napolik

Sacre bleu! On ne badine pas avec le CO!!

The millennials let their fingers do the talking and the walking on and off the job.

Email volume is a key performance standard.

Consideration is required for all contract types. See here: https://www.dau.mil/aap/pages/qdetails.aspx?cgiSubjectAreaID=28&cgiQuestionID=112375.

201.301 Policy. (a)(1) DoD implementation and supplementation of the FAR is issued in the Defense Federal Acquisition Regulation Supplement (DFARS) under authorization and subject to the authority, direction, and control of the Secretary of Defense. The DFARS contains— (i) Requirements of law; (ii) DoD-wide policies; (iii) Delegations of FAR authorities; (iv) Deviations from FAR requirements; and (v) Policies/procedures that have a significant effect beyond the internal operating procedures of DoD or a significant cost or administrative impact on contractors or offerors.

The term BPA was created over 50 years ago for a Small Purchase instrument. For whatever reason, GSA chose to name as a BPA the Federal Supply Schedule (FSS) instrument described in FAR 8.405-3. They are different instruments subject to the different rules. The Simplified Acquisition BPA is subject to the rules set out in FAR 13.303; the FSS BPA is subject to the rules set out in FAR 8.405-3.

Please provide the cite(s) supporting your conclusion. Also, please look at FAR 13.003(a).

The term BPA was created over 50 years ago for a Small Purchase instrument. For whatever reason, GSA chose to name as a BPA the Federal Supply Schedule (FSS) instrument described in FAR 8.405-3. They are different instruments subject to the different rules. The Simplified Acquisition BPA is subject to the rules set out in FAR 13.303; the FSS BPA is subject to the rules set out in FAR 8.405-3.

RU suggesting the AF is a bunch of caffiends?

Security clearances and associated procedures.

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.