Jump to content

1102skier

Members
  • Posts

    8
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Reputation

0 Neutral
  1. here2help - When you state "a Board", what do you mean - as this is the first time I've heard of a formal process.
  2. Vern - Not sure how my appreciation of your thoughts turned into a pink slip and perdition, but I'll take the high ground. Thanks again Navy.
  3. 1. We specify, because ultimately I am buying hours. There is no overall SOW completion objective, other than we need to buy personnel to work on tasking as instructed by technical instructions. While we look for an innovative/different approach in performance and staffing methods, we still want to procure "x" number of hours over 3 or 5 years. 2. I believe the policy document to be outdated, as the reference is made to NAPS in lieu of NMCARS. Based on that I plan to document the file and use my best judgement in application of actual policy. Thanks again for your thoughts.
  4. Thanks Vern and Navy - the only reason Option #1 comes into play is due to our local procedures. In our Acquisition Guide it states that In Level of Effort (LOE) contracts including overtime premium at Government expense, contracting officers shall establish a separate level of effort for the overtime hours. Where that guidance comes from has me scratching my head, as I see nothing in FAR, DFARS, or NMCARS that mentions anything similar.
  5. Good Morning All, I'm going back and forth on an RFP approach and was hoping to receive some constructive criticism. Details: I am a Contracting Officer with DoN and am assigned a competitive, term, CPFF services (LOE) requirement for repairs to imagaing systems. Historcially the contractor employees have required the use of Overtime to complete the repairs due to short hull availabilities requiring the contractor to work around the hull’s schedule until the repair is completed and the need for the same persons to perform the repairs from start to finish. With the requiremements documents indicating an anticipated need for Overtime, I'm on the fence whether my RFP should have (Option #1) a CLIN structure that breaks out estimated straight time hours and estimated overtime hours for each contract year OR (Option #2) just combine the estimates into one CLIN and put it on the offeror(s) to propose an approach that completes that antiicpated tasking. Option #1 - I like this approach because it gives the non-incumbents the most information and I am looking to increase the competitiveness of this requirement. It would also accuaretly relfect the requirements documents, as the overtime is anticipated based on historical data. Option #2 - I like this approach because the requirement is performance-based, I'm buying hours for a term effort, and ultimately it is on the contractor to propose an acceptable approach to accomplishing the anticipated tasking. By saying 2,000 hours of overtime each year, I feel as if I'm swaying a contractor in its staffing approach ( 2 people at 40 hours per week plus OT versus 3 people at 30 hours per week including OT). In this option I would include some historical information in the RFP as to # hours spent weekly on Task xx. As of today I'm thinking Option #2 is most appropriate, as per FAR 22.103-3(a) soliciations normally shall not include schedules that require OT at the Government expense and ( that when negotiating a contract, the PCO shall attempt to negotiate the premiums out of the proposal. Thoughts?
  6. Still Trucking, is this under a Navy SEAPORT-e Task Order? I ask because I was at a Seaport meeting recently where the requirements of the PCO were discussed when a prime/sub is required to travel in theater. The PCO is required to register the travel in a system called SPOT before you can travel. Have you asked your PCO (prime if you are a subcontractor) for any information/guidance?
  7. I agree with FAR Fetched - Over the past year I have seen DoN place signifcant emphasis into the COR position due to contract oversight issues (invoicing/deliverables/performance) and yet no engineer/scientist wants to give up being an engineer/scientist. If you do have enough technical knowledge to be appointed as a COR, this could be a possible career path. While I would be surprised if you could land a 14, a 13 is attainable in the right location.
  8. Interesting, but I'm not sure how this is attainable in certain situations. For example - a customer of mine called yesterday indicating its sponsor would only provide funding if the PSC code identified in NAVY ERP matched the PSC code reported on the contractual action (incremental funding modification in SEAPORTe). The Task Order itself has a PSC code that best fits the scope of work, but clearly individual increments are tied to specific requirements where a more specific PSC can be identified. When completing an incremental funding modification, we would not modify the PSC code used when the Task Order was placed and FPDS would report the PSC used at time of award - not the the PSC code identified on the PR.
×
×
  • Create New...