Jump to content

joel hoffman

Members
  • Posts

    7,041
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Reputation

0 Neutral

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Male
  • Interests
    Following God, Family, Sailing, Motorcycling, Hunting, Volleyball; Acquisition, Negotiating, Source Selections, Contract Administration, Construction, Design-Build Construction, mods, claims, TFD, TFC, project controls,

Recent Profile Visitors

The recent visitors block is disabled and is not being shown to other users.

  1. ji, did you work at two different Departments? That implies that you were simultaneously employed by two different Departments. Or were you employed by one Department but performed KO duties for the two different Departments?
  2. @formerfed, just curious. Was David Drabkin involved with the above mentioned FAR 8.4 initiative?
  3. I don’t think that one KO can work at more than one agency at a time. A KO, working at one agency, can award a contract or an order under a contract to support another agency or a contract that can be used by another agency. I’ve occasionally seen contracts that were transferred from one agency to another agency. I think that is rare.
  4. Thanks, Sam. From that decision, in response to the original question: “While the solicitation in this case does not expressly explain how vendors who lacked relevant past performance would be evaluated, our decisions have generally concluded that vendors in FAR part 13 procurements who lack a record of recent, relevant past performance may not be treated favorably or unfavorably on that basis. See, e.g., Jacqueline R. Sims, dba JRS Staffing Services, B-409613, B-409613.2, June 16, 2014, 2014 CPD ¶ 181 at 4-5 (concluding that an agency is not permitted to evaluate a firm’s lack of relevant past performance either favorably or unfavorably in a FAR part 13 procurement, even in the absence of solicitation language to that effect); see also SSI Tech., Inc., B-412765.2, July 13, 2016, 2016 CPD ¶ 184 at 5-6.” This is consistent with my post above, citing applicable law that doesn’t limit the requirement to Part 15 acquisitions or procedures.
  5. Here is the Title 41 US Code coverage for past performance and evaluation of same: “41 U.S. Code § 1126 - Policy regarding consideration of contractor past performance (a) Guidance.—The Administrator shall prescribe for executive agencies guidance regarding consideration of the past contract performance of offerors in awarding contracts. The guidance shall include— (1) standards for evaluating past performance with respect to cost (when appropriate), schedule, compliance with technical or functional specifications, and other relevant performance factors that facilitate consistent and fair evaluation by all executive agencies; (2) policies for the collection and maintenance of information on past contract performance that, to the maximum extent practicable, facilitate automated collection, maintenance, and dissemination of information and provide for ease of collection, maintenance, and dissemination of information by other methods, as necessary; (3) policies for ensuring that— (A) offerors are afforded an opportunity to submit relevant information on past contract performance, including performance under contracts entered into by the executive agency concerned, other departments and agencies of the Federal Government, agencies of State and local governments, and commercial customers; and (B) the information submitted by offerors is considered; and (4) the period for which information on past performance of offerors may be maintained and considered. (b) Information Not Available.— If there is no information on past contract performance of an offeror or the information on past contract performance is not available, the offeror may not be evaluated favorably or unfavorably on the factor of past contract performance. (Pub. L. 111–350, § 3, Jan. 4, 2011, 124 Stat. 3689.)” Notice that it doesn’t distinguish between Parts 15, 12 and 13 contract awards or evaluations of past contract performance. And notice that it doesn’t mention or extend these requirements to relevant “experience”. Edit: The degree of relevance in evaluating confidence in future performance can consider the amount and relevance of experience associated with a past performance record. Edit: The term ”Neutral Rating” was superseded many years ago by the “may not be evaluated favorably or unfavorably” language.
  6. Are you referring to the performance record (how well the firms performed)? Or are you referring to previous experience performing relevant efforts? “Past performance” with respect to FAR 15.305 refers to the record of how well the firm performed ( the quality of performance) as distinguished from the amount of experience a firm has in performing the same or similar work. See 42.15. The courts and boards have upheld the government’s right to require a minimum, reasonable amount of previous, relevant experience where deemed necessary and/or to use comparative ratings for the amount of experience. Try this Google Search: “wifcon experience vs. past performance” for instance.
  7. It depends upon the type of acquisition, if the acquisition is an action under an existing contract or if this is for a new contract, which agency is awarding the contract or action under an existing contract and who the ultimate user agency is. Can you provide any clarification? Please clarify what you mean by “serve at”.
  8. For routine acquisitions, the Air Force has preferred using price and “past performance” as evaluation factors. The “past performance” incorporates recent, relevant experience as evaluation criteria. I agree with the “very convincing advocate” that “the east way[s] of having the contractor contact references or the government sending the survey to references is mostly a waste of time” and ineffective. My preference was to use standardized forms for prime, key subs (and for design-build, the design firm’s) project experience and having them provide customer references. We reserved the right to contact and interview the references, using a standardized question format to verify the claimed experience and claimed past performance quality for those recent, relevant projects.. We also used CPARs as a reference and reserved the right to consider other sources, including personal knowledge of project experience and performance. i hate requiring references to fill out and return the information especially when it was repetitive for multiple acquisitions. I found the best information was gained by TELEPHONICALLY INTERVIEWING the references. Never had any protests concerning such reference INTERVIEWS. We kept the written record of interviews for future project SS references where necessary and applicable. Of course, using documented, TELEPHONIC, ORAL COMMUNICATIONS isn’t “the easy way”…
  9. @Seeking2Award, what didn’t you understand in reading this earlier thread at You said that the schedule extension would not benefit the government. This implies that there may be some. Additional cost, undesirable delays or other damages to the government. Does the KO simply want to waive the default and establish a new delivery date? Or does the KO want to obtain some consideration for extending the delivery date due to damages or other impact to the government for the delay? EDIT: The OP posted the following comment while I was posting this comment. Original. Post is resolved.
  10. The KO should send the technical portions of the winning proposal applicable to contract performance to the contract admin office/team along with the consensus evaluation minus any ratings. This is for construction**, design-build construction** and certain service contracts. In addition, we identified any proposed betterments which exceeded the solicitation requirements and which were accepted and incorporated at award.** ————————————————— Footnotes: **We normally incorporate applicable portions of the technical proposal into the contract award for construction and design-build contracts. It usually corresponds to proposed key personnel, specific proposed material or equipment, building systems etc. for construction. For D-B, it also includes proposed design features. There was an order of precedence clause. Not the FAR Order of Precedence clause, which is only applicable to and appropriate for the UCF format. The Army Corps of Engineers uses the Construction Specification Institute, CSI format for construction and design-build construction contracts.. The CSI format is more suitable for Federal construction and design-build construction contracting than the UCF. The UCF is suitable for service and supply contracting.
  11. Construction multiple award ID/IQ’s can already be set up for price completion at the task order level rather than require FP at the contract level. That was implemented years ago.
×
×
  • Create New...