leo1102

I would check with the local SBA for this information?

I remember exactly where I was and what I was doing - .

I was working as the Battalion Commander's Secretary at the 30th AG Bn (Rec) at Ft Benning, GA. The National Guard liaison office down the hall had a television in it. One of the soldiers came running down the hall (I heard the footfalls before seeing the soldier). He told me that a plane had hit the World Trade Center. Leaving my desk, I arrived at the television just as the second plane hit. Standing there dumbstruck by what we were seeing, we (civilians employees and soldiers - a large crowd had grown by then) began talking about the new soldiers we were processing through the reception station and what the world would hold for their future because this was an act of terrorism - plain and simple, no question, we were certain. I returned to my office to notify the Battalion Commander of the events - he was in a meeting and at first was quite angry at the interruption but understood my urgency after the fact. Then the plane hit the Pentagon. I was sitting at my desk processing the influx of phone calls, when the civilian personnel advisor for our Regimental HQs phoned to tell me that the Pentagon had just been hit. Immediately I rushed into the Battalion Commander's office and informed him and then went across the hall to inform the Executive Officer. The Executive Officer looked me straight in the eyes and said angrily "You're a liar". Dealing with the shock of being called a liar to my face, I responded that she needed only to check the television news to see the truth (she never did apologize for calling me a liar and our relationship was forever changed). It was at that moment that I remembered that the former battalion commander had left the 30th AG Bn (Rec) for the G-1 offices of the Pentagon. I phoned her cell phone, no response. I phoned her husband's cell phone, no response. I phoned her home phone and received a standard voice mail. I phoned her office and received a standard voice mail. I didn't know that the cell phone circuits were probably overloaded at that time and I certainly did not know that it was precisely where her office was located that the plane hit the Pentagon. The next morning, first thing when I arrive at work at 0730, I phoned her home number and, thankfully, she answered. Yes, she had been at work. Yes, overall she was OK (we would later learn that she had some hearing loss and other minor injuries). A meeting was scheduled for shortly after she reported to work on 11 Sep. She was not in her office when the plane hit, but in a conference room further down the hall. I never forgot that the soldiers we were processing through the Reception Station and who would go on to Infantry Training were going to be soldiers in a world that was far different than it was prior to 11 Sep. The influx of recruits grew steadily and these brave patriotic volunteers went into the breach.

No, don't see any information in the contract about OY.

What is the period of performance for the option line items? Exercising an option 30 - 60 days in advance of the expiration date of the current period of performance is most common. You can not exercise and option period while changing the period of performance for that option period without a bilateral modification signed by the contractor. If I was a contractor, there would have to be a real good reason to shorten a period of performance because that could impact adversely impact my income. Check to see if the contract has clause 52.217-9.

What would never have happened if Stevens was still a Senator is the scrutiny of this boondoggle.

I don't have a problem with "implied overuse." But I have a problem with sole source awards to billion-dollar companies counting as awards to small business.

.

Brian - Thanks for the clarification.

well, this never would have happened if a certain Senator was still in office.

What never would have happened - the implied overuse of ANCs under the 8(a) program or the uncovering of the implied overuse?

Formerfed - Thanks for the clarification dated 6 Jul 09. I have been out of the office for the past two weeks and am just getting around to reading WIFCON.

So here's an issue. If an agency gives small businesses preference, can a small and large business enter into a GSA teaming agreement? If each party is in privity with the government on such an agreement, as GSA states, does that mean there are two contracts, and that the agency can't award the large business portion of the contract, because small business was a preference factor?

The reason a large and small firm might want to team would be to use both parties' schedules.

There's no cases or guidance on this that I can find - because there aren't supposed to be setasides on schedules.

It is my understanding that only one order (GSA orders not contracts) to the prime contractor. For example - A GSA order is placed with a small business (Prime) that performs more than 50% of the requirement and that small business has a teaming agreement with a large business (Subcontractor) that performs less than 50% of the requirement. There is no order issued to the large business teaming partner, only to the small business partner.

FAR 8.405-5 subparagraph b states:

Ordering activities may consider socio-economic status when identifying contractor(s) for consideration or competition for award of an order or BPA. At a minimum, ordering activities should consider, if available, at least one small business, veteran-owned small business, service disabled veteran-owned small business, HUBZone small business, women-owned small business, or small disadvantaged business schedule contractor(s).

While I know that this does not state that set-asides are allowed under FAR Part 8, doesn't it allow placing language such as "In an effort to support the socio-economic goals of the requesting activity, small businesses will be given preference in the best value evaluation for this award IAW FAR 8.405-5 subparagraph b" into the narrative section of the GSA e-Buy RFQ?

parkerr - I was hoping you would weight in on this subject since I consider you very knowledgeable on the DOD Army policy.

Fort Benning's Contracting website has great GPC information. You can check it out at

https://www.benning.army.mil/DOC/GPC.htm

I just finished soliciting a large value RFQ on GSA E-Buy. The GSA master contract contracting officer permitted us to add any FAR, DFAR, AFAR or local clauses that applied to the requirement not already in the master contract. We determined proposal submission instructions and evaluation criteria much like a solicitation issued under FedBizOps.

I've been trying to find the industry standard of all certifications, but my search has only directed me to several sites selling classes etc.

My question: When someone in contracts administration/management says "I have all of my contract certifications", what does that include?

Farfetched: I think you mean Level Certifications in Contracting. Duty Positions require certain levels of certification. Certification includes any required coursework (on-line and resident) required to be certified as Level I or Level II or Level III in Contracting. If you are interested in exactly what courses are required, you can go to the Defense Acquisition University website.

.

I've placed about 15 bids through this system, and have yet to win anything.

Every bid I've placed went straight into LAG status, meaning I didn't hit their target price.

Or possibly that they already had a lower bid.

Every time I think I've been the low bidder, the requirement gets canceled or reposted.

Yesterday I posted a very conservative bid, allowing for unexpected contingencies, and they emailed me to say my price was awfully high, and asking me to verify my pricing.

So, buyers who use this system:

how is it working out for you ?

.

To add a contractor in the middle of federal simplified acquisitions for materials and simple services made no sense when GSA and FedBizOps was available without a fee. I never, ever used FedBid. I could be wrong about this but it is my understanding that the contract expires in June and the option is not being exercised. Has anyone else heard this?

Your statement "Usually search engines only turn up a lot of junk related to the GSA FSS and nothing else" is a strange comment to make. GSA FSS 58 5 contains 24 separate vendors that supply various makes and models of CCTV cameras. Most of these items are commercially available in the open market and can be found during a routine Google search. Most of the GSA FSS vendors are small businesses.

You may want to contact a Federal Government contracting office that currently has a translation contract/purchase/delivery order in place. They may be able to assist you. Look for places like Fort Benning because the Western Hemisphere Institute for Security Cooperation is there and documents are translated from Spanish to English or visa versa regularly. You may also want to try Southcom units who deal a lot with South American governments and agencies. Perhaps even the Defense Language Institute will be able to assist.

Leo1102,

Joel was diplomatic but I want to be clear to other readers. Your logic is wrong.

A consultant may or may not cost more per hour than a full time employee. We don't know. If I had to guess whether bigred's consultant cost the company more than a full-time employee, I would guess no, because bigred was willing to continue billing the consultant at the same rate the employee was being billed at. That suggests to me that the costs likely were not significantly higher for the consultant vs. the employee scenario. But we don't know for sure.

Why don't we know for sure whether consultants "regularly cost more per hour than full-time employees"?

Consultants usually charge a per hour rate. If charged as a direct cost, that charge is burdened with applicable contractor indirect costs (which will vary by contractor, but will almost certainly NOT include any fringe benefit costs). As a side note, if charged as an indirect cost, it probably receives no burden (or at most a G&A burden), but given the context of the discussion, that's very unlikely to be bigred's situation.

A full-time employee, on the other hand, charges a direct labor dollar amount per hour (based on annual salary or hourly wage rate), which is also burdened with applicable contractor indirect costs (which again will vary by contractor, but will almost certainly INCLUDE fringe benefit costs). It's not unheard of for a contractor total burden factor to exceed 100% or even 200% of direct labor dollars, especially if manufacturing is involved. I have personally seen contractors charge 400% or even 500% manufacturing overhead burdens on direct labor. Fringes run in the 30 - 40% range and aren't going down any time soon (because of soaring medical and pension costs). G&A is G&A, no telling what that rate is. So you can see that it is not at all clear which scenario represents the higher contractor costs (but I'd put my money on the full-time employee).

Regardless of the foregoing, the Government will NOT experience increased costs under a T&M contract type (all things being equal) because the contractual labor billing rates are fixed, and thus don't change simply because the contractor's costs vary. The only way that the Government would pay more would be to establish a higher labor billing rate for the consultant versus the labor rate that the consultant was billing at when he/she was a full-time contractor employee. And as I noted above, I don't think bigred would expect a significantly higher billing rate for the consultant.

Hope this helps.

here 2 help: Thanks for the detailed rebuttal to my e-mail. I learned a lot reading your response, the least of which is that I should not have responded to bigred's initial inquiry without having the knowledge required to do so.

Ladies and Gents of the Forum,

I have a situation where my organization is the Prime Contractor on a DOD T&M contract and one of my employees has left my company as the result of a move, but I would like to retain her services as a consultant from time to time in support of the same contract.

When she was my employee she was mapped to an IT Specialist Category at $XX/hour. Now that she is a consultant the CO wants us to provide a new rate for her. Can anyone shed any light on this situation? I was always under the assumption that we could map her to the same category at the same rate?

Any thoughts would be appreciated.

On the other hand, consultants regularly cost more per hour than full-time employees which would increase the cost to the Government under T&M.

One question not being asked here that has a bearing on scope is whether the GSA FSS under which the order was written allows telecommuting. While the GSA FSS specific contract with the firm is most likely silent, if it does specifically state work on site only then there is a bigger scope question facing you than just the whether scope of the order can be construed to allowing telecomute, the order itself would be outside the scope of the GSA FSS. So back track a little and determine if the telecommuting is allowed by the GSA FSS.

Carl: I did ask that question in my post on 9 Feb. And I fully agree with your point.

The Acquisition Department awarded a task order against the Federal Supply Schedule for Program Management Support Services. The period of performance for these services is 9/26/08 - 12/30/10. The contractor is required to perform these services on the government premises. The Contracting Officer also permitted the contractor to perform these services away from the government premises (telecommute); however, there was no written agreement established at time of award nor was there a written statement included in the SOW. Can the task order be modified to include this agreement? And if so, what do I include in the modification?

Let me understand this correctly - the place of performance as stated in the FSS order is "Government premises" and the KO is permitting the contractor to telecommute from another location without a modification to the order. Are you asking whether telecommuting is within the scope of this order? I would not think so as the cost to telecommute is often less than working on location. Did the GSA FSS price include location work or the option to telecommute? Did the RFQ include the possibility of telecommuting? Would offeror's quotes have been different if telecommuting was permissible under the GSA RFQ? What about IT security issues - will your IT permit a contractor remote access? In addition, even though the actual work being done by the contractor is not changing, the location may not allow sufficient Government oversight. Does your office have a legal advisor - If so, I would ask for a review and a determination. Let me know what happens - I find this very interesting.

Wouldn't it be a bit presumptious of us to assume that the contractor (Ktr) would know whether the contracting officer (KO) violated the ADA or not? I have never had a Ktr ask a KO if he/she was in compliance with ADA, or for that matter, if a KO was within his/her authority to obligate funds. I agree that an unauthorized commitment (UAC) appears to have been made by the KO and that the determination needs to be made whether to ratify or not. For this specific instance, I would recommend a stop work order until the UAC issue is determined. The Ktr still retains his right to be paid for the work completed to the date of the stop work order.