joel hoffman

Brian, my post above wasn't concerned with TINA or "data other than cost or pricing data". The premise was that it can be determined that there is "adequate price competition" even when only one quote or proposal is received. Among other things, the government must consider the quote reasonable in that event. Here, the agency didnt think so. Another good point made here is that it seems that the requirement wasn't clear enough for a meeting of the minds on the level of effort required to meet them. Perhaps negotiations could have resolved scope and price issues - perhaps not. In this case, nobody else even quoted. I don't know if it was evident that the prices were not expected or intended to exceed $150k. Unfortunately, from my experience with gov't acquisition personnel in general, many are often reluctant to directly discuss price in negotiated acquisitions, let alone scope. This is not specifically directed at the 1102 community, it includes other disciplines associated with acquisitions as well. My latest experience was an urgent need last summer to hire construction scheduling expertise for the government on a high visibility project that was going South, so that the government could work with the contractor to get the schedule back on track. The project HAS to finish within a mandated limit. It took over 3 weeks to contract with one firm from the GSA schedule - after receiving the requested quote or proposal. Nobody would CALL the firm and negotiate an acceptable and affordable scope of services within the simplified acquisition price limit. Despite the firm's willingness and attempts to talk directly, it was handled by email at a snail's pace. I was finally able to get the folks responsible to CALL and work out the details. Meanwhile, the impact on the job was tens of thousands of dollars per day for lack of a working schedule. The scheduler contract was within the simplied acquisition limit.

Perhaps, as ji alludes to, the official meant that there was not adequate price competition, as described in 15.403-1©(1) and in 15.404 because they didn't consider the price to be reasonable.

Not to my knowledge, Inelhutz. That is an internal teaming issue.

I would agree that this is a good requirement. I wonder if JAmes Cobb is discussing an existing contract or a new one.

Vern, I agree. I meant to say that a contractor might not be able to obtain workmans compensation or liability insurance without being licensed in that state. And Brian mentioned bonding, too. In addition, since subcontracts are generally written around state jurisdiction, state licensing law might require a prime to be licensed. I don't know. I used to ask the lawyers. Generally, local building permits are not required for new building construction or building improvements on federal property. However, the US Government has waived federal immunity and has consented to outside regulation for certain requirements, such as Hazardous Waste, Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA), Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA) Hazardous Substances, stormwater discharge permits, ground water protection, air pollution, noise pollution and other environmental issues. States have been delegated enforcement and administrative authoirty for many of the environmental laws. If various permits are required e.g., sewer, water, stormwater, water quality, etc.) I know that DoD usually abides by them. Some of those requirements apply to buildings.

Vern, I based my thoughts about what type of work that Boof's organization would want a "PMO" contractor to do on Boof's message #8, which attempted to clarify the imprecise language used in message #1. Unfortunately, Boof deleted message #8 after you said that Boof released too much specific information and suggested that Boof delete it. It would be nice if Boof was clearer. Without any more information, I felt that they were looking for an integrator, not a contractor to simply look over the shoulders of the 6 other firms. I may well be wrong. I can't interpret message #1 from the language used.

I agree - but I don't think it is "COR" work, if that means "Contracting Officer's Representative". Unless I misread the now deleted descriptions of the various contracts, It appeasrs to be management, control and integration of those many interrelated Programmatic Work Breakdown activities.

We dont know what your contract Termination For Convenience terms are. It would seem that such terms would allow the prime to terminate you for its convenience without breaching the subcontract. You would seemingly be entitled to whatever compensation that the subcontract TFC provisions provide for. We don't know what monetary impacts to the work you have performed that you could attribute to the actions of the Prime.

I don't know whether or not state licensing law would apply. But you can ask the Secretary of State's Office or the applicable state office whether a contractor's licebnse is required to do business within a state. The contractor would normally have to maintain valid liability and workmen's compensation insurance in the jurisdiction and probably pay certain taxes for work in the state.

What does "a PMO cloud over them and coordinating all thier efforts" mean? It would take one heck of a COR organization to coordinate the "efforts" of 6 different contractors, if the 6 must interact and respond to each other or to schedule the "efforts" of 6 separate firms to meet missions as they develop.

Don, I will let Boof respond but I see some possible differences. Boof used a lot of colloquial language and terms in the first post, including "ride herd over the other 6 large and small prime contractors, do all the admin work for deploying the other contractors" and "ensure the other contractors stay on schedule". It depends upon the specific meaning of the terms, but those appear to be true management activities, not often performed by the government as part of it's contract administration role. I don't know what "ride herd" means. But from the individual contract scope descriptions that Boof deleted, it appears that there needs to be a management entity to schedule, coordinate, direct and otherwise integrate the overall program work among different contractor's that may depend upon other's timely and effective performance. COR duties are more related to assuring that the Contractor's are performing what's required but not usually interating, coordinating, scheduling and directing performance of various individual contractors that must often rely on each other to make the whole program work. Those are typically prime contractor roles and functions - in my opinion. In the Corps of Engineers' world, we distinguish between "quality control", which is the Contractor's responsibility and "quality assurance", which is our responsibility. Controlling the quality of work and maintaining interrelated schedules of subcontractor's is inherently a prime Contractor's role. Assuring that the Contractor is effectively performing its QC and management roles would be an owner's COR duty in our world. Regardless of what terms are used for QC/QA functions, I think that the contractual roles are similar to what I described. It would be very difficult, in my mind, for an independent contractor to try to manage the work, schedules, integration, interaction, control quality, etc. of many other individual contractors performing interdependant.work. It looked like some of the above (but now deleted) scopes that Boof described were independant of others, while some were interdependant, requring an entity to integrate management and control of the various performers, whether they be contractors or subs.

duplicate post.

Please clarify to the extent that you can what the nature of the individual contracts would be and how much interaction between contractors there is is. For instance, how interdependant, interactive or independant is the work? Do the schedules of individual firms rely upon the schedule and activities of other contracts ? Are they for segregable activities? etc.

For construction contracts or for design-build construction contracts where the firm prepared the design criteria, see FAR 36.209.

Sorry for the late response. I've been deer hunting. In addition to FAR 52.236-21, Specifications and Drawings for Construction clause mentioned above, see DFARS Clause 252.236-7001 Contract Drawings and Specifications. However, my advice to you is DO NOT USE FAR Clause 52.214-29, Order of Precedence -- Sealed Bidding in a USACE construction format contract. As you said, it is prescribed for use with the Uniform Contract Format, not with other contract formats. I agree with the precautions and possible conflicts described above regarding conflicts between construction design specifications and drawings ("Other documents, exhibits, and attachments"). This must then be resolved by 52.236-21 and 252.236-7001 clauses, which contradict the 52.214-29 clause. Also, if the corresponding clause for construction RFP's is used (52.215-8 -- Order of Precedence -- Uniform Contract Format), If an offeror (RFP) or proposer's (task order) proposal is incorporated into the contract at award, it might override the government's specifications in the event a deviation is discovered after award. If the proposed USACE Acquisition Instructions (UAI) ever get finalized, they will contain an order of precedence clause for use in design-build contracts, which incorporate the accepted proposal. In my opinion, it should be used in RFP's for construction contracts that incorporate the proposal, too. I've seen it successfully used for at least 24 years or so on DB contracts and on fully designed construction RFP's. It is used in conjunction with the FAR and DFARS clauses mentioned above.

thanks, Vern. Sorry to bother. I asked the contact on their contracting page who jsut confirmed that they follow the FAR.

Does anyone know if the Export-Import Bank is subject to the FAR? It is wholly owned by the taxpayers and is an independent federal agency. See Facts about the Bank at http://www.exim.gov/...m-bank.cfm#four Thanks.

I believe that Congress wants to know to what extent that the FAR 13.5 Test Program for Commercial Items has really been used and if it is effective. From earlier threads, it was apparant that policy officials thought it was not used much, so they did not pursue an extension before it expired. Apparently, there were holes in the data concerning acquisitions that used the test program.

Ok, sorry - my bad. But its still not a direct comparison between domestic large and small business firms. You compare the lowest domestic offer with the lowest offer, if that offer doesnt qualify as a domestic offer. Yes - domestic small businesses get a better preference vs. a non-qualifying offer than a large business would - but only if they are the lowest domestic offer that isnt the lowest overall offer. The domestic small business doesn't displace a large business offer in the price comparison with the non-qualifying offer. Am I correct in my reading of 25.105? Thus, under 25.105, a domestic small business doesnt bump a domestic large business offer that was lower, right?

...and it's 6 percent because you spoke with somebody at the "FAR Counsel" who said that there is a 6% preference for domestic producers vs. non-domestic producers, which is something entirely different that a perceived price advantage for large business vs. small business. That is not any justification for what you are proposing to do. The 6% is to protect domestic producers. You don't have any data to justify what you want to do as a PERSONAL policy. Geez, its no wonder our Government is in such deep trouble. Spendthrifts abound...

Deleted - covered in a duplicate thread.

See contract clauses 52.236-7 -- Permits and Responsibilities and 52.236-9 -- Protection of Existing Vegetation, Structures, Equipment, Utilities, and Improvements. I hope these are in your contract. The Contractor must protect existing structure and equipment. Once the Government directed that the equipment be reinstalled in lieu of removal, the Contractor was required to protect it. Your original question was: "Who owns possession of the contruction site of a full building renovation?" Those clauses make the Contractor responsible for damage to existing structures, equipment, vegetation and improvements while in its possession. Generally, Builder's risk policies should cover losses such as the one you mentioned, although I don't know all the details here.

Thanks, Don. Again, I'm not an attorney or small business specialist. However, it would seem to be reading a lot into said policy that it authorizes price preferences. I can see it as authorizing the use of set-asides to assist in meeting government and agency goals for awards to the various small business groups.. It appears from the little reading that I've done that the courts are indicating that there must be some documented basis of disadvantage to develop and use a price preference to justify paying additional sums. And gmdubya has stated that he/she came up with "6%" based on a conversation with "a person at the FAR Counsel".

Don, when did GSA so advise agencies? Don, are agencies still specifically authorized to use "socioeconomic status" as an evaluation criterion in awarding FSS orders?. The Adarand Constr., Inc. v. Pena Decision, 515 U.S. 200 (1995), has caused a lot of follow on scrutiny over the basis for price preferences as well as other special preference programs. One of the links above, http://www.thefreelibrary.com/Socio-economic+policies.-a0144152490 has some discussion, including a mention of an article by Vern Edwards in "The Nash and Cibinic Report" concerning the propriety of cascading set-asides.

gmdubya, you certainly can't justify a personal policy, instituting a price preference, on a phone call with "a person" at the FAR Council office, using the basis that CONGRESS established for another program. That 6% price difference is intended to protect domestic industry from foreign competition for various reasons. How does that justify protecting small business enterprises from large business price advantages - if there are any?