Jump to content
The Wifcon Forums and Blogs

Crazy KO

Members
  • Content Count

    39
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by Crazy KO

  1. Perhaps my methodology would lead the requestor to do some research on his/her own. In that respect he/she may learn even more than what you have lended.
  2. Appreciate the valuable comments/information/case data. Yes Vern, you got it right; didn't miss a thing. These questions come up all the time and when reference is made to FAR Subparts and policy, etc., that are not always black and white, it's nice to know there's a place to go. And just so you know...we will award the contract with all 4 options on the schedule and operate accordingly.
  3. OK, let me try this again but this time, let's forget all about the circumstances. I think it muddied the water. I'll restate the question: 52.215-1(f)(5) which states "The Government reserves the right to make an award on any item for a quantity less than the quantity offered, at the unit cost or prices offered, unless the offeror specifies otherwise in the proposal." Can it be interpreted that "any item for a quantity less than the quantity offered" can be applied to "an option"? If the term "ANY ITEM" includes "OPTION #" like a CLIN, then I'm completely confident I know the answer. I believe this boils down to "intent" vs. reality. There are people in my office who feel differently. This is not a debate on whether we evaluate the options. It's also not about awarding the options. I'm simply soliciting the opinions from this specialized community on the subject of 52.215-1(f)(5)...that's it.
  4. OK, all areas you've covered in your reply have been considered. We get all that and we're fully aware of the government's rights on options. The RFP has closed and we are inches away from making an award, however, our management believes they have valid reasons for only awarding the base and allowing for only 2 of the options to be placed on the schedule rather than the 4 that were advertised. FAR 52.217-5 was included in the solicitation. If you read 17.206( b ), you'll see that government does not have to evaluate options. FYI we are an R&D type agency and we are not subject to the provisions at 17.2, however we do, as a standard practice use options on our contracts. My question deals with FAR 52.215-1(f)(5). Under the circumstances stated above and in my original post, perhaps someone can offer an interpretation of 52.215-1(f)(5) which states "The Government reserves the right to make an award on any item for a quantity less than the quantity offered, at the unit cost or prices offered, unless the offeror specifies otherwise in the proposal." Can it be interpreted that "any item for a quantity less than the quantity offered" can be applied to "an option"? Some in our office say yes, some say no.
  5. My interpretation of FAR 52.215-1(f)(5) is applicable to this situation: If the RFP is issued for a base year with 4 one year options can the Government award a contract for a base and less than the 4 options periods? All things considered, knowing that the options are at the Government's discretion, is it OK to award for less than advertised? Has anyone ever dealt with this? Any thoughts?
  6. I wonder if this piece of legislation would have been better suited had it been enacted prior the "Paper Reduction Act?" Perhaps it will force the latter to be more successful??? Just joking!
  7. I am reading "That Old Cape Magic" by Richard Russo. Author won the Pulitzer for his book "Empire Falls." Also read his "The Bridge of Sighs" earlier this month. I'm from Central New York State so he really hits home for me.
  8. Situation 1: My agency is allowing the block 16 signatory to be the person with this title "Head, Information Security/Assistant Security Manager" which is fine. However, the agency is allowing this person to use the title "Contracting Officer for Security" in Block 16b. I found this be a little odd and inquired about it to the person. The response was that our higher command appointed this person as a contracting officer for the purposes of signing the 254. This person does not fit the FAR 1.6 criteria or the DAWIA standards to have a warrant. This person does not ever award contracts, obligate funds, etc, etc. This person does not work in the contracts division and has no valid reason to be a contracting officer. Please tell me if I'm crazy (no reference or puns to my handle here, please). Situation 2: The above person has suddenly changed course to a well established and long held ANGENCY procedure that a vendor can be granted a facility clearance after award to the opposite "... that a facility clearance cannot be granted until a contract has been awarded." When we solicit for a new action that requires a DD 254 (and is clearly stated in the RFP) we usually get several proposals from companies that do not have a facility clearance. We always state in Section M of the RFP that all interested parties should have the ability to fulfill this requirement in XX number of months before being allowed to begin work in any classified part of the resultant contract. Now the Head, Information Security/Assistant Security Manager will not allow a contract to be awarded until the facility clearance is granted. It is my opinion that this is going to restrict competition...are we to state that ONLY vendors with approved facility clearance will be evaluated for award? Please render your thoughts.
  9. I went back and re-read the post. I actually weighed in on that thread. My question however, is, "Is it OK to allow the subcontractor's costs to go "unevaluated" while the Prime's are given a full scale costs analysis?" I looked at FAR 44.202-2 "Considerations" to find that the Prime must perform "...adequate cost or price analysis or price comparisons and obtained accurate, complete, and current cost or pricing data, including any required certifications." So I found the answer and will interpret that a "full-scale cost analysis" would include certification that this was performed. Thanks for responding.
  10. Situation: Multiple award IDIQs awarded as T&M contracts. All task orders that require recurring services are being converted to CPFF upon original POP end. RFPs have been prepared stating change to CPFF. Proposals coming in from IDIQ holders using unburdened rates but the subcontractors rates are loaded. KO has determined that the cost realism analysis will be done for the prime contractor's costs but not the sub's. Question: Is this OK?
  11. Trying to get some information on the use of an FFRDC. I received a FFP quote from an FFRDC that included a list of materials. The costs for the materials was extended out and then inflated with a 14.25% markup. We hold commercial companies to a very small fee for purchasing. I have very little experience with FFRDCs and I'd like to know if anyone out there has ever come across this type situation. The FAR at 35.017-1(d)(2) states: "The sponsoring agreement or sponsoring agencies? policies and procedures may also contain, as appropriate, other provisions, such as identification of? (2) Considerations which will affect negotiation of fees where payment of fees is determined by the sponsor(s) to be appropriate. My interpretation is that sponsors who write these agreements should be including rates. If the agreement states the FFRDC may accept work from a non-sponsor (another government agency), then the FFRDC would be submitting quotes/proposals that honor the agreement with the sponsor. If true, shouldn't the other government agency be allowed to review the agreement between the sponsor and the FFRDC. Am I going in the right direction here or am I out in left field? Any feedback would be great!
  12. There are many many many firms out there looking for you! I know of several that would gladly take you by the hand and get you through these processes. I'm not sure that if I mention any here in this forum that it would be appropriate. Can anyone out there give me guidance on that issue first?
  13. thomas.rutherford, that's a very sad story. But it is exactly that kind of CO to learn "how not to be" when you do become a CO yourself. And vice versa for the good ones. I am a strong advocate of getting to know your customer. The customer generates the need, you support them by producing the right instrument on which to achieve their need. I always tell my people that there are two top priorities and they take on equal weight...no matter what. Support the customer and produce a product that you're proud of because it goes out the door for the world to see. And oh yea...don't be afraid to ask questions. Keep up the good work!
  14. ji20874, You have no idea that it will be helpful or not. You're making an assumption that it will likely not be. I gave original poster an avenue of approach. She is relatively new to contracts, as she stated. Any information that would help him/her in their quest to learn more, as in this case what I provided would be helpful information, is good for the learner. Please don't be so quick to "correct."
  15. http://sbc.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?p=P...9b-ea2a5b192a22 Have you guys read this? It may help your side of the debate with your KO.
  16. Well those are all great ideas but none of them are mentioned in the DAR Interim Report (3-4-2010) Part III, http://armedservices.house.gov/pdfs/DARPan...terim030410.pdf. There is some suggestion that the re-certification process be more stringent, but no mention of KO warrant levels congruent with education, experience, etc. Why is that since 1990 and the DAWIA legislation, all this talk of improving and reforming the acquisition workforce, have we only gotten to this point? Which is nowhere close to where it should be.
  17. OK, suppose there were some "Procurement/Acquisition/Contracting" schools at some prestigious universities around the country, like "Law School" or "Med school", and high schools around the country were pushing the best and brightest business students to apply. Now let's add to this scenario that the Government takes it's existing warranted 1102 workforce and imposes new standards, much like the ones you suggest, and the result is that 75% of them (just to give it a number) become disqualified. Now what? Until we get the first wave of graduates from our new school, the remaining 25% who do possess the ability to pass the rigorous standards become overworked, (are not paid well, unless of course the field itself becomes recognized as worthy of its own elevated pay scale) how do you deal with that? Phase in each rigorous standard? How much time would this Utopian environment take to build? We are already dealing with a large gap in the workforce population. While I agree that a lot of 1102s are handed their warrants on a silver platter, I believe that most of them really take their jobs seriously. There isn't a single contract written that doesn't have a mistake in it, I don't care who wrote it. There isn't a single 1102 out there who hasn't made a error in judgment. There isn't a single lawyer out there who hasn't made a mistake either, or a CPA, or a doctor, or a scientist, or a truck driver, or a janitor. Perhaps the government would be better served if the 1102 series could be broken up into more defined specialties. Given the ever growing heap of responsibilities that an 1102 is tasked with, it may make a lot of sense to accept the fact that a cradle to grave work description is just too much for one person. Another thought: If we finally came to this new and improved contracting officer with some nice title before or after their name, would that cut down the gigantic amount of procurement oversight we deal with? I would think that since we have such low standards for the warranting process that it correlates to the massive amount of errors creating the oversight. So, wouldn't we be reversing then the whole game? I mean, if we had this new and improved KO, we surely could trust that they would then do the overseeing in a way that could eliminate some of it. No?
  18. I might say that I'm sorry I brought the CO/KO warrant issue into the picture, but I guess it did stimulate some valid arguments about how we get warranted, how we stay warranted, etc., but my intent was to emphasize the originial poster's comment about the GSA IT Managers not knowing acquisition. I should have said this: "I believe that the poster just offended the GSA IT CORs." I wonder what that statement will bring. BTW, I got my warrant the hard way. I cut my teeth at the bottom, serving as a procurement technician, then a buyer, then as a contract specialist, procurement analyst, cost/price expert, and finally, after a good many years of study and training, and experience, I was elevated to the ranks of the warranted few (at that time). And while I agree that some agencies will hang a warrant on you if your "qualified", sometimes it's done by design. I actually worked for an unnamed agency that did so on some "older" folks just to make them work harder. And when they didn't, the supervisor was were able to give them a less than stellar appraisal and out the door they went! Pretty risky if you ask me.
  19. Good answer Don Acquisition. But I would add that stating things like, "the GSA IT staff who are managing us do not understand acquisition" is just a tad offensive. I know we're not all brilliant but we darn sure didn't get our warrants for having a pulse either.
  20. I agree. There are different stages of R&D and different forms that would be easy to write metrics for but for DoD to come out with this final rule is puzzling to me, given the preceding data collected on this subject. What has changed since 2003 when the Interagency Task Force on Performance Based Acquisition completed their report?
  21. I pulled the report that the letter is referring to and got a lot of great stuff. I appreciate the response. I wonder why then, if the study clearly shows that some types of contracting cannot lend themselves to PBSA, that they would come out with this final ruling. What has changed?
×
×
  • Create New...