-
Posts
7,380 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Reputation
0 NeutralProfile 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.
-
Thanks again, Vern. đź¤
-
joel hoffman started following NEWS: Wifcon Will Continue , Site Visit before SOW? , What happens when the Government Agency no longer exists..... Okay I will ask and 6 others
-
Absolutely ok. It’s a common practice in commercial renovation or repair projects when a firm visits your home, for instance. Some examples are door and window replacement projects, bathroom redo’s, etc.
-
This link is to a YouTube video of a Congressional Speech by Senator John Kennedy, which includes descriptions of some of the spending and contracts by USAID that have been discovered so far in an Agency Audit. You can skip the opening remarks and Rhetoric and go to the audit descriptions and amounts… “BREAKING NEWS: John Kennedy Breaks Down Federal Spending 'Line By Line' In Epic Defense Of Elon Musk” https://youtu.be/BA3ma1MeSIU Sure seems reasonable to me to be able to audit where and what $40 billion per year is being spent by USAID.
-
What are “illegal DEI and DEIA” policies vs. “legal Accessibility” policies…? Opinion - Thats what happens while one keeps campaign promises on the first day in office with questionable competent or adequate advice and knowledge of the scope of the executive order... Reasonable accessibility and accommodations go way back before - and yes, including the 2017-2021 timeframe. I wonder who actually composed all those day 1 and shortly thereafter EO’s. I seriously doubt if DT had the personal time to flesh out the necessary details…
-
Mixing a FFP prime contract with other than FFP subcontracts reminded me of a situation back in 1997 where the prime contractor on a Cost Reimbursement Major Systems Contract with a FFP construction Phase awarded a a major subcontract for the electrical installation on cost reimbursement basis. ______________________________ In early 1997, the Army awarded Raytheon Engineers and Constructors (REC) - technically Raytheon Demilitarization Company (RDC) - a Major Defense Systems Contract to Construct, Systemize, Pilot Test, Operate and Close a Chemical Weapons Demilitarization Plant in eastern Oregon. __________________________________ REC was one of the top ten US Engineering and Construction companies. The umbrella Systems Contract management and all other phases were priced as Cost Reimbursement Fixed Fee (CPFF) for well over a billion dollars. The initial phase was initially about $230 million FFP for construction and installation of about $150 million of Government Furnished Process Equipment (GFE). RDC was unable to award the electrical construction subcontract within its portion of the budget. They selected an electrical subcontractor working on the Hanford, Washington DOE Project in the Tri-City area on a Cost Reimbursement (CPFF) price basis. RDC’s budget problems may have been complicated by a supposed Corporate level, pre-award direction* to cut the proposal for the FFP construction phase by $20 million to help win the Systems Contract competition. RDC intended to directly manage and control the CPFF electrical sub’s schedule and workforce. However, they were dealing with a Hanford, Washington, Cost Reimbursement, Union electrician workforce. Virtually all of the decades long Hanford Project work, including Electrical, is priced on a Cost Reimbursement basis. __________________________________ The result on the Oregon project was a tremendous cost overrun of the electrical portion of the FFP construction phase due to major electrical trade labor force inefficiency. This electrical trade inefficiency also impacted the other FFP trades on the project to various degrees, as the electrical work was concurrent and interrelated with most of the other trade work. There were hundreds of electricians in the multi-thousand construction labor force. It contributed to delayed construction completion of the Chem-Demil Plant for almost a year. ______________________________ This was in direct comparison to construction of a very similar Chem-Demil Plant at Anniston Alabama. The scope and design of the two projects were essentially the same. Both plants also had essentially the same GFE process equipment, which was available and in local storage ahead of time. Both plants had virtually the same design changes after award. The construction phases for both plants began at about the same time. The construction phase contractor on that project was the non-Union arm of Bechtel. _________________________ *Someone who was on the RDC pre-award team personally revealed this to our project engineer, who told me about it.
-
Handling IDIQ Extension – Is a Justification Needed?
joel hoffman replied to GreenKubo's topic in Contract Administration
Vern answered the question But - it takes additional 18 months after May 29 2025 (3, 6 month extensions after the next four months of contract duration ????) to award and transition a (another sole source?) follow-on ID/IQ contract??? Was a nine month transition period originally included in the current contract? From what you said there is still a fourth, one year, un-awarded option available. Just seems, from the limited info provided to be a weird approach to add 3, six month extensions. But Vern answered your question. Doesn’t matter if the ceiling is not being increased. It would appear that follow-on industry opportunities are being delayed, thus the justification for the out of scope (sole source) extension… -
Actual Contract Value Exceeds SAT
joel hoffman replied to GovKor's topic in Contract Pricing Including CAS & Allowable Costs
I don’t think this reference supports the perspective that the estimated or anticipated value prior to establishing the value of the action for awarding under simplified procedures… -
It would seem straight forward to me that paying for claims/REA’s/impacts on other separately funded contracts must not be charged to appropriations on the instant contract.
- 39 replies
-
- dpas rating
- dpas
-
(and 1 more)
Tagged with:
-
Reading and Intrepreting the FAR and its Supplements Correctly
joel hoffman replied to CaptJax's topic in Polls
Is the bottom line for the “oversight” folks that you must document your acquisition planning decision on selection of contract type using a Determination and Findings to justify why you have selected an IFB for a routine dredging project (instead of just documenting your decision in the contract file)? Does a D&F require higher level approval? -
Reading and Intrepreting the FAR and its Supplements Correctly
joel hoffman replied to CaptJax's topic in Polls
Is this a FFP, unit-priced dredging project with estimated quantities? At any rate, I suggest looking at FAR Part 14.103. -
As to whether or not there might be a protest, it may depend upon the nature and breadth of the services. The government should also consider whether or not such a restriction would otherwise unreasonably restrict industry competition for the contract if only one or a few firms could fully self-perform the services. in construction, it might be reasonable to require a prime to fully perform contracts which only involve a single specialty trade, for instance, provided that the size or complexity of the work can be performed by a single entity…and whether there are enough firms with that capability to provide adequate competition for the contract. Perform market research… If you do prohibit subcontracting, be sure to fully coordinate the contract language to eliminate all references to “subcontractors” or “subcontracting”.
-
Thanks for the below clarification, Minnen. I don’t think anyone here interpreted your initial or follow on posts as prohibiting subcontracting any of the work. Upon this clarification, I think you should say in your solicitation that subcontracting the [commercial services] is prohibited or something to that effect, not “removed”. What the heck does “subcontracting be removed from the solicitation” supposed to mean to most people?
-
Thanks, Vern! I echo everyone’s sentiments above. The WIFCON Homepage was my homepage on my government computers and mobile phones for years and I still checked it almost every day after my second retirement!
-
Which other PART 19 clauses or provisions are you referring to? None of them apply to your situation do they? Which, if any “subcontracting” clauses or provisions, other than those under Part 19 are you referring to? Examples please? Thanks
-
Minnan, I’m still curious on what basis you were told that you couldn’t amend the solicitation to remove those clauses and provisions. Can you reveal that? If not, ok.