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 

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. 

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…

19.708 Contract clauses.

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. 

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.

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? 

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.

On 11/7/2024 at 6:46 AM, Vern Edwards said:

I have been asked for ideas about what can be done to improve and streamline contracting without the need for new legislation.

Any suggestions?

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.

2 hours ago, Vern Edwards said:

FAR 36.606, Negotiations, paragraph (f):

@joel hoffman Do you know of any studies or reports that say the government is paying unreasonable prices for A-E work because of the lack of price competition in the selection process?

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…

5 hours ago, C Culham said:

Subpart 36.6 procedures for professional and other services, included in a total rewrite of the FAR that is fast tracked to occur in 6 months.  Strike while the iron is hot.

 

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. 

On 11/7/2024 at 6:46 AM, Vern Edwards said:

what can be done to improve and streamline contracting without the need for new legislation.

Hmm, much of your list needs new legislation. 

24 minutes ago, Vern Edwards said:

Voice communication seems to be increasingly uncommon in both private life and business. Email and text seem to be the preferred and prevailing methods.

When I call businesses where I live, the people answering don't seem to know how to talk. They sometimes seem shocked that they have received a voice communication instead of an email or a text. They say "Hello" tentatively, with what seems a sense of wonder.

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. 

18 hours ago, Vern Edwards said:

Just out of curiosity, have you telephoned the vendor to inquire? Have you inquired by any other means? Email?

18 hours ago, Doug0464 said:

Hi Vern...  Yes, I have sent multiple follow-up emails including one that stated individual invoices were not necessary and they could simply submit a final invoice for the remaining balance of the contract.

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?

I wouldn’t worry much about a future claim. What would be the basis? “I intentionally refused to submit an invoice as required by the contract to be paid, even after numerous government attempts to pay me?”

Im assuming that you informed them that you will close out the contract and de-obligate remaining funds if they refuse to invoice for the final payment.

The prime has a separate subcontract relationship to deal with.

On 11/4/2024 at 9:59 AM, Vern Edwards said:

The contractor had to commence performance of Phase I within 24 hours after contract award. Upon completion of Phase I the contractor had to notify the COR and present the Phase I results. The contract expressly states that the contractor may not commence performance of Phase II until expressly authorized to so by the CO in writing. The contract also expressly states that only the CO may authorize commencement of Phase II. Phase II is not a Government option. If Phase I is completed satisfactorily the CO must authorize the contractor to proceed or terminate the contract for convenience.

Upon being presented with the results of Phase I the COR will review them and notify the CO whether they merit proceeding with Phase II. If the results do not merit proceeding the CO may either (1) direct the contractor in writing to take specified actions and present new Phase I results to the COR within a specified period of time, or (2) terminate the contract for convenience. 

Facts. Upon the early completion of Phase I the contractor presented the results to the COR. The COR found them to merit proceeding and sent the CO a memo report to that effect. However, the CO was on official travel status and could not read the memo or send a written authorization to proceed with Phase II immediately.

In this case, it was the COR’s role and responsibility to review the results of Phase I and notify the KO whether the results merit proceeding with Phase II .

“ The COR found them to merit proceeding and sent the CO a memo report to that effect.”

The KO had the contractual responsibility to act on the results and merit determination in a reasonably responsive timeframe [it would seem reasonable to assume this is to efficiently maintain progress and  and avoid time and cost impacts of delaying the action]:

“If Phase I is completed satisfactorily the CO must authorize the contractor to proceed or terminate the contract for convenience.”

In the scenario, the KO was unavailable and unreachable to perform her Contractual responsibility, which [likely] put the Government at risk for additional costs and possible disruption and time impacts.

In my option, the COR SAVED the Government additional costs that would have accrued and additional time that would have been incurred ,waiting for the KO to return to duty and [“must”] authorize the contractor to proceed.

Both the contractor and COR met their contractual responsibilities…

The COR acted to protect the Government’s interests and work with the contractor to facilitate efficient progress.

Phase II was NOT an option in the contract, it was a requirement, unless the KO would have decided to TFC the [“…fully-funded cost-plus-fixed-fee R&D contract for the conduct of a project. The project was to be conducted in two phases under a single contract lime item.”]

14 minutes ago, Vern Edwards said:

Thanks, Joel!

In fairness to my poor fictional CO, I set her up in order to create the issue. She's not to blame. A director of R&D contracting I should have made sure she had a backup.

My bad.

You are forgiven, Vern. I hope you let the poor COR off with a slap on the wrist or better yet a congratulations and handshake . Sorry I rambled on but I wanted to make a point about doing whatever it takes to get a critical job done even when you are out of the office. .🤠

BTW, the Milcon Transformation Pprogram emphasized performance based design criteria, commercial industry standard  materials, means and methods, allowing flexibility, in how to meet those requirements.