. Are they all on the same page? Are they "leaning" towards a contractor, etc.? And -in turn - the evaluation team (customer) learns more about the KO, and the roles and responsibilities of the KO.
  4. The TEP and the KO are in different locations. The explanation the chairperson gave was it would take more time, if they had to "brief" (probably a harsh word to use) the KO after the evaluation of each proposal. I'm sure I'm the first KO to ask the program office for any information pertaining to the evaluation, prior to their submitting their report. Vern, did you have a conversation with the technical team after the evaluation of each proposal? Or did you wait until the technical evaluation team completed all their evaluations, and the chairperson provided a report of their evaluation? I know the dynamics of each source selection is different, so my questions are "Did you generally." I revised my request to a consideration w/the chairperson providing the contracting officer with a written preliminary rating and recommendation after each technical evaluation. Is that an unreasonable request?
  5. Weno2

    Economical LPTA

    If you use Economical LPTA, what reason would one have to include solicitation language regarding "establishing a competitive range" and FPRs?
  6. Cost Plus Fixed Fee Procurement. Contractor's proposing a fee on their other direct costs (ODCs), and the government is negotiating to remove the fee from the ODCs. The contractor says it's their "standard practice." Is this an unreasonable negotiation tactic?
  7. If the ODCs require significant effort, and involve a significant cost risk, the contractor would receive profit recognition. The proposed ODCs are travel, supplies, teleconferencing (the connection and the hourly rate), duplicating (making copies), computer services (number of hours using a PC, times hourly/rate), and postage. Was easy to explain and justify.
  8. I knew I wasn't going bonkers, asking the CS to engage in negotiations. What makes this rich, is the contractor contacted the customer and complained that contracting proposed removing profit from the ODCs. The customer's Director complained to the Head of Contracting, that the KO is negotiating this, this b/c it's "standard practice" to pay profit on ODCs. And the KO is having to explain and defend the decision to negotiate on the ODCs. Guess we could've went for the motherlode, and questioned why we're paying profit AND G&A on the the ODCs. And some wonder why 1102s are ejecting from the Series, or can't wait to retire.
  9. Weno2

    Technical Evaluation Team

    Just a matter of having all parties undergo a paradigm shift in their thinking. And trying to convince 1102s that if you allow stakeholders to treat you like a glorified clerk, instead of the professional you should be, you'll be a glorfied clerk. But that's a different blog (ha, ha).
  10. Weno2

    Technical Evaluation Team

    I wish it was that easy. I've sat in on the entire evaluation process, and I've had the CS sit in, and as the KO, I was present for the "reporting out" of each offeror's proposal. Our stakeholders are in DC, or in other regional offices. The KO/CS doesn't know who things are going until the stakeholder sends the TEP report. The only thing the stakeholder asks is "When can I have the cost proposal?" It would be interesting to know if they're evaluating a contractor one at a time, or doing a "comparision" of all the offerors. The quality of the TEP reports would improve if the KO was more involved in the process. Now, you get - pretty much- trash reports, and you're spending time working w/the TEP, JAG, cleaning up the report. Maybe DOD KOs are move involved in the entire source selection process, than civilian agencies, or some agencies respect the integrity of the process more than other agencies.
  11. Weno2

    RFP Cover Letters-Content

    I agree if the acquisition's a major dollar, complex (e.g. two-step), "important" (e.g, ARRA) acquisition. I'm seeing them for EVERYTHING! GSA, simplified acquisitions, commercial services, etc. I'm running an office, and would LOVE to put the kibosh on this practice. Then I have the hear the "This is the way we've ALWAYS done it." Well, we ARE starting a new decade....
  12. Knowing it's a KO's choice, how much content should be in an RFP cover letter? I am seeing letters that tell the offeror to read Section's L and M, complete Reps and Certs, read the SOW (Section C), etc. Why are "we" spoon-feeding propspective offerors?
  13. FAR 16.301-3(a) addresses the government can use a CR contract when (1) The contractor's accounting system is adequate for determining costs applicable to the contract. FAR 15.404-2©(2) states "The KO shall not request a separate pre-award audit for of indirect costs, unless the information already available from an existing audit, completed w/in the last 12 months, is considered inadequate for determining the reasonableness of the proposed indirect costs." (1) Can the government use an adequate audit of the contractor's accounting system, completed w/in the last 12 months to determine the adequacy of the contractor's accounting system for a new CR contract? (2) Should the government use an adequate audit of the contractor's accounting system completed w/in the last 12 months to determine the adequacy of the contractor's accounting system for a new CR contract? Does FAR 16.301-3(a)(1), determining the adequacy of the contractor's accounting system pertains to the specfic CR K? Not the contractor's overall accounting system.? My understanding is you would determine the adequacy of the contractor's accounting system every time you are awarding a CR K to the contractor. Does FAR 15.404-2©(2) only address indirect rates, and not the contractor's accounting system? My understanding is there is a difference b/w indirect rates and a contractor's accounting system.
  14. I've seen various iterations of CLIN structures in T&M solicitations. Some Cost/Price Schedule CLINs provide the labor categories, and allow offerors to propose the labor rates and hours. I've seen Cost/Price Schedule CLINs provide the labor categories and the labor hours (for each category), and allow offerors to just propose the labor rates. Is there a "preferred" method? Also, if the solicitation CLINs has the labor hours for each prospective labor category, could the offeror propose different labor hours?
  15. Have a T&M procurement for serivices (studies), that requires an acquisition plan. FAR 7.105(a)(3) Cost, reads "Set forth the established cost goals for the acquisition and the rationale supporting them, and discuss related cost concepts to be employed, including, as appropriate, the following items: (i) Life-cycle cost. Discuss how life-cycle cost will be considered. If it is not used, explain why. If appropriate, discuss the cost model used to develop life-cycle-cost estimates. (ii) Design-to-cost. Describe the design-to-cost objective(s) and underlying assumptions, including the rationale for quantity, learning-curve, and economic adjustment factors. Describe how objectives are to be applied, tracked, and enforced. Indicate specific related solicitation and contractual requirements to be imposed. (iii) Application of should-cost. Describe the application of should-cost analysis to the acquisition (see 15.407-4)." The writer of the acquisition plan states the procurement isn't applicable under (i), (ii), and (iii) above. The program office provided an Independent Government Cost Estimate (IGCE), breaking down cost based on staff time, indirect rates, ODCs, etc. Is an IGCE a cost concept under Life-cycle cost? My opinion is an IGCE meets the definition of life-cycle cost. Does anyone know where I can get a government definition of the Life-cycle and design-to-cost?
  16. Same pot of money. When reading your earlier post, my interpretation was there would be CLINs for the CR effort. The solicitation has a Section B clause that addresses the not-to-exceed amount for travel and ODCs. I'm used to having CLINs for other contract-types, so, I figured one would have the same (CLINs) for CR-type procurements. Guess that's when looking at examples of CR-type Ks (or combination w/CR as an element), I didn't see CLINs for CR. Trying to get a better grasp on the CR/CLIN issue. Thanks Vern.
  17. Combination fixed-price/CPFF services procurment. The FP will have CLINs for some of the tasks in the statement of work task (SOW). There are some tasks in the SOW, that are cost-reimbursable. My question is regarding other direct costs (ODC). The previous K had a FP CLIN for ODCs, and a CR CLIN for ODCs. Is it better to address the ODCs in totality as a cost reimbursable (w/a not-to-exceed amount), or have a CLIN for FP CLIN for ODCs, and CR CLIN for ODC?
  18. Vern, There will be costs for Travel under fixed-price and a cost-reimbursement items, and there will be costs for other direct costs under cost reimbursement. So I would establish a sub CLIN under fixed-price for Travel, and sub CLINs under cost-reimbursement for Travel and ODCs. For example, under fixed-price (CLIN 0001), the RFP would have CLIN 0001AA Fixed Price Tasks and CLIN 0001AB Travel. Under cost reimbursement (CLIN 0002), the solicitation would have CLIN 0002AA Cost Reimbursement Tasks, CLIN 0002AB Travel, and CLIN 0002AC Other Direct Costs. There will not be separate "other direct costs", b/c the costs will be included in the fixed-price.