Jump to content
The Wifcon Forums and Blogs

Recommended Posts

  • Replies 112
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Guest Vern Edwards

@C Culham

31 minutes ago, C Culham said:

What kind of reason or evidence do you have that supports the truth value your statement that such deadlines are commonly unrealistic

My experience with contracts for base ops services, as a CCO, CO, and contract specialist. As a contract reviewer I have also judged them to be unrealistic on the basis of my professional assessments of the explanations I was given for how the response time requirements were established. I was told things like:

(a) That's what it's always been.

(b) Commander's policy.

(c) Functional area chief's or COR's judgment.

(d) Agency published guidance (which was old).

(e) Asserted "industry standard" (which was never supported by documentation).

etc.

(By the way, I sometimes thought that the response time was unreasonably long in light of technological developments.)

As CCO, CO and reviewer I often explained to that the development of reasonable response times would take into account the nature of the mission, the nature of the event, the event context; the environmental conditions affecting response time; competing demands for service; availability of personnel, parts, and equipment; etc.

I would point out that such standards could could be challenged as unduly restrictive of competition, could have a direct impact on price or cost, and that the regulations (the ASPR in those days) required that requirements reflect actual needs. (See FAR 11.002(a).) I explained that contract admin files showed that response times were not always met, and that sometimes the requiring activity complained and sometimes not. I also pointed out that on some occasions when the requirement was not met the COR had admitted that the agency had not been adversely affected in any way.

I often explained that a court or board was unlikely to agree that such standards were absolute and enforceable in all circumstances and that I would not include any stipulation of absoluteness in the contract without ample justification and documentation from the requiring activity or written direction from the commander. I sometimes said that I would make the response time a guide for assessing overall performance if given a written explanation for the contract file of how the standard was established, and I sometimes offered to help write the explanation.

Link to post
Share on other sites
34 minutes ago, Vern Edwards said:

My experience

Thank you. 

Experience would also show that time and materials, requirements and IDIQ contracts have and do work for emergency services.   In fact history would show that the intent of the time and materials type was specific for the emergency need purpose.   There is not one size fits all as already stated.  A view of FBO today produced 1800 solicitations that discuss emergency services to one extent or another.   A review of a few of the many  solicitations listed provided response times.  This is todays quick market research that is supported by my experience in doing in depth market research in the past that included contacting many agencies to inquire as to the success of their particular contracts and even BPA's in filling their emergency response needs.

40 years experience as a CO and another 10 or so as an interested bystander a firm contract does provide a guarantee for more than perception.   There are in fact contractors that are competent and responsive that are not only willing to sign emergency needs contracts but perform without punishment.   Not always life safety either but by some reasoning either connected or more important.   Get the equipment up and running so a aerial tanker can fight a fire, solve plumbing ( sewer and water) problems in residence halls or private residences, clean up environmental spills of all kinds (think 500 gallons of jet fuel on a tarmac, drug labs hidden in National Forests, etc.), a leaking transformer at a government power producing facility, and the list goes on.

I have never met a CO tortured into doing a requirements contract but I have met many that have used it after exploring the specific need and found such a tool to be a fantastic answer. 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Vern Edwards

Well, it's a matter of judgment and opinion, isn't it?

I would not use a requirements contract for the specific requirement of the scenario. If I can obtain reasonably reliable service through informal agreements with companies that normally provide such services, and if I can use simplified acquisition procedures to do so, then I'm going to do it.

If the aggregate estimate of the cost of the services under the requirements contract would exceed the SAT, then I'd have to use Part 15 source selection procedures to make the award. Even if I can use SAT, it's going to be more work than establishing a BPA. That's too much work just to get a guarantee that's really not a guarantee. Under Part 15, it could take as long as a year to do from initial planning through award, assuming no protest. Why would I put my office through that if I could generally get the service we need through BPA calls?

Moreover, getting a contractor to guarantee a 2 to 4 hour response (a requirement which, if you think about it, indicates some arbitrariness) under penalty of payment reduction, T for D, or a bad past performance report, is likely to cost more money than a BPA call and unpriced purchase order within 4 hours, more or less, to repair a broken pipe after the water has been cut off. That's speculative, of course, but I feel comfortable about it.

So you do it your way and I'll do it mine.

Link to post
Share on other sites
11 hours ago, Vern Edwards said:

Well, it's a matter of judgment and opinion, isn't it?

I would not use a requirements contract for the specific requirement of the scenario. If I can obtain reasonably reliable service through informal agreements with companies that normally provide such services, and if I can use simplified acquisition procedures to do so, then I'm going to do it.

If the aggregate estimate of the cost of the services under the requirements contract would exceed the SAT, then I'd have to use Part 15 source selection procedures to make the award. Even if I can use SAT, it's going to be more work than establishing a BPA. That's too much work just to get a guarantee that's really not a guarantee. Under Part 15, it could take as long as a year to do from initial planning through award, assuming no protest. Why would I put my office through that if I could generally get the service we need through BPA calls?

Moreover, getting a contractor to guarantee a 2 to 4 hour response (a requirement which, if you think about it, indicates some arbitrariness) under penalty of payment reduction, T for D, or a bad past performance report, is likely to cost more money than a BPA call and unpriced purchase order within 4 hours, more or less, to repair a broken pipe after the water has been cut off. That's speculative, of course, but I feel comfortable about it.

So you do it your way and I'll do it mine.

 

Exceed the SAT?

Use the SAT?

Have to use FAR part 15?

A year?

Commercial Item FAR part 12 and 14, even 8, have been deleted from the FAR?

You keep doing it that way!  I will use ALL the tools the FAR provides but thanks for verifying my way is ok!

Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Vern Edwards

Your way is consistent with regulations and you can certainly do it that way. But your way is not efficient. It is needlessly time-consuming and cumbersome for the scenario requirement we were given.

We're not talking fire suppression aircraft services, Carl. According to the scenario we were given we're talking occasional broken water pipes.

Quote

It's a water pipe inside a facility that burst.  Let's narrow it down to just water damage... Let's say it exceeds $25,000, 5 times a year, which is 25% of the average total, historical data available so 20 times a year a rupture or flooding occurs inside a facility (this is just pure scenario by the way).  

As for using all the tools--you want to use a chain saw to trim some 1/2-inch branches? Be my guest, if that's what you learned over the course of 40 years.

I can establish three BPAs with local companies in a week or two with a few phone calls, maybe some meetings, and maybe some site visits. The individual BPA calls in the middle of the night would take maybe an hour.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Vern - All quotes are those made by the OP.

I beg the question that using FAR part 12 is not efficient?   Can I not use a combined synopsis/solicitation?  Could I not post in FBO for say 5 days?   Could I not use simplified acquisition evaluation procedures?  Could I not make an award determination in two weeks?

Further, I understand we are not talking fire suppression aircraft services and I have acknowledged that and discussed experience with other than such services in my posts.   What we are talking about "remediation/restoration of facilities" after a broken water pipe.  I read this to not to be simply fixing the pipe but work beyond such as "water damage" that remediation and restoration suggests.

I also read that that the occurrence could happen on a "Saturday or at Midnight" and that the contractor is "going to be REQUIRED (emphasis added) to be on call 24/7 to meet the 2-4 hour window".  

A BPA cannot accomplish the REQUIRED on call specific as stated by the OP because a BPA is not an enforceable contract.   Likewise a Call against a BPA is not an enforceable contract until the vendor accepts the Call.  A requirements, time and material, IDIQ, and labor hour contract  are enforceable contracts and attempts to offer logical fallacies will not get around this fact.

An enforceable contract is my way!

  

 

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Vern Edwards
1 hour ago, C Culham said:

I beg the question that using FAR part 12 is not efficient?

What do you mean by "beg the question"? Why the question mark? Are you asking me something? I don't understand.

In any case, who said FAR Part 12 is not efficient? Not me. FAR parts are neither efficient or inefficient. Processes structured on the basis of FAR parts are efficient or inefficient. Besides, there is more to your way than "FAR Part 12."

How do you plan to select a contractor for a Part 12 T&M/requirements contract? You're not talking about a fixed-price or unpriced purchase order. You're talking about a rather more complex pricing arrangement, especially when combined with a requirements contract and a 2 to 4 hour response time. What evaluation factors are you going to use? Price only? Price and something else? LPTA? Sealed bidding?

No, I don't think you can make an award determination for such a contract in two weeks. It might take that long to prepare the documentation required by FAR 12.207(b) and (c). It will take you that long to explain FAR 52.212-4, Alt. I, to the quoters (or should I say offerors), unless you just assume that they already understand and press on for your "guarantee".

Under a standard T&M contract each order must have a ceiling price based on an estimate of the total cost of performance. FAR 52.212-4, Alt. I, paragraph (i)(2) requires an estimate of the total cost to the government, which is to be the basis for the order ceiling price. An estimate of the total cost and a T&M ceiling price is more than the "realistic monetary limitation" required for an unpriced purchase order. Are you going to issue undefinitized T&M orders and negotiate a ceiling price later? Letter orders? I think issuing task orders under a T&M/requirements contract might be more complicated that issuing an unpriced purchase order against a BPA.

You're resorting to all that in order to get a "guarantee." But, Carl, you're a contracts pro, and you know you don't get "guarantees" with contracts. You get only promises, and there is no guarantee that you can enforce them, not even in court.

No one in my shop is going to award a T&M/requirements contract for 20 emergency repairs of water damage in a year, 15 of which will be at or below $25,000. Never happen.

We'll just have to agree to disagree. Our readers can decide which way they would go--yours or mine.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
12 minutes ago, Vern Edwards said:

What do you mean by "beg the question"? Why the question mark? Are you asking me something? I don't understand.

In any case, who said FAR Part 12 is not efficient? Not me. FAR parts are neither efficient or inefficient. Processes structured on the basis of FAR parts are efficient or inefficient. Besides, there is more to your way than "FAR Part 12."

How do you plan to select a contractor for a Part 12 T&M/requirements contract? You're not talking about a fixed-price or unpriced purchase order. You're talking about a rather more complex pricing arrangement, especially when combined with a requirements contract and a 2 to 4 hour response time. What evaluation factors are you going to use? Price only? Price and something else? LPTA? Sealed bidding?

No, I don't think you can make an award determination for such a contract in two weeks. It might take that long to prepare the documentation required by FAR 12.207(b) and (c). It will take you that long to explain FAR 52.212-4, Alt. I, to the quoters (or should I say offerors), unless you just assume that they already understand and press on for your "guarantee".

Under a standard T&M contract each order must have a ceiling price based on an estimate of the total cost of performance. FAR 52.212-4, Alt. I, paragraph (i)(2) requires an estimate of the total cost to the government, which is to be the basis for the order ceiling price. An estimate of the total cost and a T&M ceiling price is more than the "realistic monetary limitation" required for an unpriced purchase order. Are you going to issue undefinitized T&M orders and negotiate a ceiling price later? Letter orders? I think issuing task orders under a T&M/requirements contract might be more complicated that issuing an unpriced purchase order against a BPA.

You're resorting to all that in order to get a "guarantee." But, Carl, you're a contracts pro, and you know you don't get "guarantees" with contracts. You get only promises, and there is no guarantee that you can enforce them, not even in court.

No one in my shop is going to award a T&M/requirements contract for 20 emergency repairs of water damage in a year, 15 of which will be at or below $25,000. Never happen.

We'll just have to agree to disagree. Our readers can decide which way they would go--yours or mine.

 

Love it, more opportunity to achieve my Platinum status!

What do I mean - you said my way was inefficient and I specifically stated FAR part 12.  Much more efficient than "have to use" FAR part 15 don't ya think?

Not talking fixed price?  You bet I am fixed price labor rates and it works.   Evidence that it does is found everyday in FBO and in the commercial sector.  Geez even GSA FSS contracts have this!

Evaluation factors? I am going to use the procedures of FAR subpart 13.106-2.    By the way LPTA is FAR Part 15 so are on that "have to" band wagon again?

Can't make an award decision in two weeks?  Where does the FAR say I can't as I actually believe I could make the award decision in an hour if I want to.  Show me where I am wrong please.  Oh and by the way no explanation needed on the T&M needed as I will tailor the clause to show commercial practice.  That's the standard and I fear you are wanting to force a old FAR standard on me.  Does not have to happen and ain't happening I am going to be innovative!

I will accept promise and I will bank on the competent contractors that live by their promises which provides me with a whole lot more confidence than just setting up some charge accounts.   I have a whole bunch of those and the only promise I get from them is well - zip, nothing.  

Agreed to disagree. 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Carl:

There is no more platinum.  You're an emerald now.  Who knows, it may change again today.

The top of the post chain is now 10,000 posts.  I think that is a pink diamond.  What may be next: biggest bugs, most prolific wild animal, largest barnyard animal (but someone will be a hog), most know mathemetician, first 10 presidents . . . ?

Oh my, I just noticed, someone is going to confuse the Spinel gem with a body part.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Vern Edwards
48 minutes ago, C Culham said:

What do I mean - you said my way was inefficient and I specifically stated FAR part 12.  Much more efficient than "have to use" FAR part 15 don't ya think?

You don't know what you meant by "beg the question," do you? :lol:

Your method will be only as simple as you make it. FAR 52.212-1 still applies when using the Part 12 combined synopsis/solicitation procedure. See FAR 12.603(c)(2)(viii). How simple will your evaluation/selection/award procedure be? You haven't described it to us in any detail (unless I missed it).

You must have evaluation factors. See FAR 13.106-1(a)(2). What will yours be? You don't have to disclose nonprice/price relative importance, but what will be the relationship between nonprice/price factors? Or will you award strictly on price? FAR 52.212-1(b) instructs offerors as follows:

Quote

Submission of offers. Submit signed and dated offers to the office specified in this solicitation at or before the exact time specified in this solicitation. Offers may be submitted on the SF 1449, letterhead stationery, or as otherwise specified in the solicitation. As a minimum, offers must show—

(1) The solicitation number;

(2) The time specified in the solicitation for receipt of offers;

(3) The name, address, and telephone number of the offeror;

(4) A technical description of the items being offered in sufficient detail to evaluate compliance with the requirements in the solicitation. This may include product literature, or other documents, if necessary;

(5) Terms of any express warranty;

(6) Price and any discount terms;

(7) “Remit to” address, if different than mailing address;

(8) A completed copy of the representations and certifications at FAR 52.212-3 (see FAR 52.212-3(b) for those representations and certifications that the offeror shall complete electronically);

(9) Acknowledgment of Solicitation Amendments;

(10) Past performance information, when included as an evaluation factor, to include recent and relevant contracts for the same or similar items and other references (including contract numbers, points of contact with telephone numbers and other relevant information); and

(11) If the offer is not submitted on the SF 1449, include a statement specifying the extent of agreement with all terms, conditions, and provisions included in the solicitation. Offers that fail to furnish required representations or information, or reject the terms and conditions of the solicitation may be excluded from consideration.

Are you going to tailor FAR 52.212-1? If so, why don't you let us see what you'll say in your addendum? 

Remember that you'll have to synopsize and give offerors reasonable time to read your more complex than usual SAP solicitation and develop their quotes (or offers). How much time will you give them? A couple of days? How much time will you allow for questions? See FAR 13.106-1(f). Will you be at all concerned about whether the quoters/offerors understand what they are getting into?  How much of a "guarantee" will you have if you don't make sure. The contract terms required for commercial item T&M contracts are much more complex than used in typical fixed-price or unpriced purchase orders. (Have you considered the possibility that resort to FAR Part 12 will make your procedure more complicated than it needs to be? What does FAR Part 12 buy you if you're proceeding under SAP?)  So why don't you describe your procedure for us in more detail?

48 minutes ago, C Culham said:

I actually believe I could make the award decision in an hour if I want to.

Carl, anyone is search of a "guarantee" who would award a T&M/requirements contract in an hour, even if they could, would be an idiot. I don't think you're an idiot. So I take what you said to be something uttered in the thrill of the moment.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Vern Edwards
On 3/29/2018 at 8:38 AM, cdhames said:

I think my question remains, how do you craft an agreement, or contracting "vehicle" that allows for execution within 2-4 hours on a Saturday at midnight when the delivery and quantity are undefined?  Let's continue to use the example of a water pipe bursting at midnight, and assume remediation is required immediately. 

Oh, for Pete's sake.  

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Vern Edwards said:

(Have you considered the possibility that resort to FAR Part 12 will make your procedure more complicated than it needs to be? What does FAR Part 12 buy you if you're proceeding under SAP?)

I am interested in this.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Vern Edwards
5 hours ago, Jamaal Valentine said:

I am interested in this.

Jamaal:

That comment popped into my head while I was writing to Carl. It was just a thought, and it was groundless. Ignore it.

Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, Vern Edwards said:

You don't know what you meant by "beg the question," do you? :lol:

You obviously do not, not my problem.  Just another logical fallacy to the argument at hand where you attempt to hide .

 

10 hours ago, Vern Edwards said:

Your method will be only as simple as you make it. FAR 52.212-1 still applies when using the Part 12 combined synopsis/solicitation procedure. See FAR 12.603(c)(2)(viii). How simple will your evaluation/selection/award procedure be?

Why ask? You already told me I could do it my way so therefore I will.  No need to repeat you will not win me over.  If you hope is to win over others so be it have we not settled on that? 

 

11 hours ago, Vern Edwards said:

Remember that you'll have to synopsize and give offerors reasonable time to read your more complex than usual SAP solicitation and develop their quotes (or offers). How much time will you give them? A couple of days? How much time will you allow for questions? See FAR 13.106-1(f). Will you be at all concerned about whether the quoters/offerors understand what they are getting into?  How much of a "guarantee" will you have if you don't make sure. The contract terms required for commercial item T&M contracts are much more complex than used in typical fixed-price or unpriced purchase orders. (Have you considered the possibility that resort to FAR Part 12 will make your procedure more complicated than it needs to be? What does FAR Part 12 buy you if you're proceeding under SAP?)  So why don't you describe your procedure for us in more detail?

Why? Because I do not have to that is why.  And before you call me out for ducking please tell me why the following statement is true?  Did someone torture you to make you have to or does the FAR say you have to?  Why Vern?

 

21 hours ago, C Culham said:

If the aggregate estimate of the cost of the services under the requirements contract would exceed the SAT, then I'd have to use Part 15 source selection procedures to make the award.

 

11 hours ago, Vern Edwards said:

Carl, anyone is search of a "guarantee" who would award a T&M/requirements contract in an hour, even if they could, would be an idiot. I don't think you're an idiot. So I take what you said to be something uttered in the thrill of the moment.

Get over your logical fallacies would you please and stick to the meat of the discussion and read my posts.   I agreed that guarantee would actually be a "promise".    Hopefully I am not an idiot for appreciating those that adhere to a promise of a contract and even believe in them.

11 hours ago, Vern Edwards said:

(Have you considered the possibility that resort to FAR Part 12 will make your procedure more complicated than it needs to be? What does FAR Part 12 buy you if you're proceeding under SAP?)

Well Vern what doesn't it buy me?  

Link to post
Share on other sites
11 hours ago, bob7947 said:

Carl:

There is no more platinum.  You're an emerald now.  Who knows, it may change again today.

The top of the post chain is now 10,000 posts.  I think that is a pink diamond.  What may be next: biggest bugs, most prolific wild animal, largest barnyard animal (but someone will be a hog), most know mathemetician, first 10 presidents . . . ?

Oh my, I just noticed, someone is going to confuse the Spinel gem with a body part.

Thanks Bob, I need to pay better attention!

Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, FrankJon said:

You're not paying attention, Carl! It's now Orange Diamond status that you seek.

Oh yes I am and I am really trying but then again I need to get in some additional "Delete" posts to boost me!

Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Vern Edwards
10 hours ago, C Culham said:

Why? Because I do not have to that is why.  And before you call me out for ducking please tell me why the following statement is true?  Did someone torture you to make you have to or does the FAR say you have to?  Why Vern?

Et cetera.

Gosh, Carl. You are ducking, but it's worse than that. Much of that post, like the quote above, didn't make sense. You asked if "the following statement" were true, but then you wrote a question. A statement does not end with a question mark, Carl. A question is not a statement. A question is not true or false.

If you're ever going to be in White Salmon or Hood River, send me an email. I'll buy you a beer or take you up to the winery, where we can sip in the sun and look at the Gorge. We won't even think about contracting.

Vern

Edited by Vern Edwards
Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks for the offer Vern I actually pass through weekly on mostly day trips but will definitely consider.  Actually my favorite haunt was the HRD Tasting Room until they sold my favorite to another entity.  So finding new options would be great.

And just to clarify as you have called me out once again here is how my post actually was made and continues to look, your view of the thread and my question regarding your post (while attributed me below on 4/10 /2018 at 9:36PM) is really a direct statement you made in your post on April 10 10:06AM.   Seriously follow the thread you will see it and you posted it!  So I am not ducking you are and the horribly worse part is that it was statement that you made, you won't admit it, and now you won't answer why you  posted it!     Logical fallacy once again!

11 hours ago, C Culham said:

Why? Because I do not have to that is why.  And before you call me out for ducking please tell me why the following statement is true?  Did someone torture you to make you have to or does the FAR say you have to?  Why Vern?

 

On ‎4‎/‎10‎/‎2018 at 9:36 PM, C Culham said:

If the aggregate estimate of the cost of the services under the requirements contract would exceed the SAT, then I'd have to use Part 15 source selection procedures to make the award.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Vern and Carl,

1. Using Carl's approach (Requirements contract), what is the probability of the contractor not showing up to respond to an emergency (the type described by the OP) within four hours of being notified? Give me your best estimate. Assume contractor is responsible. If you want to make further assumptions, you can. Just let us know what they are.

2. Using Vern's approach (BPA), what is the probability of an individual BPA holder not showing up to respond to an emergency (the type described by the OP) within four hours of being notified? Give me your best estimate. Make the same assumptions about the BPA holder and the requirement you did for #1. Everything's the same, but the instrument used (BPA instead of requirements contract.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Vern Edwards
1 hour ago, Don Mansfield said:

Vern and Carl,

1. Using Carl's approach (Requirements contract), what is the probability of the contractor not showing up to respond to an emergency (the type described by the OP) within four hours of being notified? Give me your best estimate. Assume contractor is responsible. If you want to make further assumptions, you can. Just let us know what they are.

2. Using Vern's approach (BPA), what is the probability of an individual BPA holder not showing up to respond to an emergency (the type described by the OP) within four hours of being notified? Give me your best estimate. Make the same assumptions about the BPA holder and the requirement you did for #1. Everything's the same, but the instrument used (BPA instead of requirements contract.

In order to do a thoughtful analysis we would have to consider (a) day of the week, (b) time of day, (c) environmental conditions that might affect general demand (e.g., flooding), (d) environmental conditions that could affect movement (e.g., weather, traffic, public events), (e) location of the government's facility (Fort George G. Meade in Maryland near DC and Baltimore or Fort Huachuca in southern Arizona), and (f) location of the contractor's point of departure, etc. (We should also consider the degree of lateness. The probability of five minutes late might not be the same as the probability of 30 minutes late.)

But let's say Los Angeles AFB in El Segundo, California, in the wee hours of a Sunday morning, under normal environmental conditions, with a contractor located in the Hawthorne-South Bay area. Under either arrangement I'd say the probability of the contractor not showing up absolutely on time would be no worse than 5 out of 100. (Stuff happens, even to the best of companies.) If the call came on a weekday at 4p.m. I'd put the probability of late arrival at 10 out of 100.

But one advantage of the multiple-BPA approach is that you would have more than one company to choose from, and you could query them about their willingness and ability to respond within 4 hours. If in the middle of the night a BPA-holder said that it could and would respond on time, I'd put the probability of a late arrival at no worse than 1 out of 100 (Stuff happens.)

Under the requirements contract you have would no choice, unless the contractor tells you that they cannot comply, at which point you might be up the creek. In order to get a contractor to absolutely guarantee that it would always respond on time might cost you a premium. And when competing for a contract that would require an absolute guarantee, an offeror is not likely to admit that it cannot really absolutely guarantee that it will never be late. It is likely to think that if it is late it will be able to work things out with the government. A BPA-holder, not being bound, would probably not worry about it. If it gets a call, then if it wants to promise, it will. If it doesn't, it won't.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Carl,

For argument's sake, when coming up with your estimate please make the same assumptions about the requirement as Vern:

49 minutes ago, Vern Edwards said:

Los Angeles AFB in El Segundo, California, in the wee hours of a Sunday morning, under normal environmental conditions, with a contractor located in the Hawthorne-South Bay area.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Vern Edwards

Don:

I want to point out that my probabilities are entirely subjective. If you asked me how I came up with them, all I could say is intuition. I do not know how to calculate the probability of an event (late response) that is so contingent upon so many factors.

I don't think timeliness would be a matter of diligence on the part of a contractor or BPA-holder. I think it would be more a matter of circumstance. They would try to respond on time---neither would have a motive to be late---but just can't pull it off. It would be difficult and/or expensive for a contractor to arrange for contingencies with respect to such an unscheduled event as a broken water pipe, even if a break is expected to happen within some period of time. Who knows what the weather or traffic will be like, or where human and equipment resources will be, when a break occurs, if ever? It's not the same problem as being on time for a regularly scheduled event. Of course, if the requirements contractor set up a 24/7 office dedicated entirely to the requirements contract and to the possibility of as many as 20 unscheduled events, it might be on time 100 percent of the time. But at what cost to the government?

I simply do not believe that the probabilities would be very different under the different arrangements. Carl might argue that the contractor, being legally bound, will make an extra effort. I have already argued that having found a BPA-holder who says it will respond within the limits, there is no reason to believe that they wouldn't, since once a BPA call has been made and accepted the BPA holder is a contractor and has the same legal motivation as the contractor under a requirements contract. So I don't think we can resolve the issue on the basis of different expected results based on different legal motivations. And if none of the BPA-holders will accept the job, I presume that its because of the circumstances, in which case the circumstances are likely such that the requirements contractor would be facing those same circumstances and that a timely response will be difficult if not impossible.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.

×
×
  • Create New...