Search the Community
Showing results for tags 'performance'.
Found 4 results
A couple of months ago we lost a LPTA re-compete to a company with a less than stellar reputation. Call them Scuzzball. True to form they made employment offers to some of the incumbent staff at 25% - 33% less than they were making. Most said no, apparently with some juicy adjectives thrown in. Word coming back from the government site via people still there is that Scuzzball has had only only a couple of people show up, clearly an insufficient number to do the work called for in the RFP, and presumably their contract, and that the supported population of people on the government site are unhappy with the absence of support from Scuzzball. I'm predicting that Scuzzball will try to get increases in their labor rates in one way or another (new labor categories for example). I'm looking for a way to stop them from being rescued. I'd prefer the government takes a hard line with them and drives them into bankruptcy, removing them from future competitions and causing an early re-compete of the contract. Does anyone have any advice as to how to make sure this happens?
Hello all, I am looking to re-compete a FAR 16 IDIQ, most likely a "requirements contract." It is for supplies, Firm-Fixed Price, and after competing, will be a single-award IDIQ. I have a question for input regarding the Period of Performance (POP) limitations. Is there any reason why the IDIQ cannot have a five-year straight period of performance with an overall ceiling? The FAR references that task/delivery orders are generally five-years with options but I found no reference regarding direction when setting up the POP for the over-arching IDIQ. Has anyone had experience with these? I'd prefer a straight POP avoiding the need to exercise options when we know we will be using this particular supply.
Hi, I am reviewing a SOO (per FAR 37.6) from a technical office. Mostly traditionally performance-based, it does contain prescriptive elements of "how" under certain IRs akin to a traditional SOW. Though unusual given the differing purposes, I see nothing in the FAR or my agency supplement that prohibits the mixing of PBC with more traditional methods if it makes logical operational sense. Does anyone have examples where a SOO and SOW were mixed (e.g. as separate sections) under one solicitation? In my case, neither would be on a fixed-price basis. thanks
I'm interested in feedback... My Assertion No. 1: A size standard protest under FAR 19.302 is not a protest to the agency under FAR 33.103. It's not a protest to the agency because the agency cannot decide the protest. My Assertion No. 2: Accordingly, FAR 33.103( f ) (with its prohibition on awarding the not-yet-awarded contract or requirement to suspend performance of the already-awarded contract) does not apply to size standard protests. Rather, for size standard protests, FAR 19.302( h ) applies. This seems so simple and self-evident to me. But others tell me that FAR Subpart 33.1 applies simply because of the word "protest." Has anyone else faced this question?