joel hoffman

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.

Or could be an actual initial task. Of course if the actual work is classified or sensitive that wouldn’t be feasible.

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.

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.

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…

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.

Hmm, much of your list needs new legislation.

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.

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.

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.”]

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.

Quickly, I don’t think that there was any new commitment of funds, scope, schedule or change in contractor requirements by the government. It was a fulfillment of the government’s obligation to the contractor under the contract- with the mutual intent to avoid additional costs or delays… It’s not the same category as the second situation you described. Not in spirit or reality. Off to the park- my dog is begging and panting for relief. 🐕 .

I don’t have much sympathy for a KO who was unreachable for an entire week, without either finding some time during a 24 hour period to keep up or else arranging for a temporary substitute or delegation of duties to fulfill the Governments KO function. When I retired in 2007, I was a member of the USACE Program Management Team (PMT) for the $50Billion+ Army MILCON Transformation Program. I was responsible to help develop uniform policies, procedures, Standardized design criteria, standardized design-build acquisition methods, procedures, incorporating new means and methods, accelerated execution timelines, all at reduced cost. Contract and Task Order Awards had to be made for full-scope, within the Budgeted Program Amounts. This had seldom been achieved prior to this Program. This was necessary to meet the Army’Transformation Program’s rigorous time, cost, uniformity and enhanced functional and quality requirements for new facilities to relocate and re-organize 1/3 of the Army Organizations in a compressed time. If the Corps of Engineers couldn’t meet the new Army goals and objectives for full scope, accelerated time, high quality, vastly increased workload, all within the Programmed Amount budgets,the Army would seek Congressional Authority to hire the leading industry design- construction firms to manage and execute the Program. The Army MILCON annual workload alone would increase by up the six times during the peak of the Program. Before retirement, I was on the PMT’s for acquisition, contract execution and contract admin from 2005-2007. We developed three Design-Build model RFP’s to be centrally maintained and electronically used by all Districts for initial single award and Multiple Award Task Order Contracts and for Task Orders that would be used for about 47 different, standardized facility types. We updated the model RFP’s on a monthly basis as the design criteria matured, for lessons learned, etc. We had daily contact, interaction, input and decision making actions with the various Districts and Facility Standardization Teams for the monthly updates. Much travel involved, too. After my retirement date that June, I worked as a contractor member for several months, until I was brought on in late fall as a re-hired Annuitant for the next six years. I worked remotely from home. I worked flex-time, irregular hours and was paid only for the hours that I worked. Well, I deer hunted at a hunting camp in a nearby county for a few days a week over a 3 1/2 month season each year. But the workload and monthly update deadlines remained constant. I spent many hours in tree stands on different mountain sides where ever I could get Blackberry telephone reception, working on the MILCON Transformation Program. Edit: after posting I just saw Vern’s post above. I will respond ASAP but have to take my dog to the park, go vote and grocery shop for tonight. 🤠

1. I agree with formerfed’s analysis and conclusions, as far as he went. The KO was negligent in her duties and responsibilities by being unreachable for an entire week without making arrangements to delegate her authority to another person or to be able to communicate orally or by electronic means, at least after hours if the only option. A KO can issue a Change order by electronic means per FAR 43.201 (c), then formally follow up with a Modification as soon as possible. So why can’t they issue the required NTP by email or text message, then follow up by other means if required. Or arrange for a temporary KO by email or text with notice to the contractor. Or, or , or, etc. The Government has a fundamental responsibility of good faith and fair dealings to the contractor and to the public to have authorized officials reasonably available to perform its contractually required functions and actions. The COR did what he or she had to do to protect both the Government’s and Contractor’s interests and to avoid delays and delay costs- but also assumed personal risk… The contractor did assume risk by relying on the assurance of the COR that the missing KO would issue the NTP upon her return and that it would be okay to proceed with Phase II. 2. I would be embarrassed. I’d issue the NTP and, if legally allowable, CONFIRM the previous date of the NTP to authorize any costs prior to the date of my return to duty. Yes, the COR, contractor and I should sit down together and discuss as formerfed said. I might also state that I should have either been available for communications or made arrangements for a temporary replacement for an extended absence and that I wouldn’t repeat it either.

Deleted

If the OP’s office is “reviewing some internal processes for contract administration”, specifically with regard to authority, apparent authority, etc. I suggest that they read applicable sections of any edition of the book Administration of Government Contracts by Nash, Et al.