joel hoffman

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.

Did the “teller” tell you why you cannot “remove subcontracting requirements”, with citations? Is the work going to be performed entirely outside the United States, including all subcontracts? I am assuming that the contract will be awarded by you, overseas , outside the US. I assume you are referring to issuing an amendment to remove 52.219-8 and -9…

19.708 Contract clauses. (a) Insert the clause at 52.219-8, Utilization of Small Business Concerns, in solicitations and contracts when the contract amount is expected to exceed the simplified acquisition threshold unless- (1) A personal services contract is contemplated (see 37.104); or (2) The contract, together with all of its subcontracts, will be performed entirely outside of the United States and its outlying areas. (b) (1) Insert the clause at 52.219-9, Small Business Subcontracting Plan, in solicitations and contracts that offer subcontracting possibilities, are expected to exceed $750,000 ($1.5 million for construction of any public facility), and are required to include the clause at 52.219-8, Utilization of Small Business Concerns… WHAT subcontracting requirements are you referring to?

Bob was a unique and tireless resource to the Nation. If the family decides to pull the plug, please gives us a little advance notice, so that we can give thanks and say our goodbyes. I noticed that the commercial Blogs are still contributing input. Hopefully there is still some income coming in from ads, too.

Yes, it would appear that you would be establishing what appears to be a single source, non-competitive IDIQ contractual relationship off of a non-contractual Multiple BPA arrangement.

Or could be an actual initial task. Of course if the actual work is classified or sensitive that wouldn’t be feasible.

What do you intend to evaluate for a part 15 source selection and what is the basis of award?

I’m sad to say that I think this was Bob Antonio’s last topic and last post in his WIFCON Forum. I recall Bob’s first post in the then newly created Forum. I believe that I made the farewell post in the old DoD Forum. I wanted to be the first poster on his new WIFCON Forum to thank him but Bob and one or two others beat me to the punch. 🥊

I found Bob Antonio’s Obituary at https://obituaries.cremationofpennsylvania.com/obituaries/blue-bell-pa/robert-antonio-12108837 I pray for God’s Blessings for you, Robert Antonio…🌹🙏❤️

Bob was a wonderful person and a true professional.He has unselfishly provided this service to the Nation for over two decades. I was very lucky to meet him years ago in the National Building Museum across the street from the GAO building. I was TDY to our USACE Headquarters downstairs in the GAO Building. The Government Contracting Forum was originally on a DoD website. When DoD announced that it would discontinue that site, Bob decided to establish the WIFCON Forum. I don’t know if the WIFCON Homepage was already active or followed the FORUM but I made it my homepage and followed it ever since, even after retirement, checking WIFCON Homepage daily until very recently. Bob tirelessly devoted time to capture, post and save all the information contained in WIFCON. Many others and I will miss him - as a person and as this resource. God Speed, Bob. 🌹🙏

…Of course, we could eliminate that deficit by collecting an extra $1.63 million from each of the estimated 1,050 US billionaires without any other cost savings.

I am wondering what the context of “improve contracting” means here. Improvements from whose prospective - the taxpayers, Industry, contracting workforce, government users/customers/efficient performance? Are the suggested “improvements” mutually exclusive or complementary among the various stakeholders? Just a rhetorical question. I can wait and see a what comes of it. The last FY budget deficit was running around $1.7 TRILLION dollars… Something drastically needs to be done to reduce the cost of government operations.

…and prayers. 🙏 Thanks, Vern.

Unless these suggestion reduce costs and lower the Federal Budget Deficit, IMO the next Administration will not agree to adopt those that don’t. As of September, 2024, the FY 2024 government was running a cumulative budget deficit of $1.9 trillion. For example, see: https://bipartisanpolicy.org/report/deficit-tracker/#:~:text=%24242 billion deficit%2C increasing year,(YOY) by %2421 billion.&text=The government is running a cumulative deficit of %241.5 trillion,adjusted for timing shifts*). I don’t think that using QBS without direct price competition “for all service procurements in excess of the SAT and all major system acquisitions” will reduce the federal budget.

I never said that the government is paying unreasonable prices for A-E work. There are also statutory price constraints applicable to aspects of pricing A/E contracts. The suggestion has been made to “[a]dopt the architect-engineer method of contractor selection for all service procurements in excess of the SAT and all major system acquisitions.” This would be a quality based selection process without price competition, then essentially what amounts to a sole source price negotiation.

I am referring to Quality Based Selection with no price competition, then negotiate the price. The contract prices will very likely be higher without competition. I have little faith that the government contracting force will be effective at evaluating , negotiating and bargaining prices on large scale application of QBS. Edit: It’s evident to me from participating in this forum that many if not most contracting personnel primarily rely on price analysis, comparing prices through competition…

The concept of expanding the use of qualification based selection with a negotiated reasonable price** will be in direct opposition to Vivek Ramaswamy‘s and Elon Musk’s mission to drastically reduce government spending. IMO, it won’t survive DOGE. IMO, any new initiatives that don’t decrease the cost of government operations will have little chance of implementation in the near term. I also predict that eliminating IFB’s will be a non-starter. IFB’s are common practice in state and local construction contracting as well as other types of contracting, such as equipment materials and supplies. ** Two of the primary justifications for Qualifications Based Selection of Architect-Engineers without Price competition is to assure that the selected firm is highly qualified to design a project and will not tend to cut corners to save design costs. Life safety issues are of paramount importance in A-E contracting.

Hmm, much of your list needs new legislation.

My experience and that of a fellow retiree who worked as a consultant, over the past several years, indicate that it also evident with current government employees. I have been thinking about Vern’s separate thread about suggestions for “what can be done to improve and streamline contracting without the need for new legislation.” The workforce needs to be transformed concerning frank, open and personal communications both internal to the organization and external with outside stakeholders and industry, especially their awarded contractors. The art of Oral communications is much more effective than written snippets, not only in administering contract, but in Acquisition Planning and in the Acquisitions process. Written communications can be used, when necessary, to confirm and document the oral communications. Send employees to training in effective personal communications and interaction. If the in-person class for the late Stephen Covey’s “The 7 Habits of Highly Effective People” is still being offered, it would be my first pick. It was truly personally transforming.

I’m curious… Did you actually speak with the contractor or just email the person? If you SPOKE with them, what was their reaction/response/intent/reasons for not invoicing?