Jump to content
The Wifcon Forums and Blogs

napolik

Members
  • Content Count

    783
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Posts posted by napolik

  1. On 12/4/2018 at 9:41 AM, Desparado said:

    The same is true with debriefings, which is why the trend now is to do debriefings in writing and eliminate the inevitable back-and-forth where offerors conduct a fishing expedition to try to find a reason to protest.

    I have always liked debriefings for 2 reasons.

    First, the pain-in-the-ass contractors spend a lot of time and effort preparing essays and submitting offers for the Gov't's benefit. They're entitled to know why they lost.

    Second, it gives contracting officers the opportunity to demonstrate that they know the procurement inside out and to explain clearly and directly why one contractor won and the other contractors lost. This debriefing deters a protest.

  2. 18 hours ago, RachelleR said:

    The office discussion is whether this course of action taken by the Contracting Officer was permitted since the funds were chargeable to the current fiscal year vs new fiscal year.

    Earlierr you said 

    On 11/10/2018 at 6:11 AM, RachelleR said:

    Scenario: Contract was awarded for base year and 2 option years that begin and end in October each year (Base Year, 12 Oct 2017 - 11 Oct 2018; Option Year 1, 12 Oct 2018 - 11 Oct 2019; Option Year 2, 12 Oct 2019 - 11 Oct 2020). Funding is O&M. Contracting Officer was prepared to exercise option year 1. Due to system issues Budget Officer was unable to route a PR to Contracting on the last day of the base year period of performance.

    You are OK if the contracting officer exercised the option SAF in anticipation of use of FY 19 annual funds for period 12 Oct 2018 - 11 Oct 2019.

  3. 4 hours ago, Lionel Hutz said:

    So, my advice would be to have the contracting officer review the terms of the BAA.  Assuming:

    1) the BAA allows for a direct award of a contract,

    2) the work could otherwise be awarded as a new contract under the BAA,

    3) the option price is still fair and reasonable, and

    4) modifying the contract to exercise the option is in the best interest of the government, THEN

    the parties may bi-laterally agree to modify the contract and exercise the option PROVIDED the KO documents the file to reflect the above determinations AND as part of that determination states that although a new contract could be awarded, for administrative convenience the parties have agreed to exercise the lapsed option.

    Please provide FAR cites and /or GAO decisions supporting your theory.

  4. 20 minutes ago, ji20874 said:

    A J&A is not always required to add "new work" to an A-E contract.  One can add "new work" to an A-E contract by bilateral contract modification after either (A) the competitive procedure described in FAR 6.102(d)(1), or (B) a J&A.  

    And if you fail to exercise an option for an A/E contract, how do you add the work to the contract? Same question as it applies to a GSA schedule.

  5. 26 minutes ago, ji20874 said:

    If the "new work" falls under FAR 6.102(d)(2), the competitive procedures are a BAA.

    Paragraph (d), Other competitive procedures, identifies 3 procedures in three sub-paragraphs - (d)(1) addresses selection of sources for architect-engineer contracts; (d)(2) addresses basic and applied research; and, (d)(3) addresses use of multiple award schedules. Can you issue without a J&A a contract mod for a lapsed option if the contract involves an A/E contract or a GSA schedule?

  6. I agree with your observations on Ask A Professor. I answered the question raised by the Sig. CP, and I provided the reference as an aside because he cited Ask a Prof in his initial post and because it addressed a BAA.

    I believe the Professor did address the issue of using a bilateral mod to provide the support contained in the unexercised option:

    Quote

    I sympathize with your frustration with the slow funding process and the inability to award an option on timeUnfortunately, you can not award an option after the contract period of performance has expired. CLIN 001 has expired and CLIN 002 is no longer available because the Gov't could not exercise it without needed funding.  Your references are at FAR 17.204 Contracts (b) The contract shall state the period within which the option may be exercised  You did this with your CLINs/Section F and 52.217-9 "Option to Extend the Term of the Contract" According to this clause and fill-in, the Gov't had the capablity to exercise the option within 10 days of the end of CLIN 001.  

    Unquote

    Quote 

    Starting all over again with a source selection or a sole source justification is very resource intensive and of course it is likely that we will not get the same employees.

    Unquote

    What is your response to his question - "Is such a modification an abuse of the Agency's authority and outside the regulations?"?

  7. 1 hour ago, CharterParty said:

    The work does not fall into the category of "the work covered by the modification would otherwise be subject to the statutory requirements for competition". 

    Is the work described in the option you failed to exercise?

    Also, FYI, see this DAU Ask A Professor discussion of failure to exercise BAA option: https://www.dau.mil/aap/pages/qdetails.aspx?cgiSubjectAreaID=28&cgiQuestionID=113891https://www.dau.mil/aap/pages/qdetails.aspx?cgiSubjectAreaID=28&cgiQuestionID=113891

     

  8. 3 hours ago, CharterParty said:

    My position is should the fact pattern presented in B-21913 be modified to switch the award authority the conclusion would change.   In the possible scenario above should an Agency fail for any reason to exercise an option under a contract properly awarded against a BAA a bi-lateral modification to continue the original performance be agreed to by the parties then performance may continue absent the need for a FAR 6 J&A.   Is such a modification an abuse of the Agency's authority and outside the regulations?

    The BAA is covered by FAR Part 6:

    6.102 -- Use of Competitive Procedures.

    The competitive procedures available for use in fulfilling the requirement for full and open competition are as follows:

    (a) Sealed bids. 

    (b) Competitive proposals. 

    (c) Combination of competitive procedures. 

    (d) Other competitive procedures.

    (1) Selection of sources for architect-engineer contracts in accordance with the provisions of 40 U.S.C. 1102 et seq. is a competitive procedure (see Subpart 36.6 for procedures).

    (2) Competitive selection of basic and applied research and that part of development not related to the development of a specific system or hardware procurement is a competitive procedure if award results from --

    (i) A broad agency announcement that is general in nature identifying areas of research interest, including criteria for selecting proposals, and soliciting the participation of all offerors capable of satisfying the Government’s needs; and

    (ii) A peer or scientific review.

    (3) Use of multiple award schedules issued under the procedures established by the Administrator of General Services consistent with the requirement of 41 U.S.C. 152(3)(A) for the multiple award schedule program of the General Services Administration is a competitive procedure.

    ______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

    FAR Part 6 Competition requirements do not apply to contract modifications, including the exercise of priced options that were evaluated as part of the initial competition:

     

    FAR -- Part 6 
    Competition Requirements

    6.000 -- Scope of Part.

    This part prescribes policies and procedures to promote full and open competition in the acquisition process and to provide for full and open competition, full and open competition after exclusion of sources, other than full and open competition, and advocates for competition. This part does not deal with the results of competition (e.g., adequate price competition), which are addressed in other parts (e.g., Part 15).

    6.001 -- Applicability.

    This part applies to all acquisitions except --

    (a) Contracts awarded using the simplified acquisition procedures of Part 13 (but see 13.501 for requirements pertaining to sole source acquisitions of commercial items under Subpart 13.5);

    (b) Contracts awarded using contracting procedures (other than those addressed in this part) that are expressly authorized by statute;

    (c) Contract modifications, including the exercise of priced options that were evaluated as part of the initial competition (see 17.207(f)), that are within the scope and under the terms of an existing contract;

    _________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

    Since the BAA is covered by FAR Part 6 and since the option was not exercised, you are not providing for Full and Open Competition if you create a mod to extend the period of performance. The principle set forth in Vern Edwards’ GAO case cite remains valid - Washington National Arena Limited Partnership, B-219136, OCT 22, 1985, and it applies to BAAs. Thus, you must comply with FAR Subpart 6.3 and must write a J&A.

  9. If there's no question that the contractor will meet the tech requirement even though the quote didn't clearly demonstrate compliance, put together a purchase order containing all the tech requirements, get the contractor's signature and countersign the document.

  10. I assume that you did not describe a FAR 15 evaluation/ award methodology.

    If you did not include in the solicitation a provision allowing you to establish compliance with tech requirements via info other than the contents of its quote, then you should obtain a revision to the quote. Or, prepare a purchase order containing all the tech requirements, send it to the contractor, and obtain the contractor's signature on the purchase order.

    You need not obtain revisions from other quoters unless their quotes reflect similar "non-compliance" issues and offer a better price/ value. 

    FYI, see 

     

     

  11. 5 hours ago, formerfed said:

    One thing that really stands out to me is the old workforce had a small group of highly knowledgeable, experienced, and capable individuals unmatched today.  These people acquired that through self motivation, learning, training, and OJT.  In many cases they happened to be in the right job in the right organization at the right time.  At the same time, large pockets of the workforce lacked training and expertise.  They practiced tasks based on what was passed down to them by word of mouth and traditions, many of which were wrong.  That's the way they learned to do work and those were reinforced by agency practices and even policies

    I must disagree with you on these points.

    I was very fortunate to be hired by a field contracting office that bought everything and that emphasized personnel training and development. In my experience, my 1102, 1105 and 1106 colleagues were very knowledgeable. I was most fortunate to have been hired by someone who understood the importance of creating knowledge via formal training, on-the-job training, rotational assignments and the use of Contracting Officers whose jobs included the oversight and training of the 1102 workforce.

    I participated in DOD and DON courses on the ASPR; benefitted from regular training in the office; received work assignments designed to improve my knowledge of formal advertising, negotiations, small purchases, R&D, GSA schedules, supply and services contracting, and pre and post award activities; and worked for GS 13 contracting officers who carefully reviewed my work, identified my errors, explained why they were errors and corrected them. Then, the future arrived.

    All training was assigned to entities outside the office, with much of it occurring “on-line”; IT and “procurement systems” arrived and minimized/ eliminated the need for or the disposition to review 1102 work products; the 1105 and 1106 workforces were eliminated and all administrative tasks were assigned to 1102s; 1102s were not held accountable for errors in the planning and execution of their cut and pasted procurements; and contracting officer warrants were distributed to many/ most/ all 1102s at the GS 13 grade level.

    Full disclosure: I have grey hair and significant difficulty with keyboards. And, I miss hard copy texts and carbon paper.

  12. 45 minutes ago, Vern Edwards said:

    If you think I did, then my last post failed.

    I don’t seek to inflict failure; I want to bestow success!

    I agree that “…job content and working conditions are drastically different”, but I think the today and yore workforces can be compared. Let’s look at and compare virtues, knowledge, skills, talents:

    Virtue, …, Talent

    Better Workforce

    IT capability

    Today

    Cutting and pasting

    Today

    Selfie sufficiency

    Today

    Willingness to give OJT

    Yores

    Client support

    Yores

    Knowledge of regs

    Yores

    Well, it’s 3 to 3, but I say, up Yores!

  13. On 10/10/2018 at 8:27 AM, joel hoffman said:

    I'd say that the overall level of qualifications of the 1102 acquisition workforce has vastly improved since 1990, when the acquisition corps was established. 

    Does this mean you believe the current 1102 workforce is implementing statute and regulation and supporting their clients better than the old workforce (i.e. procurement clerks, procurement agents, contract specialists and contracting officers) that was hired prior to the introduction of the college degree requirement?

×
×
  • Create New...