-
Posts
7,380 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Blogs
Events
Store
Breaking News
Everything posted by joel hoffman
-
In the pre-FAR and pre-RFP days, the Corps of Engineers Districts’ Engineering Divisions would typically provide “Procurement and Supply” with a complete set of plans, specs and clauses, etc. to advertise for bids. The District Engineer or one of their Deputies was the KO. The military officers were usually a Colonel, LTC or Major and were engineer officers. The KO’s shifted to 1102’s in the early 1990’s. Most construction contract solicitations shifted to RFP source selections in the late 1980’s to early 90’s. P&S were the KO’s for supply, services and real estate contracts.
-
If that isn’t bad enough, what about subcontractors and suppliers, who may or may not even be provided access to the prime contract or solicitations.
-
Those were most likely Invitations for Bids - IFBs. I don’t know what you mean by “delivery of the construction project “ in this context.
-
Construction Period Services under an Expired PoP
joel hoffman replied to Flustered's topic in Contract Administration
@Flustered, it appears that you aren’t directly involved in the negotiation, execution or administration of the A-E contract. There has to be a basis for making and receiving payments for the applicable services. If there are no separate contract line items or specific identification in the contract or task order prices, these would likely have been defined or determined in a breakdown of the contract price (fee). This should occur during negotiations of the contract and task order(s) prices and during performance of the services. It appears that you can’t determine the basis of the task order pricing or the defined period of performance including the calendar dates that requires A-E to provide (the various) services. Therefore, I don’t think anyone here can answer your question other than to say, generally not. By the way, the contract for the A-E firm on the Category I, Major Defense Program for the Chemical Weapons Demilitarization to eliminate our Nation’s chemical weapons stockpile lasted for multiple decades. The A-E contract was very profitable. This included design, executing Engineering Change Proposals and maintenance of the Design Configuration Management through the design, permitting, Construction, Systemization, Operations and Closure phases of various Chemical Weapons Demilitarization Plants at multiple CW Storage sites in the U.S. and Johnson Island in the Pacific. It provided attractive, substantial on-going business for the A-E firm. The Program was frought with decades of slippage for various political, environmental, technical, etc. delays. Numerous extensions of the Chemical Weapons Elimination Treaty with Russia have been necessary. I worked on the CW Program for ten years, involved with eight of the ten US plants. Two of my employees had involvement with the Russian plant that the US was building. -
Construction Period Services under an Expired PoP
joel hoffman replied to Flustered's topic in Contract Administration
Please quote the exact language concerning the defined period of performance including the calendar dates that requires A-E to provide ?? Services. It would to helpful to please quote the payment line items for all of the applicable services. If the KO won’t extend the dates of the services, and provide additional compensation, then the Government might be in breach of contract. -
Construction Period Services under an Expired PoP
joel hoffman replied to Flustered's topic in Contract Administration
My inclination is to say no, but what is your contract obligation for services during construction? That’s what I’m asking above. -
Construction Period Services under an Expired PoP
joel hoffman replied to Flustered's topic in Contract Administration
What are the scope of services during construction and the basis of pricing for such services in your contract? In other words, what are the specific contract terms and conditions for A/E services during construction , including efforts as well as payments for those efforts? -
I will add that, after converting an IFB to RFB, after receiving (non-public) proposals, if prices still appeared to be high or otherwise unreasonable, I would conduct one on one discussions with the proposers. This was to determine if there were unreasonable requirements or ambiguous requirements or some other reason that could be rectified by amending or correcting the requirements, in order to reduce costs. Sometimes mistakes in the governments estimate would be revealed. But the firms weren’t happy with the process because of the previously revealed bid prices. Some dropped out, usually the higher bidders but once the low bidder…
-
Public bids, using Part 14 of the FAR are simply that. Publicly opened and publicly recorded (see FAR 14.4 and related agency supplements). It’s been around for many, many decades. It was the normal way of receiving sealed bids when I graduated from college in 1971, both in Federal as well as State and local government contracting. See also 14.404 Rejection of bids. See also 14.404-1 (c). Under certain circumstances, under 14.404-1(e) and (f), the government may even convert a cancelled bid process to an RFP competitive negotiations with the original bidders using appropriate and applicable facets of Part 15 procedures. I was assigned to do that at least three times. Understandably, the bidders were very unhappy - especially the lowest bidders - after all the bids and line item pricing had been made publicly available. Thats another story…
-
The GAO decision that Carl cited was a protest of a competitive 8(A) “set-aside” for A/E services where competition was limited to eligible 8(a) firms (consistent with FAR 19.805), not a sole source 8(a) acquisition. The selection was evidently made of the most qualified firm, not a single, pre-selected, sole source firm. https://www.gao.gov/products/b-193874 Thus the procedure was in harmony with both the 8(a) program and the “Brooks Bill”
- 24 replies
-
- far 19
- architecture and engineering
- (and 10 more)
-
Did you see that the requirement to discuss with at least three A/E firms after reviewing their qualifications is a specific statutory requirement of the Brooks Architectural Engineering Act?
- 24 replies
-
- far 19
- architecture and engineering
- (and 10 more)
-
Multi-year and Multiple Year Funding FAR Part 17
joel hoffman replied to Maquoketa's topic in About The Regulations
I have a different viewpoint. I asked the OP if his/her organization is conflating multiple year length of the contract effort with more than one program funding year with respect to “multi-year contracting”. He/she confirmed it and said that it involves more contracts than the subject of this thread. Even though the OP’s organization uses no-year and four year funding, if the period of performance (for a current need) exceeds a year, they are calling it multi-year contracting… And the FAR and many other references are poorly written in the detailed discussion of multi year contracting by not differentiating between “more than one year” and “more than one program year”. The simply worded phrase “more than one year” is ambiguous. As written, it can refer to a contract period with a “length” of more than one year. Or it could refer to requiring separate, appropriated funding for follow-on year(s). One has to hunt to learn the context of the phrase“ more than one year”. -
Multi-year and Multiple Year Funding FAR Part 17
joel hoffman replied to Maquoketa's topic in About The Regulations
Thanks, Carl. -
Multi-year and Multiple Year Funding FAR Part 17
joel hoffman replied to Maquoketa's topic in About The Regulations
It seems that you are being told essentially that a contract for non-severable services that is fully funded up-front and that takes more than one year (12 month period) to accomplish requires the approval of your Head of the Contracting Agency. That seems to me to be ridiculous. I know that the literal reading of the FAR might lead someone to that conclusion. But as Carl stated, FAR 17.103 Definitions begins with the definition of cancelation and describes the meaning of a multi-year contract as: “Multi-year contract means a contract for the purchase of supplies or services for more than 1, but not more than 5, program years.” Stop reading right there. Does your requirement span more than one “program year”? Here is a definition of “program year” from DAU: “DEFINITION The fiscal year (FY) in which authorization was provided and in which funds were appropriated for a particular program, regardless of the FY in which funds for that program might be obligated. SOURCE DoD 7000.14-R (Volume 2A Chapter 1)” The same source differentiates between “fully funding of procurement programs” (beginning on page 1-26) and “multi-year procurements” (beginning on page I-29). For practical purposes, if there is a bonafide need for a two year study and the appropriate funds - not from separate program years- are available to fully fund the study, why would the HCA have to approve such a contract? -
Multi-year and Multiple Year Funding FAR Part 17
joel hoffman replied to Maquoketa's topic in About The Regulations
Can you expand upon the nature of the “requirement”? -
So do I. Good.
-
I’m not sure whether this is a pre-award question or post-award, contract administration question. It concerns the “contractors workforce”, although not the “contracting workforce.” The answer depends upon whether it is pre-award or post-award as well as answers to the questions raised above by respondents.
-
Yes, I’d start there first. That ought to be obvious. Of course, I realize that direct communications (especially oral communications) between contract administrators/KO and contractors is often an anomaly these days.
-
Therefore, I’d also say “Read the Contract” as a whole. * added by me Echoing ji: **added by me It seems to me from the limited information so far (e.g., what are the XYZ guidelines(?), any pre-award inquiries(?), any pre-award discussions or clarifications(?), price proposal details(?), etc.), that the government has stated its intentions in the “contract”. Since this is an awarded contract, I think that the contractor should have been aware, before award, the meaning of the statement “Housing and other logistical support will be provided by the Government.... in accordance with XYZ guidelines.” This is a CPFF contract. Therefore, it was apparently a negotiated competitive or sole source acquisition. Why is this issue being raised now, after award? @ReadTheContract848, were you or others in your company aware of the stated requirement for government accommodations in the solicitation and what the JTR actually includes in addition to per diem rate limits, as applicable to the stated “government accommodations”? You indicated that your personal “perspective” contradicts the stated solicitation and subsequent contract requirement… Something in the pre-award process for this CPFF contract is either unspoken here or seemingly amiss…
-
Contract Period of Performance Dates
joel hoffman replied to Minnen's topic in Contract Administration
Is this a hypothetical situation or a current contract? May 1, 2024 has already passed. Is the May 1, 2025 start date a current date for the option? Theoretically, there is not a “rule” against this, to my knowledge. However, this would skip one day in the middle of the workweek in April 2005. If it is the existing term of the contract option, I imagine the contractor would have priced any costs that it would incur that day somewhere in the current contract price. If you want to change the start of the option period to include a one day delay, you can’t unilaterally do that. You wouldn’t be awarding it according to the current terms and conditions. This would require a supplemental agreement, in my opinion. -
FAR Trivia: Cyber in Acquisition
joel hoffman replied to Vern Edwards's topic in About The Regulations
Maybe FPRS, Federal Procurement Regulations System for Civilian Agencies, which was replaced by the FAR? -
Cancellation of a sole source procurement - protestable??
joel hoffman replied to LindaF's topic in Contract Award Process
“We” were the Mobile (AL) District of the US Army Corps of Engineers. In the 1990’s, I was Chief of the Construction Division Contract Administration office, which among other duties, negotiated all sole source 8(a) construction contracts, conducted all Part 15 competitively negotiated construction source selections as well as some technical type service contract source selections. Three of my employees, who negotiated 8(a) contracts and I worked directly with the Chief of Contracting and his other KO’s for those contracts. ”We” coordinated closely with the Atlanta Regional SBA office.