napolik

I believe the FAR is clear that there must be an option clause and that its substance must mirror 52.217-9.

The FAR requires the use of an option clause: 52.217-9 is brief, simple and clear. I fear the results if each CO creates his or her own clause. Keep using 52.217-9.

Well, the GAO has just issued a new decision involving an allegation of lack of advance planning: Trailboss Enterprises, Inc., B-415812.2,B-415970,B-415970.2, May 7, 2018. https://www.gao.gov/products/B-415812.2,B-415970,B-415970.2

The decision recognizes the contracting office's obligation to track its contracts and their expiration dates and to take appropriate actions to award a competitive follow on contract: "Defendant’s subtraction skills notwithstanding, in the court’s view, the fact that three officers retired is not enough to excuse the agency’s failure to ensure it was properly staffed. As plaintiff notes in its supplemental brief, the GAO has sustained a protest in which the agency sought to justify a sole-source award on the basis of similar personnel issues. See ECF No. 74 at 13 (citing Service Contractors, B-243236, 91-2 CPD ¶ 49, 1991 WL 135563 (Comp. Gen. July 12, 1991). Service Contractors involved a sole-source contract award for grounds maintenance at properties for which the Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) was responsible. In the protest action, in which the protestor alleged that a non-competitive award was improper, the agency alleged that “personnel turnover and inexperience” sufficiently explained the need for a sole-source award. Service Contractors, 1991 WL 135563, at *1. The GAO disagreed, and held that the agency’s defenses related to inadequate personnel “essentially recognize the lack of advance planning and merely provide an excuse based on the limitations of the agency procurement personnel.” Id. at *3. The court agrees with this reasoning, and concludes based on the evidence in the record, that the agency’s inadequate staffing was due to its failure to plan for staffing needs in the relevant department."

Going back a few decades, contracting officer used to keep track of contracts' performance periods, including option periods. This was done via a pencil and a hard copy spreadsheet. Well before contract expiration, COs asked their customers about needs for follow on contracts. As time passed and IT entered the scene, keeping a list of existing contracts was facilitated, but the COs became unwilling or unable to perform these fundamental tasks. And contracting office managers did not hold COs accountable. COs that cannot track their inventory of procurement actions and that cannot correspond with their customers need to be stripped of their warrants and removed from supervisory positions.

While DAU courses are important to reducing the lack of knowledge among contract personnel, I believe OJT is equally, or more, important. One can learn concepts in DAU courses offered in classrooms or on line, but the true meaning of the concepts and their application can be learned only on-the-job. The actual application of concepts, policies and procedures via the conduct of a procurement creates knowledge, not the viewing of Power Point slides in a classroom or on a computer screen. From my experience, very few, if any, contracting offices have an OJT program.

Bravo!

Either absorb the cost, or refuse to submit a quote/ proposal. Or, call the contracting officer, explain your concerns and hope for an amendment to the solicitation that reduces your burdens.

Strategic UNsourcing: http://www.nextgov.com/it-modernization/2018/03/company-calls-out-old-guard-after-pentagon-cuts-its-nearly-1-billion-cloud-contract/146529/

Well, don't construct them like the 15.3 process. Try other approaches that are more efficient and , more importantly, more effective. http://www.wifcon.com/discussion/index.php?/topic/1731-gsa-buys-award-without-discussions/&

Perhaps greater use of FAR Part 13, and/or Sub parts 8.4 and 16.5, in lieu of FAR Part 15, would reduce the insidiousness as FAR Sub part 15.3 procedures would not apply!?

Who is guilty of the insidiousness - Secret Svc or contractor?

I would prefer to see the GAO retain bid protest jurisdiction. In fact, I would prefer that the COFC get out of the bid protest business. But, I know this will not happen. First, the GAO knows the procurement legislation and processes better than COFC judges. This superior knowledge allows the GAO to issue decisions more quickly than the COFC and to be more consistent with the practices flowing from procurement law and regulation. Second, the GAO will issue a single decision, and it will follow precedent. The COFC takes longer than GAO, and its 16 judges can issue different decisions on the same topics. Third, the GAO decisions are expressed more clearly and are, therefore, more readily comprehensible than the COFC decisions. These are my opinions based upon my years of experience in procurement. I do not have any empirical evidence to support them.

In my experience, a clearance is a document setting out a plan of action and supporting information. The document can be prepared as an Acquisition Plan, as a Pre-negotiation plan, as a Post-negotiation summary and source selection or as an explanation/ justification of a contract administration action (e.g. option exercise). The approval or disapproval of the clearance is made by a contracting officer, an SSA, or another reviewer/review board within or above the contracting office. The degree of detail contained in the clearance varies by contracting office. Some agencies address clearances in their FAR supplements.

Past performance can encompass "commercial" or private contract performance. See FAR 15.305(a)(2): See also FAR 12.206: