joel hoffman

Prezmil, what you said is how it is usually intended to work. I was responding to the question "Can the PCO be the COR?" However, the PCO signs and acts in the PCO capacity, not as a "COR".

I've been trying to refrain from this but I pretty much agree with Vern. The question was "Can the Contracting Officer, even though he/she did not take the required COR training courses, be a COR?" Then there was a bunch of additional discussion about required COR courses, etc. The COR is an authorized "Representative of the Contracting Officer". Yes, there may or may not be differences between any particular Technical Contracting Officer's Representative and a COR. A COR might be qualified or not be qualified to adminster all of the technical aspects of contract performance. A TCOR is usually used for technical oversight and decisions. But a regular COR must be qualified to at least handle or oversee the contract admin duties that are within their assignment, which. in my experience, may relate to understanding the contract clauses and conditions and performing the normal contract admin duties. The COR and/or PCO can enlist specialists to aid in the technical administration, whether they be TCOR's, inspectors, engineers, or other quality assurance personnel who aren't officially appointed as COR's. All COR's have authority that is limited to some degree and can draw on specialists to help them, too. Our offices have various specialists to handle various inspections, data input, estimating, conducting various meetings, etc. A PCO duties include determination of merit and otherwise resolving claims, overseeing and being responsible for the performance of their COR's, making decisions to terminate or not, selecting the contractor, executing the contract, ultimately being responsible for the negotiation process for mods, etc., etc. If the PCO isn't allowed or qualified to be a regular COR, I'd think that they may be in the wrong line of work and should start immediately looking for other jobs. I also agree with Vern that it may or may not be wise for the KO to be the COR, but I'd surely think that the KO is legally allowed to administer their own contract if they have to.

16.5 "(d) The statutory multiple award preference implemented by this subpart does not apply to architect-engineer contracts subject to the procedures in Subpart 36.6. However, agencies are not precluded from making multiple awards for architect-engineer services using the procedures in this subpart, provided the selection of contractors and placement of orders are consistent with Subpart 36.6." The above says that orders must be consistent with Subpart 36.6. See also 36.101 -- Applicability. "(a) Construction and architect-engineer contracts are subject to the requirements in other parts of this regulation, which shall be followed when applicable. ( When a requirement in this part is inconsistent with a requirement in another part of this regulation, this Part 36 shall take precedence if the acquisition of construction or architect-engineer services is involved." I also quoted DFARS for DoD orders.

FAR 16.505 (a) (8)" In accordance with section 1427( of Public Law 108-136, orders placed under multi-agency contracts for services that substantially or to a dominant extent specify performance of architect-engineer services, as defined in 2.101, shall? (i) Be awarded using the procedures at Subpart 36.6; and (ii) Require the direct supervision of a professional architect or engineer licensed, registered or certified in the State, Federal District, or outlying area, in which the services are to be performed."

Nevermind

Per March 9, 2005 Federal Register Notice at http://edocket.access.gpo.gov/2005/05-4084.htm that announced the Interim Rule and asked for comments, "...This action is necessary because Federal agencies require clear guidance to avoid inadvertently violating the requirements of the Brooks Architect-Engineers Act and section 1427( of the Services Acquisition Reform Act of 2003 (Title XIV of Pub. L. 108-136.) Section 1427( went into effect November 24, 2003." Per the Notice of Final Rule at http://74.125.113.132/search?q=cache:vwf1Y...ient=firefox-a: "This final rule constitutes the implementation in the FAR of Section 1427 of the Services Acquisition Reform Act of 2003 (Title XIV of Public Law 108-136) to ensure that the requirements of the Brooks Architect-Engineers Act (40 U.S.C. 1102 et seq.) are not circumvented through the placement of orders under GSA MAS contracts and Governmentwide task and delivery order contracts that were not awarded using FAR Subpart 36.6 procedures. An order cannot be issued consistent with FAR Subpart 36.6, as currently required by FAR 16.500(d), unless the basic underlying contract was awarded using the Brooks Architect-Engineers Act procedures. This final rule amends FAR parts 2, 8, 16, and 36 to ensure appropriate procedures are followed when ordering architect-engineer services. The interim rule was published in the Federal Register at 70 FR 11737, March 9, 2005." There is no reason why single agency ID/IQ contracts should be any different from the Schedules. The law was passed to reign in use of the Schedules and to ensure that the underlying contracts were awarded using the Brooks Act procedures in Subpart 36.6. Obviously there was a need to do this and I remember coverage of such abuses and lack of discipline within GSA in complying with the Brooks Act. PL 108-106 (National Defense Authorization Act for FY 2004, Title XIV?Services Acquisition Reform , The Services Acquisition Reform Act of 2003 (SARA)) also clarified that mapping and serveying contracts fall under the Brooks Act procedures.

I think so. I provided two other references, one general and one for DOD contracts. FAR 16.505(a)(8) implemented the referenced public law. I think it was specifically meant to address GSA schedules and other GWAC's. I think that they were often using price competition for orders, not using quality based selection procedures as otherwise required by the other reference I provided.

She didn't mention anything about a multiagency contract.

Vern, I never said anything about the fair opportunity process nor did I attempt to contradict anything you said. You said that "Rotating orders among multiple award contractors, which is a form of "allocation," is forbidden by FAR 16.505((1)(iii)(." You didn't address the price competition that missgamecock mentioned. My point was, in addition to yours, that price competition isn't allowed for task order competition. Instead, task orders are placed using quality-based selection procedures. I don't understand your question. The Brooks Act describes the requirements for qualifications-based selection of A-E firms. This has been implemented in FAR Subpart 36.6. FAR 16.5 (d) allows agencies to use multiple award contracts for A-E services as long as placement of orders are consistent with FAR 36.6. See also 16.505 (a)(8) for multi-agency contracts, which requires those task orders to be placed using the procedures of FAR 36.6. For DOD, DFARS 216.505-70 "Orders under multiple award contracts" doesn't apply to orders for A-E services "which shall be placed in accordance with the procedures in FAR Subpart 36.6."

I was going to reply to the first statement above that was quoted in Vern's reply. Selecting an A/E for a task order based upon price competition violates the Brooks Act, which stipulates that the selection of a firm to perform A/E services is to be based upon qualifications and then negotiate a reasonable price. This is implemented in FAR 36. For task orders you can simplify this. You should also consider past performance in your evaluations, in my opinion.

Note that DoD Directives, Instructions and Publications are general in nature and will often identify the responsible subject(s) in sentences. When specifying, specs and statements of work are generally intended for "the Contractor". Thus, there is no need to keep identifying the subject unless you are mixing different subjects (for example, the contractor and the government or different contractors).

Better yet, drop the language "The Contractor shall..." altogether in statements of work, unless absolutely necessary to distinguish the roles and responsibilities of the Contractor(s) and/or the Government office(s). It is usually extraneous wording when describing the Contractor's contractual roles and duties to remind the Contractor that it is the Contractor. Use the active voice whenever possible, not the passive voice.

I suggest asking the FHWA directly. It may depend upon the origin of the NYS funds (e.g., I would think that one must rule out pass-through funds from USG source?). OMB Circular A-110, Grants and Agreements with Institutions of Higher Education, Hospitals, and Other Nonprofit Organizations discusses some details and restrictions on matching funds and references other rules and guidance.

This isn't a Chem-Demil contract, is it?

Does this help? DFARS 232.702 Policy. Fixed-price contracts shall be fully funded except as permitted by 232.703-1. 232.703 Contract funding requirements. 232.703-1 General. (1) A fixed-price contract may be incrementally funded only if? (i) The contract (excluding any options) or any exercised option? (A) Is for severable services; ( Does not exceed one year in length; and ( C) Is incrementally funded using funds available (unexpired) as of the date the funds are obligated; or (ii) The contract uses funds available from multiple (two or more) fiscal years and? (A) The contract is funded with research and development appropriations; or ( Congress has otherwise authorized incremental funding. (2) An incrementally funded fixed-price contract shall be fully funded as soon as funds are available.

AMEN!

Vern, the Navy refers to multiple award ID/IQ contracts as "Multiple Award Contracts" ("MAC's or a "MAC" for short).

I don't think that this country can afford to keep pouring countless billions into developing past the state of the art warplanes. And if we can't, who else can? Reagan ran the USSR into the ground with the 1980's arms race. What's really crazy about us leading the state of the art development is that we spend billions that we don't have, then one or more potential adversaries simply steal the technology. Or it is has been virtually given away by certain politicians, government or civilian traitor employees or the companies that possess it.

Vern, the reason I said "probably" is that we don't know the size or frequency of the requirement...and until yesterday, you apparently didn't know that ashlyh said the contract would be for five years. I figured that they would have to establish another contract in one or two years, which also involves administrative effort and cost. Without knowing the extent of the requirement, one must make some assumptions and compare the per order effort and cost with the cost to obtain updated prices a year or two out. Thanks for the GOOGLE reference.

All of this might have to be changed, depending on the exact nature of the requirement. There is a lot that Ashleyh hasn't told us: Will all of the vehicles come from one government location? Will the government pick up the completed vehicles or will the contractor have to deliver them? Etc. Vern, your approach is probably reasonable if the contract were limited to a year or two.

Vern, we don't know the size of each order or the overall quantities per year. I asked about that last week. I'm going to assume, based upon the information provided that there are 3-5 vehicles per order and there are at least 2-3 firms who could be licensed to install emergency vehicle lights, sirens and computer packages and repair/replace the same. Ashleyh indicated that the requirement is to be for 5 years. She indicated that vehicle types will vary, with significant cost and equipment differences between large and small vehicles. From some limited research, it appears that the material cost for lights, sirens and computers plus estimated labor to install ought to be within 5k per vehicle, so orders for 5 vehicles should fall within $25k. If so, then setting up a BPA may be feasible, using competitive orders. If orders are expected to be larger, then a five year multiple award ID/IQ vehicle with the 2-3 firms may work. I'd compete the orders among the firms, rather than try to obtain fixed prices over five years from one firm. My point is that I would avoid fixing CLIN prices for 5 years when the equipment and vehicle types will vary between orders and over time. As one example of price and technical volatility, the wholesale price of LED chips in January was about 1/5 of what it was last October and the applications and technology are expanding tremendously, per a person from Phillips Lighting who provided us briefing last week. I noticed that there was at least one supplier on the Internet that indicated it had GSA contract and identified licensed dealers. Using the GSA contracts might be worth investigating. I'm not expert in the FSS systems.

Vern, I also apologize for not agreeing with you that there is little or no uncertainty in trying pre-price computers and lighting systems five years in advance. I just don't happen to agree. I don't think that computer stores or emergency lighting manufacturers even know what the market will be like over the next several years, let alone in four or five years. Again, I'm sorry for exressing an opinion about the future requirement different than yours.

Vern, Where did I ever mention a T&M or cost reimbursement vehicle or that it would result in a better pricing arrangement? Please refrain from accusing me of being foolish for something I didn't bring up or refer to. I may be foolish but not for that reason. On 2 February, Ashley stated that she forgot to mention that there will be 4 option years. I read that to mean that she is to contract for one year with four option years, which would mean a contract for five years. Therefore, I have assumed that your preferred solution would include selecting a single vendor with five years of pre-priced CLIN's for unknown future vehicle types and ever changing computer models and other solid-state electronics in an ever changing electronics market. You also said that its no big deal to keep modifying the contract to keep up with actual market changes and actual fleet composition. None of that seems to make sense to this fool as the only way to meet Ashley's needs. Normally, in acquisition planning, there is give and take and different viewpoints are discussed and debated. You have a propensity to belittle anyone here who doesn't instantly agree with you. I'm sorry that I questioned your recommendation.

Don - according to the articles, the toilet seats did cost the Navy over $600 until Lockheed was publicly challenged, whereupon they refunded most of the cost. Apparently, the Navy only needed tolet seats, not the entire toilet top assembly, although it wasn't entirely clear. I keep trying to challenge the suggested contract method of a five year fixed price single award IDIQ (no competition for orders for 5 years) with numerous CLINS to cover the outyears and the various current vehicle models. I don't think it is the most appropriate method where the much of the scope of the work and the pricing will likely fluctuate in the near term as well as in the long term. Major portions of the installed equipment (emergency lights and computers) are advancing and changing. Pricing for solid state lighting and computers are trending downward. The types of vehicles that GSA will be providing over the next five years aren't really known per the questioner and based on industry updates, competitive buying at GSA, changing models, etc. Prices for parts and equipment for installation of lights, sirens and computers appear to vary with make and model as well as model years, per the questioner. Vern's response is that I'm making a mountain out of a molehill along with other criticisms from Don and Vern. At one point Vern indicated the government should keep up with pricing trends, equipment advances and vehicles and just write mods. As much as this is a new, inexperienced office, I have doubts about the government's ability to keep abreast of market changes. Please explain why the recommended contract vehicle (single award ID/IQ and maybe a requirements contract with fixed price CLINs) is the only appropriate one under such circumstances. Or is it the only type available? Thanks.

Sorry, Don - the government only paid $76 for $.57 screws, not $250. (see http://www.pogo.org/pogo-files/testimony/c...0315.html#23-24 Footnote 23. Department of Defense Authorization Ace for Fiscal Year 1999 Report on Authorizing Appropriations, Senate Armed Services Committee, Rpt. 105-189, and "U.S. Senate Panel Tells Pentagon to Stop Parts 'Pricing Abuses,' " Tony Capaccio, Bloomberg Business News, May 29, 1999.)