joel hoffman

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.)

"NAVY's $600 Toilet Seat The P-3C Orion antisubmarine aircraft went into service in 1962. Twenty-five years later it was determined that the toilet shroud, the cover that fits over the toilet needed replacement. Since the airplane was out of production this would require new tooling to produce. These on-board toilets required a uniquely shaped, molded fiberglass shroud that had to satisfy specifications for the vibration resistance, weight, and durability. The molds had to be specially made as it had been decades since their original production. The price reflected the design work and the cost of the equipment to manufacture them. Lockheed Corp. charged $34,560 for 54 toilet covers or $640 each.[1] President Reagan held a televised news conference in 1987, where he held up one of these shrouds and stated: "We didn't buy any $600 toilet seat. We bought a $600 molded plastic cover for the entire toilet system." A Pentagon spokesman, Glenn Flood stated, "The original price we were charged was $640, not just for a toilet seat, but for the large molded plastic assembly covering the entire seat, tank and full toilet assembly. The seat itself cost $9 and some cents.… The supplier charged too much, and we had the amount corrected."[2] The president of Lockheed at the time, Lawrence Kitchen, adjusted to the price to $100 each and returned $29,165. "This action is intended to put to rest an artificial issue," Kitchen stated.[1] References 1. ^ a b http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/...iid=chix-sphere 2. ^ "But It Would Be Wrong" By: William Safire The San Francisco Chronicle Sunday, April 20th, 1986" Obtaining a multitude of unit prices for pricing up to five years out from one provider, when neither the products (evolving technology and prices) nor the vehicles that they will be installed on are static in nature , doesn't seem to be smart acquisition to me. The computer is just another example of the government paying 2-3 times more than just buying it at a computer store, since Don didn't like the $600 toliet seat example, which was well publicized back in the 1980's. The above is from Wikipedia.

Formerfed, I agree with you. Oh - please, Don. You obviously missed the point. As for wasteful contracting, you should be able to cite numerous examples. American Airlines managed to destroy my almost new government computer last June in a freight elevator accident at the Pensacola Airport. It took 4 months and about 4 offices for my organization to figure out how we could get reimbursed and how much the replacement would cost.AA would only reimburse me, not the government. Finally, I drafted a letter for my boss to sign, saying that I owed the government the cost of a new computer, so I could get AA to write me a check for a replacement. The new computer was $1530 through the government. I had also checked the local dealer, who would have charged me about $520 for the same exact computer. AA wrote the check for $1530 to me. I wrote a check to the government for $1530. The last I heard, they were still trying to figure out how to get the money into the correct account to purchase the new computer.I ended up with an old loaner.

With the limited ability to obtain the 4 objectives I outlined above, using procurement techniques that would be typically available to a good commercial company purchasing agent, its no wonder that the government buys $250 screws, $600 toilet seats (for toilets on C-5's that don't work anyway), and pays premium prices for electronics that are months to years behind market pricing trends. If a contracting office doesn't have the experience or time to smartly price services and materials, they won't have the time or knowledge to mod fixed price contract line items to take advantage of market conditions or to adjust for actual fleet composition. A simple method to obtain up to date, competitively priced equipment and installation, based upon the actual fleet, should be the goal here in my opinion.

"Can you hum a few bars" of the ASPR clause? I think I threw away my copy a few years ago do to space limitations.

It would seem to me that you'd want a contract vehicle that allows you to 1) have competition for orders, if there are sufficient sources 2) a pricing arrangement that doesn't require you to renegotiate unit labor and parts prices due to variations in vehicles over the course of one year or due to totally different vehicle types in future years 3) a pricing arrangement that you can automatically take advantage of latest technology and related market pricing 4) without having to settle for "average prices" for some hypothetical mix of vehicles or equipment that doesn't reflect actual usage.

Ashley, please don't apologize. I'm not criticizing you. I was reacting a comment that this should be condisered to be "Procurement 101" for those responding to your initial post and that an answer should have been provided based upon the level of information in your first post or two. Instead, it was apparent to me that we didn't have enough understanding of the market or the nature and variability of the requirement to provide definite answers. Just because a method was once used doesn't necessarily mean that it is the best or only way to get the work done. If scope and price will vary considerably both in the short and long term, I'd consider getting pricing as current to the actual requirement rather than lock into long term pricing based upon "averages" of different vehicle types, which may or may not represent what vehicles you get over the next 5 years or for equipment that is rapidly changing both in price and in technology.

Yes, but - We do know that there is a recurring requirement. The cost of both labor and parts will vary by vehicle type, which is unknown until there is a delivery from GSA. It will apparently vary each time there is an order and vehicle brands and models will change year by year. The equipment and materials will vary over time. Emergency vehicle lighting systems are being updated as lighting and electronics technology changes. Solid state electonic lighting is in an extreme mode of change right now. For instance, pricing of LED chips has rapidly changed in only the last two months and the technology and availability of LED chips and applications is in hyper change per a briefing by a Phillips Lighting representative that I attended yesterday. We all know that computers are constantly being updated. We don't know the size or magnitude of a typical order or the magnitude of the program. We don't even know how many dealers there are who can perform the work. Based on that number of unknowns, I would wonder why we would lock in any price or firm for 5 years...

Please also note that information dribbled in regarding the nature of the requirement and how much is known about industry capability as late as day 2 of this thread. As part of acquisition planning, one should consider market research. Information concerning admittedly limited knowledge of local capabilities came in shortly before a post claiming astonishment at why the thread was still active on day 2.

It seems to me that if this were Procurement 101, we'd have a rough idea of how many vehicles we expect to outfit and roughly how much it costs per vehicle before locking in on a solution that would establish a 5 year (didn't find that out til later posts) requirements type contract A requirement contract would eliminate competition and lock in some pricing that we expect a shop to be able to competitively estimate for up to 5 years. Seems like we'd want to ensure that this is the most practical/economical/smart approach before selecting a contract type. We also don't know what type of vehicles, brand, number, etc. of vehicles will even be produced, let alone purchased by GSA over the next 5 years. The only thing we know is that lights, sirens and computers (which constantly change) are included in an outfitted vehicle plus there will be a need to upgrade and repair such items.

Thanks for the imput, all. I began this thread to inquire whether I was overlooking something. The responses indicate that I was on the right track. I met the brand new lead KO for the office which was involved in the protest this afternoon. She confirmed that price can't be both the least important factor and equal to all non-price factors in combination. Since nobody else discussed why GAO didn't comment on the apparent conflict in the RFP, I'm giving GAO the benefit of doubt. it wasn't relevant to the Protest. So, I assume that there is no need to address it, which would open the door to further basis for protest. GAO will probably avoid providing fodder...