Jump to content

joel hoffman

Members
  • Posts

    7,210
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by joel hoffman

  1. If you don’t specifically know the requirements of a cited flow down, recommend that you advise the prime that it needs to either specifically describe the requirement or provide the reference to where you can find it. I recommend advising the potential prime that you must be able to determine each requirement, including those flowed down and applicable to you, as the subcontractor. General contractors generally have subcontract managers who ought to be well familiar with the flow down requirements.
  2. Many of our USACE Districts used to rotate task orders among IDIQ holders but quit in the late 90’s. I don’t see a big problem with rotating purchase orders off of BPAs if the vendors are similar in pricing and performance.
  3. As Vern and others have pointed out many times, “mentors” are often a big part of the problem. They keep passing down obsolete policy, guidance, procedures, principles, etc. This is painfully evident when KO’s and specialists insist that they can’t or won’t discuss aspects of proposals with offerors that meet the minimum solicitation requirements, even if they are less than desirable and/or contain “weaknesses”. Some don’t know anything about bargaining for better performance. Some don’t know how to discuss pricing in competitive acquisitions. If has been apparent to me that those “mentors” and their predecessors had little or no understanding of the vast differences between the Pre and Post 1996-1997 rewrite of FAR Part 15. It keeps getting passed down to the next generation…
  4. Vern, I agree with your second post. When I was providing the answers to the Construction and A-E Contracting discussion area for DAU’s “Ask a Professor” website in the mid 2000’s, I almost always contacted and called the questioner - especially for questions similar to the Original Post here - to learn the context and detail. I may have provided an answer or a solution over the phone, then followed up and/or consulted with others and/or researched the references. Then I may have called or written back before posting an answer on the website. In the posted answer, I would add context to the question where appropriate with the consent of the questioner. But I always sought situational context, through personal communications before guessing or assuming what the question was about. I accepted the offer to answer that discussion area after complaining to DAU about the often ridiculous or otherwise incorrect answers from my predecessor “Professors”. After I retired, I eventually lost access to my contracting and legal personnel resources within the USACE. I advised DAU to get someone to replace me.
  5. And there may be unrecovered costs to consider, such as fixed and/or semi-variable costs, which may be spread over all CLINs, work or products, including the work to be deleted. Just an example…. Severable, non-severable? Etc.
  6. I’m waiting for enough information to determine what the original poster is wanting to delete. Im well aware of the differences between the different methods of deleting work . However, I don’t want or need to take the time to write a treatise about or compare each method based upon the current question with no context. Vern is correct that I’m worn out. I have enough other things to do in lieu of writing an essay on the differences between the methods. Deleting work can be easy or complicated, depending upon the desired outcome. The OP hasn’t bothered to elaborate, so why waste our time? If the OP just wants to know all the differences and details for general knowledge, they can do some relatively easy research. If they have a specific situation, it may be worth advising…
  7. ji, did you work at two different Departments? That implies that you were simultaneously employed by two different Departments. Or were you employed by one Department but performed KO duties for the two different Departments?
  8. @formerfed, just curious. Was David Drabkin involved with the above mentioned FAR 8.4 initiative?
  9. I don’t think that one KO can work at more than one agency at a time. A KO, working at one agency, can award a contract or an order under a contract to support another agency or a contract that can be used by another agency. I’ve occasionally seen contracts that were transferred from one agency to another agency. I think that is rare.
  10. Thanks, Sam. From that decision, in response to the original question: “While the solicitation in this case does not expressly explain how vendors who lacked relevant past performance would be evaluated, our decisions have generally concluded that vendors in FAR part 13 procurements who lack a record of recent, relevant past performance may not be treated favorably or unfavorably on that basis. See, e.g., Jacqueline R. Sims, dba JRS Staffing Services, B-409613, B-409613.2, June 16, 2014, 2014 CPD ¶ 181 at 4-5 (concluding that an agency is not permitted to evaluate a firm’s lack of relevant past performance either favorably or unfavorably in a FAR part 13 procurement, even in the absence of solicitation language to that effect); see also SSI Tech., Inc., B-412765.2, July 13, 2016, 2016 CPD ¶ 184 at 5-6.” This is consistent with my post above, citing applicable law that doesn’t limit the requirement to Part 15 acquisitions or procedures.
  11. Here is the Title 41 US Code coverage for past performance and evaluation of same: “41 U.S. Code § 1126 - Policy regarding consideration of contractor past performance (a) Guidance.—The Administrator shall prescribe for executive agencies guidance regarding consideration of the past contract performance of offerors in awarding contracts. The guidance shall include— (1) standards for evaluating past performance with respect to cost (when appropriate), schedule, compliance with technical or functional specifications, and other relevant performance factors that facilitate consistent and fair evaluation by all executive agencies; (2) policies for the collection and maintenance of information on past contract performance that, to the maximum extent practicable, facilitate automated collection, maintenance, and dissemination of information and provide for ease of collection, maintenance, and dissemination of information by other methods, as necessary; (3) policies for ensuring that— (A) offerors are afforded an opportunity to submit relevant information on past contract performance, including performance under contracts entered into by the executive agency concerned, other departments and agencies of the Federal Government, agencies of State and local governments, and commercial customers; and (B) the information submitted by offerors is considered; and (4) the period for which information on past performance of offerors may be maintained and considered. (b) Information Not Available.— If there is no information on past contract performance of an offeror or the information on past contract performance is not available, the offeror may not be evaluated favorably or unfavorably on the factor of past contract performance. (Pub. L. 111–350, § 3, Jan. 4, 2011, 124 Stat. 3689.)” Notice that it doesn’t distinguish between Parts 15, 12 and 13 contract awards or evaluations of past contract performance. And notice that it doesn’t mention or extend these requirements to relevant “experience”. Edit: The degree of relevance in evaluating confidence in future performance can consider the amount and relevance of experience associated with a past performance record. Edit: The term ”Neutral Rating” was superseded many years ago by the “may not be evaluated favorably or unfavorably” language.
  12. Are you referring to the performance record (how well the firms performed)? Or are you referring to previous experience performing relevant efforts? “Past performance” with respect to FAR 15.305 refers to the record of how well the firm performed ( the quality of performance) as distinguished from the amount of experience a firm has in performing the same or similar work. See 42.15. The courts and boards have upheld the government’s right to require a minimum, reasonable amount of previous, relevant experience where deemed necessary and/or to use comparative ratings for the amount of experience. Try this Google Search: “wifcon experience vs. past performance” for instance.
  13. It depends upon the type of acquisition, if the acquisition is an action under an existing contract or if this is for a new contract, which agency is awarding the contract or action under an existing contract and who the ultimate user agency is. Can you provide any clarification? Please clarify what you mean by “serve at”.
  14. For routine acquisitions, the Air Force has preferred using price and “past performance” as evaluation factors. The “past performance” incorporates recent, relevant experience as evaluation criteria. I agree with the “very convincing advocate” that “the east way[s] of having the contractor contact references or the government sending the survey to references is mostly a waste of time” and ineffective. My preference was to use standardized forms for prime, key subs (and for design-build, the design firm’s) project experience and having them provide customer references. We reserved the right to contact and interview the references, using a standardized question format to verify the claimed experience and claimed past performance quality for those recent, relevant projects.. We also used CPARs as a reference and reserved the right to consider other sources, including personal knowledge of project experience and performance. i hate requiring references to fill out and return the information especially when it was repetitive for multiple acquisitions. I found the best information was gained by TELEPHONICALLY INTERVIEWING the references. Never had any protests concerning such reference INTERVIEWS. We kept the written record of interviews for future project SS references where necessary and applicable. Of course, using documented, TELEPHONIC, ORAL COMMUNICATIONS isn’t “the easy way”…
  15. @Seeking2Award, what didn’t you understand in reading this earlier thread at You said that the schedule extension would not benefit the government. This implies that there may be some. Additional cost, undesirable delays or other damages to the government. Does the KO simply want to waive the default and establish a new delivery date? Or does the KO want to obtain some consideration for extending the delivery date due to damages or other impact to the government for the delay? EDIT: The OP posted the following comment while I was posting this comment. Original. Post is resolved.
  16. The KO should send the technical portions of the winning proposal applicable to contract performance to the contract admin office/team along with the consensus evaluation minus any ratings. This is for construction**, design-build construction** and certain service contracts. In addition, we identified any proposed betterments which exceeded the solicitation requirements and which were accepted and incorporated at award.** ————————————————— Footnotes: **We normally incorporate applicable portions of the technical proposal into the contract award for construction and design-build contracts. It usually corresponds to proposed key personnel, specific proposed material or equipment, building systems etc. for construction. For D-B, it also includes proposed design features. There was an order of precedence clause. Not the FAR Order of Precedence clause, which is only applicable to and appropriate for the UCF format. The Army Corps of Engineers uses the Construction Specification Institute, CSI format for construction and design-build construction contracts.. The CSI format is more suitable for Federal construction and design-build construction contracting than the UCF. The UCF is suitable for service and supply contracting.
  17. Construction multiple award ID/IQ’s can already be set up for price completion at the task order level rather than require FP at the contract level. That was implemented years ago.
  18. Sorry but these are questions to ask the IRS and/or any tax advisors that you employ…
  19. How about a Freedom of Information Act request to the agency for the applicable registration details? You mentioned the contract ombudsman…
  20. Protest isn’t necessarily the only avenue applicable to allegations of misrepresentation of business size/status.
  21. Yes- and the government and some commercial customers may have different quality, cost, budget and schedule goals and objectives than other commercial customers. Many commercial clients will tradeoff higher initial cost (and probably not be overly concerned about travel costs) vs. shorter time to start or resume production, get their products to market, and/or quality and reliability, for instance. Return on investment. Many commercial customers often have continuing relationships with their vendors, I.e., little or no competition involved. True best value…
×
×
  • Create New...