joel hoffman

Ah, I hope you don’t mind me mentioning “Don Acquisition”. I figured it was a clever, double entendre for “Department of the Navy Acquisition”. 😁

11 hours ago, C Culham said:

Yes, but the FAR helps with that above and beyond the private sector ones.   That socio-economic thing I mentioned.

Huh? Im not referring to any of the socio-economic aspects of the FAR here. I’m talking about the A-E and construction contract-specific clauses and coverage, that are comparable to other non-FAR A-E and construction contracting models. They have been used a long before the FAR, going at least back to the beginning of the seventies in DoD contracting for construction and A-E contracting.

11 hours ago, C Culham said:

I guess industry was crazy before Federal contracting came along as I imagine every private contract was all over the place.

I’m referring to federal A-E construction contracts being all over the place without standardized formats and consistency within those specific areas. There are billions of dollars of DoD A-E/construction contracts alone awarded each year across the Services.

Obviously, there are various standardized formats and conditions for each State and local government contracting organizations. And when I was in private practice we used standard formats. 

If they gut the FAR 15 rewrite language concerning discussions, it probably wouldn’t matter much. From my perspective , many contracting officers never learned the differences between the pre-rewrite language and how to bargain for better performance anyway. Minimal negotiating-as though it were like having to get your teeth pulled. .

Had several KO’s in different Districts argue with me, stating that if the proposals meet the minimum requirements, they couldn’t negotiate in an effort to improve them. That’s how we got some design-build ugly buildings that were objectionable to the installations, for example. The previous FAR didnt really emphasize discussing weaknesses, from my memory.

4 hours ago, C Culham said:

The purpose of the FAR as a regulation is to provide uniform policies and procedures for acquisition so that one who is within the Executive Branch of the Federal government can comply with a statute and keep within the sideboards of case law.  Dare I say "Federal Contracting for Dummies" even in light of the complications of the socio-economic ideals of Congress that have been woven into the statutes that govern Federal acquisition.    My simple view.

Is the purpose limited to complying with statutes and case law? I don’t think so.

Every construction or A/E contract, whether commercial, private, state, local or Federal government has terms and conditions defining the roles and responsibilities and assignment of risk between the parties.

State, local, Federal and the various model construction or A-E specific contract clauses, terms and conditions are standardized for consistency and to avoid re-inventing the wheel. Industry would go crazy if Federal contract terms and conditions were all over the place.

Case law didnt create these terms and conditions and I doubt that they are statutory.

And, for good or bad, i chose not to be anonymous on this Forum. Some others have come over from the dark side over the years. (Right, Don? 😃)

46 minutes ago, WifWaf said:

While that may help accountability, granularly giving names (beyond the CO’s) out to the public, it would have too high of a drawback.  No, I think you keep that ownership reporting internal to your management chain.  In the acquisition workforce, that reporting should go up to the highest levels.  What else are the COCOs and HCAs and Program Executive Officers to measure for output of acquisition personnel but their writing?

The public, though?  They’d have no idea what they’re reading.  And they would all assume the worst intentions because of how bitter the general public is over most things beyond themselves and their tribes.  It’s only human, unchristian nature that they cannot trust anyone beyond their 150 nameable acquaintances as being friend - instead, they assume all foes.  You don’t want to encourage that dissonance anymore than the internet already does.  It’s why I’m anonymous, btw.  We humans, with our tribal brains, live in a wide world of scary technology capabilities.  Anonymity is a check and balance against this dissonance.

I think there ought to be enough pride to assume some accountability for your work products.

For as long as I was involved in design and construction both outside and inside the Government since 1971, every drawing included in solicitations and contracts have had a title box including the names of the designer(s) and the reviewing authority on them. As a licensed Professional Engineer, I also stamped every drawing and spec title/cover sheet that I was responsible for or personally prepared with my P.E. Stamp and license number.

I think that it is a Croc to remain anonymous for your work products. Take ownership…

1 hour ago, Vern Edwards said:

I don't understand. The first page of most solicitations and contracts is a standard form. Why wouldn't a "cover page" be extra? Are you referring to Standard Form 1707? I don't see that much anymore.

Sorry, I’m out of date Vern. Im used to having RFP solicitations with a cover page describing the project title and location as the first page. So used to industry complaining about page count for solicitations. Whatever works, fine.

In order to avoid adding an extra page, I’d include it on a cover page with the title and Solicitation number. But yes

Without standardized design and construction contracting approaches, the do it your own way approach would, in my opinion, produce chaos and confusion for both industry and government agencies.

We conducted nationwide Town Hall meetings with the design and construction community in the late 1990’s as we developed the $50 billion MILCON/BRAC/Grow the Army Transformation Program acquisition approach. In those meetings and feedback, the industry made it clear that they wanted uniform design criteria, contract formats, source selection approaches and after award contract management procedures.

The Army was standardizing the organizational (Brigade Combat Teams) functional and technical design criteria for 40 plus standard facilities types that would be replicated across the Army in the hundreds and some in the thousands.

Industry said they couldn’t afford to and wouldn’t compete in multiple, individual Districts and Installations for the same types of standard facilities if there would be individual installation design standards,  individual Corps District RFP/competition standards and individual District project after-award execution/contract admin procedures. They strongly advocated standardization and streamlining all these facet approaches across the Army.

Inasmuch as the Army’s annual construction program grew to as much as six times the normal MILCON volume for five to six years, its goals were to drastically shorten the acquisition, design and construction timelines, to reduce initial costs (award 100% of the annual programmed projects, get awards of 100% of project scope within 100% of the programmed budget)  and reduce life cycle costs (operation and maintenance) for the many facility types, most of which  had commercial counterparts.

That and the industry input were big lessons learned to save money, foster industry interest and participation and drastically streamline and shorten the time to obtain the new facilities. 

Most of the standard A-E and construction specific contract clauses are long-standing, standardized assignments of risk and responsibilities between the parties. Not sure why they would be candidates for streamlining contracting or otherwise controversial.

There are varieties of commercial construction contract formats and terms and conditions, generally written in the interest of the proponent organizations that formulate and issue them. Similarly, the professional architecture and engineering organizations promote their own versions of those type contracts. 

On 3/20/2025 at 9:12 PM, federal contractor said:

Hello everyone,

I am new to this community. My contract with the Federal government is being terminated due to the president's executive orders. However, I submitted a business proposal a few months ago and I would like to be compensated for the creation of this 12-page proposal to the federal government. In my proposal, I said the creation of the proposal would be $4000. Can I be compensated for this proposal even though the contract is being terminated?   

Was the $4000 proposal for the initial contract? When was the contract awarded? 

@Sue Kranes If you don’t know anything about design-build, the last thing you need to do would be to look at a sample design-build construction contract and then cut and paste

The DBIA (Design-Build Institute of America) should be willing and able  to provide you advice on how to proceed with a D-B project. They can suggest some names of design-build professional advisors to help you develop design-criteria and develop a format based upon the functional and technical design criteria for the project and your goals and objectives for quality, cost, time, etc.

if you want me to send you the contact information for a design-build expert who was formerly the CEO of the DBIA, I can  do that. I can call him and see if he is still active in the business or can suggest some  names of others. I have known him for over twenty five years.

I say this as a retired DBIA Designated Design-Build Professional Practitioner and a US Army Corps of Engineers D-B proponent/practitioner for 25 years or so. My first DB project was actually an Air Force family housing project as a Second Lieutenant in the Air Force back in 1971 at Castle AFB, CA.

You don’t need to only consult with a “smart, experienced attorney”. You also need to consult with a smart, experienced design-build expert advisor.

i freely admit that I don’t know anything about Other Transactional Authorities or what you want to use a Design-Build contract for.

On 3/21/2025 at 4:25 PM, sackanator said:

I believe I have sense of what this means but is there a way to expand on this.  Will the reading be more generalized and less details allowing more "contracting officers should be allowed wide latitude to exercise business judgment." (FAR 1.602-2).  Something else?

What “business judgement”…?

4 hours ago, Vern Edwards said:

@joel hoffman  Uh-huh. 😁

Hey now. I didn’t call you a tree hugging Birkenstock wearer And drive a Subaru just because you are an Oregonian. 🤪

4 minutes ago, Vern Edwards said:

Cost considerations (facts and analyses)? Yes.

Cost proposals? No.

Ah so. 

Boeing and its political supporters fought tooth and nail to win the KC-X Tanker competition. They were widely critical of EADS in the media in an apparent effort to try to block EADS from establishing a U.S. production presence.

That might have influenced their KC-46 competitive price proposal. Maybe not.

IMO, the real winner was EADS/Airbus. They plan to assemble 25 A-320’s per month plus the new A-220 line in Alabama…

1 hour ago, Vern Edwards said:

Once upon a time (the mid-1950s), Congress's belief in the benefits of price competition in major system acquisitions was (mostly) sincere. Today it is cynical.

They know that major system acquisitions will cost (much) more than the buying agency's forecasts (calling them estimates shows them more respect than they deserve), and decisions about such acquisitions are governed by politics, not business judgment.

I don't have a problem with that. I have a problem with making agencies use needlessly costly and time-consuming methods to award such contracts and with agency incompetence in the use of those methods.

Of what use is a "flawlessly" conducted process that produces half-baked information for people who haven't been trained to know what questions to ask about it?

Vern, I don’t know how the USAF could have conducted a competition for the Tanker program or can conduct the new competition for follow-on Tankers without some type of cost considerations or competition.

I don’t really know anything about the next planned Tanker competition round - haven’t bothered to study it at this stage in my life.

The EADS/Northrop Grumman KC-45 was a version of the Airbus A330 Multi Role Tanker Transport (MRTT). The A330 MRTT  is a European aerial refueling and military transport aircraft based on the civilian Airbus A330. Per Wikipedia, “a total of 15 countries [have] placed firm orders for approximately 82 aircraft, of which 63 have been delivered by 28 February 2025.”

I have laughed, seeing some photos of A330 MRTT refueling a USAF fighter

____________________________________

I do know that EADS is thriving and expanding their Airbus production lines in Mobile, AL a few miles from our home at the former Brookley AFB.

After losing the KC-X Tanker re-competition, they instead committed to built the new plant in Mobile for their A-320 commercial aircraft series. The plant became operational in 2015 and delivered the first plane in 2016. A second A-320 line is underway.

Airbus also bought the Canadian Bombardier’s CRJ aircraft line, now being produced as the A-220 in Canada and as a second location here in Mobile.  I think that a new production line for those aircraft in Mobile is also under construction

Interestingly, the Mobile A-220 location was initially developed because Airbus was concerned that tariffs were being considered for planes produced on the Canadian production lines. It was later determined that the Canadian production wouldn’t be subject to tariffs but the new Mobile line is still underway.

Case in point. The USAF KC-X tanker second round competition in 2010 after Boeing protested the initial award to Northrup-Grumman EADS in Feb 2008.

The 2010 re-competition was touted in the news media as “fixed price”   They also reported that it was Best Value with price being very important.

Not mentioned by the news outlets was that the re-competition for the development and the first four aircraft was a Fixed Price Incentive, with 60/40 Government/Contractor share of cost growth exceed target cost.

The re-competition changed the requirements and apparently favored a smaller tanker than the EADS modified A330 tanker version. According to Northrop Grumman (N-G)  there was a clear preference for a smaller aircraft than the EADs A330, which was more expensive than the Boeing 767 version in the initial competition. N-G left the competition. EADS then decided to go it alone during the RFP proposal submission period.

The second phase of the acquisition for up to 179 aircraft would be FFP while subsequent phases would be “not-to-exceed” (not explained in the sources I read). Might be FFP with escalation clauses? 

Boeing won the contract in 2011. Initial delivery to USAF was to be in 2014. It  ended up being Jan 2019 for delivery of the first four aircraft.

There were tremendous cost overruns (60/40 government/Boeing  share) and technical problems with the Boeing KC-46, which became evident relatively soon after award and resulting in significant delays in delivery and USAF acceptance of the first four - FOUR- tankers. There were still significant technical problems after the initial delivery.

The current DoD/USAF  acquisition strategy is to re-compete after the first 179 aircraft... 

See, for instance: this 2020 Congressional Research Service report (which is “polite”): 

https://www.congress.gov/crs_external_products/RL/PDF/RL34398/RL34398.49.pdf

and this 2010 USAF article concerning the post, initial award Protest re-competition:

https://www.af.mil/News/Article-Display/Article/117525/tanker-solicitation-seeks-fair-competition-best-value/

I addressed those questions earlier. 

Edit: I’ll let DOGE know when the answer to the quiz is revealed. 

Carl, I agree with you. 

12 hours ago, C Culham said:

The given scenerio states that the "most probable cost is flawless' based on a cost realism analysis so tell me what else analytically is there to evaluate?  Seriously!!!!

Don already explained the parameters for both the cost and non-cost factor evaluations and comparisons in this scenario. There was no need for further thoughtful and professional in-depth analysis for this scenario. 

1 hour ago, C Culham said:

All said I do not believe you can read LPTA or Trade Off in to the wording as the effort by its own wording is a FAR 12/13 procurement not FAR 15. 

Carl, I never said that it is an LPTA procurement.

I was responding to FrankJon’s statement that all quotes must be considered per 13.206-2 (a)(3).

My initial reference to LPTA was to state that the requirement to consider all quotations or offers per FAR 13.106-2(a)(3) implicitly contradicts 13.106-2 (b) (1) which allows for IFB like low bid procedures or a lowest priced technically acceptable scenario.** 

“As for “Consider[ing] all quotations or offers” per 13.106-2 (a) (3), how does one do that, if using IFB like low bid procedures - which are allowed by 13.106-2(b) (1)?”

and 

“How does one “consider all quotations or offers” in a lowest priced technically acceptable scenario - which is also allowable under subsection 13.106-2 (b) (1)?”

13.106-2:  “(b) Evaluation procedures.

  (1) The contracting officer has broad discretion in fashioning suitable evaluation procedures. The procedures prescribed in  parts  14 and  15 are not mandatory. At the contracting officer’s discretion, one or more, but not necessarily all, of the evaluation procedures in  part  14 or  15 may be used.”

Carl, I didn’t say that it was a part 15 trade-off process either. I said it is “similar to a trade-off with price as the most important factor”

On 3/11/2025 at 7:35 AM, joel hoffman said:

…solicitation allows selection of other than the lowest priced technically acceptable proposal, similar to a trade-off with price as the most important factor. The solicitation suggests that the successful quote can be higher than the lowest,  reasonably priced quote

8 hours ago, FrankJon said:

I don’t see how you can say this, Joel. Considering price as the most important factor doesn’t mean you can arbitrarily decide not to consider prices beyond the lowest two.

Imagine if the third-highest price were only marginally higher than the second - say a fraction of a percentile - but the agency arbitrarily decided not to consider the technical attributes of the third-highest quote. Wouldn’t that be an unreasonable decision on its face?

Maybe my initial assessment of this scheme as “fatally flawed” was hasty. The solicitation doesn’t state what the agency will do, only what it may do. But I do think they could get into trouble here if they’re not careful. 

Frank Jon, yes actually the RFQ said “then "at least" 2 quotes of lowest price will be compared and an award made.” This indicates to me that price is of primary importance.

 That would allow consideration of other than only the two lowest priced quotes.

However, we have discussed other shortcut methods in the forum where the field of proposals evaluated have been reduced for sake of expediency, particularly where price is most important. 

On 3/11/2025 at 6:41 AM, joel hoffman said:

As for “Consider[ing] all quotations or offers” per 13.106-2 (a) (3), how does one do that, if using IFB like low bid procedures - which are allowed by 13.106-2(b) (1)?

How does one “consider all quotations or offers” in a lowest priced technically acceptable scenario - which is also allowable under 13.106-2 (b) (1)?

You could probably “consider” them too high, if they are beyond the two lowest priced, acceptable proposals.**

I think that 13.106-2 (a) (3) is poorly worded.  “Consider” is undefined. This stated requirement appears to contradict 13.106-2 (b) (1) and (3).

** Modifying my earlier statement - if they are beyond the two or more, closely priced group of lowest priced quotes.

EDIT ADD:  Non-competitive quoters aren’t discriminated against here. I don’t think that the RFQ mentioned a round of negotiations and selecting firms to negotiate with. It appears to state that a selection will be made from those lowest priced quotes. 

Deleted

6 hours ago, formerfed said:

Just because offerors are rated equal doesn’t necessarily mean selection boils down to lowest cost.  The tradeoff decision needs to examine the relative individual strengths and weaknesses/deficiencies of both A and B.

if that were the case, yes you are correct. Per Don Mansfield that isn’t the case here. 

Don said more than once here in his scenario that there is no distinction between the offerors on non-price factors/proposals

Did you read this thread???

On 3/13/2025 at 6:32 PM, Don Mansfield said:

There's no distinction between the offerors on nonprice factors. The best value decision comes down to cost. 

Joel Hoffman said: Missing information here might be past performance and experience track records of the competing firms for completing similar work and for controlling costs on CR contracts.

Don Mansfield answered:

On 3/14/2025 at 10:21 AM, Don Mansfield said:

Assume no distinction between offerors

On 3/11/2025 at 7:35 AM, joel hoffman said:

I will say that while price is of major importance as a discriminator, the solicitation allows selection of other than the lowest priced technically acceptable proposal, similar to a trade-off with price as the most important factor.

On 3/11/2025 at 8:48 AM, C Culham said:

I would suggest you are reading this into the stated criteria and wonder how can you?  Or in other words the language of the RFQ is as FrankJon suggests "flawed".  

This is how I read what I said into the stated criteria:

On 3/10/2025 at 9:13 AM, FrankJon said:

If there are more than two (2) quotes, the

Government will conduct a comparative assessment of at least the two (2) lowest price quotes. The award will be made to the offeror’s whose quote is determined to have both a fair & reasonable price and to be the most advantageous to the Government.

After determining which quotes are technically acceptable,  the Government compares (at least) the two lowest priced quotes. Thus, price is of major importance to the government.

It follows then, that  award will be made to the offeror [assuming that the price is fair and reasonable] that is the most advantageous  to the government. Thus, the solicitation allows selection of other than the lowest priced technically acceptable quote.

On 3/11/2025 at 7:35 AM, joel hoffman said:

…while price is of major importance as a discriminator,

the solicitation allows selection of other than the lowest priced technically acceptable proposal, [I meant quote] similar to a trade-off with price as the most important factor. The solicitation suggests that the successful quote can be higher than the lowest,  reasonably priced quote, if it is “most advantageous to the government”, (whatever that means ?).

On 3/10/2025 at 9:13 AM, FrankJon said:

ii)Other Factors: Contractor’s quoted supplies or services shall, at a minimum, meet the salient

characteristics, specifications, deliverables, or performance requirements outlined in the solicitation

Award will only be made to a technically acceptable quote.

Since there is a comparative analysis of the two lowest priced, technically acceptable  quotes and doesnt have to be the lowest, reasonably priced quote, it works similarly to a trade-off with price as the most important factor.