Jump to content

joel hoffman

Members
  • Posts

    7,380
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Posts posted by joel hoffman

  1. 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.

  2. 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…

  3. 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.

     

  4. 15 hours ago, GreenKubo said:

    Given that, would a justification still be required even though I am not increasing the contract ceiling?

    Vern answered the question 

    15 hours ago, Vern Edwards said:

    If you have no viable option clause, then, generally, any noncompetitive extension of the ordering period must be justified in accordance with FAR Part 6.

    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…

     

     

  5. 50 minutes ago, ricroy said:

    To support Vern's perspective that the estimated/anticipated value should guide and support the acceptable use of SAP in the OP's scenario.

    FAR 1.108(c) - Dollar thresholds. Unless otherwise specified, a specific dollar threshold for the purpose of applicability is the final anticipated dollar value of the action, including the dollar value of all options. If the action establishes a maximum quantity of supplies or services to be acquired or establishes a ceiling price or establishes the final price to be based on future events, the final anticipated dollar value must be the highest final priced alternative to the Government, including the dollar value of all options.   (emphasis mine)

     

    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…

  6. 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?

     

  7. 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”. 

  8. 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?

    23 hours ago, Minnen said:

    @joel hoffman Thanks for the response, as well as all others. My response wasn't regarding any clause, but the fact that I could state in the solicitation that "subcontracting will not be accepted" and not have a protest, as long as all work will be conducted outside the US. That's all. I'm up late, but I wanted to respond to you. The removal of FAR 52.219-8 and 9 will be done, but the question was just the overall rule. I was wondering if there was a GAO case on this exact topic, but I couldn't find one. 

    Is that not how you see it? Can subcontracting be removed from the solicitation as stated above? Thanks 

     

  9. On 1/16/2025 at 7:18 AM, Minnen said:

    Thanks for the information @here_2_help @C Culham @joel hoffman. Yes, it will be entirely awarded outside the US. Those clauses, as mentioned in your statement @joel hoffman, if it's included within the solicitation, will be removed. I was just curious as to why we weren't allowed to remove subcontracting as a whole, when FAR Part 19 is not mandatory overseas, regardless of the contract amount. 

    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 

     

  10. 18 hours ago, Minnen said:

    I was told that I can not do so…

    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…

  11.  

    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?

  12. 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.

     

  13. 12 hours ago, formerfed said:

    The way many offices handle this situation is using sample (hypothetical or actual) tasks which all offerors must propose against.  While not inclusive of all work, they are representative of the overall work covered by the solicitation.  

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

  14. 12 hours ago, FLContracts said:

    To clarify - this isn't a typical IT help desk. The requirement involves specialized Level 2/3 support for classified systems and secure facilities. 

    This is why it's being procured under FAR Part 15 rather than Part 12. The specialized nature of the support, security requirements, and integration with government systems/processes makes this fundamentally different from commercial help desk services.

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

  15. 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. 🌹🙏

×
×
  • Create New...