woops85

Vern - I agree that a Task Order is a contract but there are places in the FAR, specifically 16.504 where the two terms have very distinct meanings and some folks want to use them interchangeably. I do assisted acquisitions and have had the conversation multiple times that yes you can award a single TO for over $100M without getting head of agency approval because the multiple award preference paragraph is referring to the IDIQ, not the task orders under the IDIQ. As for the other, I meant to state sole-source versus single award. Sorry for the confusion. In the background of the DFARS case I cited, the write-up referred several times to a prohibition on sole-source IDIQs when they really meant single award IDIQs. Guess I should have read what I wrote more carefully to ensure it said what I meant.

Re: Tactful Most times I think I am and can get my point across by coming to the discussion armed with facts. Sometimes however, being blunt is the only way. As I told someone this week as we were going over a D&F to be approved by the HCA - "You asked me a question and I gave you example language as an answer that would make your point for you. If you don't like the words I chose, use your own. But make the point." Sometimes those closest to a contract forget that the person who has to approve an action doesn't have the history they do - and they don't need it at the same level we have it

So so true. Drives me nuts when people use terms interchangeably that are not interchangeable - such as "ceiling" and "funding". The background discussion for DFARS Case 2009-D036 was another prime example - mixing terms like task order and contract and my personal favorite, sole-source and single source.

Let me start by saying, I haven't had this happen to me. Was this potential situation considered and addressed in either your acquisition plan or your technical evaluation plan? If so, as long as you do what you said you were going to do, then you are golden. Personally I don't believe you have an issue as long as you do it the same way in all the evaluations and you document what you consistently did (Eval report shows that for vendor with Neutral on Past Performance, you determined overall proposal rating by doing x). If your approach to determining overall rating is averaging, then I think you are okay by changing the divisor to be the number of remaining factors. If the approach involves adding up weighted scores then you need to ensure that your method doesn't give them a zero for that factor and thus negatively impact their total.

Will defer to folks like Vern, FarFetched and Don A, but at my office it was interpreted several years ago that if 52.217-8 was in IDIQ, it could be applied to the Orders issued under it even if not included in order. But that interpretation changed late 2007 (I think) and now interpretation is that if not in order, cannot be used nor can it be added after award.

Jose - Just curious. How do you know the award process didn't include the required LH D&F? The D&Fs would not be part of the contract, but instead resides in the Government's contract file. Since it was sole-source, the CO would have written a document supporting the sole source and could have easily written the labor hour D&F at the same time

Just when you thought there might be a light at the end of the tunnel that wasn't a freight train....

If Limitation of Funds clause is available and it's a cost reimbursement type contract, what is the issue? If I am reading your post correctly, you are funded through the end of your current option period but the Govt is short of funds for the next period. Since Limitation of Funds is in the order, the Govt can incrementally fund your option period. If your PCO wants to extend the term of the existing period, you would need to have 52.217-8, Option to Extend Services in your order. 52.217-9 is the clause that allowed you to have option periods in the first place.

I think a key point in the decision is this QUOTE In support of the RFP provision at issue here, the agency states that the lengthy process involved in obtaining a facility clearance, and the possibility of a negative outcome that would render a potential awardee unable to perform the contract, could make the agency vulnerable to delays in contract performance. Given the agency?s need to implement increased security for the Pentagon and other facilities as soon as possible, which requires minimizing delays in awarding the contract and expeditiously completing the transition to the heightened security standards, we think that the record establishes that the facility clearance requirement and the agency?s refusal to sponsor potential awardees for the facility clearance are reasonably related to the agency?s needs. UNQUOTE The agency had a choice as to whether or not to allow companies without a clearance to bid. They had the justification to support their choice of not allowing to bid based on the negative impact of a delay in performance. For me, the decision of requiring facility clearance at time of proposal would all be based on the work involved and whether I could adequately describe the harm to the Government should performance be delayed. Or think about it in these terms - if someone protests your RFP as being unduly restrictive would you be able to justify proceeding with an award IAW FAR 33 to your HCA? If so, you've probably got a good case for requiring the clearance at time of proposal.

Ref ceiling rates. A good example of this was the now expired Millennia GWAC. Contract allowed all contract types and the Section B clearly stated that the proposed T&M rates would act as ceiling rates for any Cost Plus orders. The way it wound up getting implemented (and some folks disagreed with this) was that the average rate charged to a labor category could not exceed the ceiling rate. It was a moving average for the contract year so there were times that a vendor got a rate adjustment that was in their favor but were unable to bill all of it. It also prevented them from replacing a bunch of folks in the same labor category with higher paid folks because it would force the average rate up. Plus the ordering CO could also negotiate into the Task Order lower ceiling rates from those that were in the contract itself. This disagreement on the implementation was that some folks wanted the ceiling to be applied to each individual rate, instead of a labor category average rate. Interpretation was asked for from the PCO and he said that contract intent was labor category level but an RFP could certainly specify individual rate level, but if TO was silent labor category level average applied.

Sit 1: FAR 4.403??Responsibilities of contracting officers. Emphasis added Sounds like your agency has guidance that designates the Security Manager to be the CO's rep. Since it is a CO responsibility to approve the form, I would hope that the CO is the one to designate their authorized rep for security matters. Sit 2 NISPOM states Contractor who doesn't have a clearance should request sponsorship during solicitation and CO should prepare and submit the sponsorship letter, citing the RFP as the reason. That allows the contractor to begin discussions about getting the FCL with their supporting DSS office while proposals evaluations are ongoing. If the contractor does not receive the award, the CO should withdraw the sponsorship request. One thing we do is prepare the sponsorship request if asked but we don't submit it to DSS until and unless the contractor actually submits a proposal. It's a form letter so we include information in how to request sponsorship if needed in our solicitation cover letter. Your Head, Information Security/Assistant Security Manager is wrong and should re-read the NISPOM. However - if schedule is a critical performance factor, the delay that would result from waiting for an awardee to be granted their FCL could be evaluated as a risk or weakness from the technical side. It could not be seen as a deficiency since it's a chicken and egg process with DSS and you can't get the FCL unless you have work that requires it.

The Army's Contractor Manpower Reporting requirement. While on it's surface a worthwhile and necessary requirement, the data must be entered into a system that was designed around the way the Army enters data. So each December, I get a long list of orders that we issued where the data is "incomplete" because I work for GSA and we number our contracts and task orders differently, and our fund cites do not match the expected format. After about 2 months of emails explaining that the data as listed is correct and providing copies of documents to prove that really is the contract number and fund cite, the truth is accepted until the next year - when the same contract information comes up as "incomplete" again. (sigh)

Looks like someone has finally decided the Coast Guard should be subject to DoD acquisition rules/regs/workforce policies, even though it's not always part of DoD

You may remember from a few years ago that the former GSA Administrator, Lurita Doan, was accused by the GSA IG of improperly executing a contract when she didn't have the authority to do so. Final outcome to that was there was never a contract in place. Was just part of the contentious (sp?) relationship between her and the IG. Don't have a link but could probably google "Lurita Doan, IG" and get some good reading material.

Thanks JL

Requirement would be based on the information required to support the price proposal. Proposal has to state whether the teaming arrangement is a prime-sub relationship or a CTA. I'm not a CO but do work at GSA and my COs tell me that under a CTA with 2 companies, they are actually making 2 awards with the award documents reflecting the items off of that vendor's schedule. Maybe that's just the way they've been directed to implement CTAs here based on Acquisition Letters, PINs or GSAM guidance.

But if the orders were done right, C1 can't invoicce for the things on C2's schedule - C2 must do that. So how is C1 getting paid? In order to invoice, C2 must have the backup documentation to support the invoice or else you've opened up another whole can of worms

With the new airline fare rules, would assume they are looking at a change fee plus the difference in the cost of the previous ticket home (assuming it was bought already) and the last minute ticket. Although most airlines will give you the 7 or 21 day advance purchase price if you have a death in family, these days they often do it as a refund to your credit card after you have provided some proof - obituary, detah certificate, etc

Nah we just need a law that requires everyone who drives to keep 2 hands on wheel at all times and makes it a primary offense so law enforcement can pull people over for it. Think of all the money from the tickets. No more texting, changing radio stations, flipping people off Oh wait - may have gone too far with that last one

http://fcw.com/articles/2010/09/15/~/media...stion_memo.ashx Thoughts on the Memo? Are the items long overdue? Possible/Impossible to achieve? What kind of impact do you see it having on you?

There's a 14 Sept memo out from OSD (AT&L) that covers SecDef Gates' 23 points. One of these specifically addresses a situations where DoD should have preference for FFP and when they should have preference for CPFF. If you read Federal Computer Week or Government Executive online, you can find a link to the memo

I thought the current DoD requirement was you had to receive three bids or have shown to have taken the steps for the increased competition. And that using E-Buy and selecting more than 3 vendors to receive the e-mail was simply a relatively easy way to accomplish the showing steps part. After all, unless you check the vendor's name so they receive notification, E-Buy is no better than FBO in that no one forces a vendor to look at it on a daily/weekly basis. It's a forum to make posting easier for Govt but onus is still on vendors to go find the RFPs/RFQs

Wouldn't it matter if the subs were be billed out before as ODCs or under the Prime's T&M rates? Thinking that if it was billed out as an ODC before, was fully loaded and then had G&A or MH on it anyway and situation would be the same under the CPFF if the prime had a T&M subcontract set up.

I could not agree more!!!! First you have to find them on Insite since they don't always come up if you shoose the References and Resourcces Tab. Was just hunting yesterday for something.

Suggest you go to GSA.gov and search on "Contractor Teaming Agreements". http://www.gsa.gov/portal/content/104448 The write-up there is pretty good. What both of your scenarios fails to take into account is that in a CTA (not prime-sub relationship), the CO is actually making an award to each of the contractors for the items on their individual schedules. There's a FAQ as well as a number to the MAS National Help desk. But your question is in the FAQ ===== 12. In a GSA Schedule Contractor Team Arrangement (CTA), who is responsible for reporting sales and remitting the Industrial Funding Fee (IFF)? Each GSA Schedule contractor is responsible for reporting its GSA Schedule contract sales and remitting the appropriate IFF. ====