Jump to content
The Wifcon Forums and Blogs

joel hoffman

Members
  • Posts

    5,616
  • Joined

  • Last visited

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. Yep, we only have one (partial) side of the story and don’t even know the magnitude of the task order or the change. I used to design, contract for and did some actual construction of water lines as well as service lines and taps for services (45 years ago). I can visualize the scenario, if that is the rest of the story. I can’t understand what the big deal would be about running two small lateral service lines (probably 3/4”) and taps into a water line. Perhaps they have to extend the water main to reach the two additional facilities that are presently served by the existing line to be removed. If the delay issue was lack of installation O&M funding, the Installation could have and could probably still use expired funds for an in-scope change but would have to go up for those. Whatever.
  2. Yes, that is why I said “Assuming that the Changes clause is still applicable”. Per previous discussions, that would have to be determined. Edit - added: I asked the second question because the applicable Changes clause will describe what the contractor can do, short of a Disputes claim to assert its rights to an adjustment or for an act or to a unilateral change order. From the limited information provided, it appears to me that there has been a directed or constructive suspension of work because removing the old waterline would cut off the generals quarters and a shop. The contractor has apparently tried to mitigate costs and other impacts, even demobilizing all but the trench box and plates and a site trailer. The government has not issued a mod or a partial termination. The contractor doesn’t have to agree to the price or time adjustment that the government might unilaterally issue. If so, it needs to assert it rights, that are covered under the various clauses, including possibly, Suspension of work (costs of the suspension prior to issuance of a change order), Defaults (time extension due to the suspension) and the Changes clause for equitable adjustments for time and cost to perform the changed work. it might be a differing site condition that caused the change (the need to switch the two service lines to the new water line). Fun stuff.
  3. Assuming that the changes clause is still applicable, yes. What Changes clause is in the contract and/or task order?
  4. Your task order appears to be open if the government did nothing to delete the uncompleted work. You said that it wasn’t possible to complete the work (remove the old water line) before connecting the General’s quarters and fast food store to the new line via a design change. They obviously are included in the still open task order. I don’t understand what you mean by “are not in the current TO contract.” If they were in the task order and if the government required you to keep them on the job and if the task order is still open and if you have incurred standby costs for delayed completion…
  5. 2310, if an agency can’t legally do something, how can it hire a contractor for the specific purpose to do that?
  6. Get Congress to codify it. All problems solved.
  7. I used to add the comment to the effect that, as differences between non-price factors become minimal, differences between prices become more important and as differences between prices become minimal, differences between non- price factors become more important. I think that the statement that “price is equal to the non-price factors, when combined” is somewhat misleading. What it means to industry is that price is the most important factor, if it is equal to all of the non-price factors combined.
  8. It doesn’t appear to be an overrun if the CLIN didn’t overrun. What was the basis of the funding level for the CLIN? Dont you have any visibility of the contractor’s earned value and budgeted costs?
  9. Assuming that the prime contract is a cost reimbursement type. What is the prime contract type erock? Iff this is a cost reimbursement contract, there should be no reason why you don’t know what type subcontract this is or what the sub has billed the prime!!
  10. Is the unfinished work directly relatable to the “new work”, e.g, you left open trenches so you could tap in at those locations? If not, then why didn’t you complete the original scope of work? If not, I see no basis for a “government delay” to completion of the task order. If you had completed the current contract requirements, the government adding additional work after two years would likely be “out of scope. Thus, mutual agreement on terms would be necessary and the changes clause would not be applicable to the new work . Thus, no unilateral authority. However, by voluntarily delaying completion for two years, I think you may be responsible for your own extended costs and indirect overhead during that period.
  11. The primary value or advantage of using numbers for me was to convey the relative importance and magnitude of the hierarchy of the various factors and subfactors for perspective to both industry and government selection teams. Many Design Build projects have numerous features of interest and importance to evaluate in competitions, because we had to award FFP Contracts. Meetings of the minds on scope, functionality and quality are vital before selection and award due to the constrictions and limitations of the allowable processes.
  12. employee stock ownership plan (ESOP)
  13. Yep, we have discussed it previously. I didn’t have problems working with with points other than the $/pt. Method but obviously many others did. My biggest problem with numerical scoring rating levels based upon a range or specific points is how others in the Army and particularly the USACE seemed to rely on an illusionary sense of precision for the rating system. In fact, they often would assign a “ point score”, to fit a desired rating level, then back into justifying the rating, rather than first documenting and describing the strengths, weaknesses, uncertainties, deficiencies, etc. , then assign the rating, which is relatively easy to do, either for numerical or adjectival rating systems. In addition to handling the source selections for my District I taught the Corps-wide life cycle acquisition process for design-build construction as well as other contract admin and various contracting courses for the USACE over the course of 30 years. My KO fellow instructors did not seem to understand the simplicity of the process to simply first identify, list and come to a consensus on the underlying evaluation comments, then let the score or adjectival rating fall out per the rating definitions. And - then they often simply tend to compare the factor roll up ratings rather than the relative differences. We can just agree to disagree, then. Just my opinion from observing the seeming confusion and Protests over about 30 years.
  14. Yes, you can do almost anything with numbers. When we were using point scoring, my boss would set up 100 points and divvy it up between factors and subfactors. However, sometimes there would only be a few points difference in ratings between proposers, so it looked like we were nitpicking. I anticipated “dissatisfaction” among the unsuccessful offerors. So I set up 1000 points, which made the distinctions to appear 10 times greater. It’s all in the eyes of the beholder. It’s easier to perceive a ten point difference than one point. I am glad that the Army banned point scoring.
×
×
  • Create New...