C Culham

This is wonderful news.

Another reference I hope you stumbled on in FAR part 19 is FAR 19.702 with regard to subcontracting and subcontracting plans.

Others will most likely weigh in but consdiering your additional information and if me, even though I do know all the facts, I would be communicating in writing with the CO and posing the question of what data is missing in a straight forward and professional way. I would note that by my read the fees are allowable, provide reference that supports that they are and then ask specifically what else is needed for the the CO to determine them to be included in the REA. Of sorts there are limits to a CO's discretion. By example the CO does not allow yet all references, etc. points to the fact that they are then there is the last resort of a claim which the result of would set the limit so to speak. Hopefully a a well drafted written comunication would help in avoiding the whole claim avenue. Here are a couple of quick references I found doing an internet search, they might be helpful as you move forward. I do realize the one clause reference may not be related to your contract but it might give an idea of what other agencies expect. Good luck! https://www.dau.edu/acquipedia-article/request-equitable-adjustment-rea https://www.acquisition.gov/gsam/552.243-71

Take a look at FAR 31.205-33 specifically and take a general read of part 31 and discussions of reasonable, allocatible, and allowable. Might help you refrain how you present the costs to the CO.

I hope the OP also understands that under FAR general practices for when, why and how for an estimate, no matter what anyone wants to call it, suggested by the FAR is different when discussing a $45,000 need versus a dollar amount above the SAT.

@NewbieFed While it is true that there is not a compulsatory requirement for a "Independent Government Estimate" in the FAR there are many references that provide that creating an estimate of the cost of an acquisition is excercising good business judgement, a general practice. You might have misinterpreted the teaching ( I was taught) moment during the independent government cost estimate disucssion in a class. General practice references in the FAR might even dictate a "shall" to some extent. By example "should cost" has been mentioned. Or another, how would the government develope a "fair market price" (see FAR part 19) without some element of developing its own independent estimate? Or if you are doing price analysis and use of techniques leads you to utilization of an "independent Government price estimate" ( FAR 15.404-1(b)(2)(v)) would suggest that program people or someone should provide one. This said the suggestion to read the FAR as whole is spot on. Additionally consider an alternative approach with regard to the pushback. Ask them what they do when they buy something for themselves. Do they just go with quotes and suggest they dicate determining fair and reasonable price in all cases? Or do they do some kind of independent estimating to weigh against the quotes they get. Bottom line - By my read of the FAR an IGCE is not compulsatory all the time but maybe some of the time. For you, choose your battles and determine what you need based on the acquisition. From my view you were taught a wise business practice that should be considered with every procurement whose defense of need for IGCE rests on the procurement at hand and buisness judgement unless otherwise required.

From past memory I did an internet search on this - "Contracting Jeopardy Game". If you have not tried it take a look.

As Joel mentions in his comment on this Blog, Bob's Christmas message was an annual delight, a tradition. Reposted as another tribute to Bob whose presence through the face of WIFCON is missed.

Is not there an implication within Logan that while further competition is not required and rotation of orders is okay the agency shall make a determination of of capabilities and pricing to make the selection of one firm over another fair? For me in reading the original post and the supplemental information provided in further posts by the original poster makes me wonder, even if the BPA's were competed originally, what the selection process was for the BPA holder that got the IDIQ? For that matter what was the selection process to be for any calls issued against the mulitple BPAs? As an oddity I also wonder if the BPA's had wording that calls could in fact be IDIQ's? Usually a BPA Call (under FAR part 13) is a one time simplified acquistion. A call against a charge account if you will. Creating an IDIQ just seems in conflict with this ideal. I am not saying it can not be done just agreeing that it is an oddity and as such one would hope in creating the oddity in the beginning the BPA's acknowledged the oddity could be created via a call. Answers to my questions could change the view of GAO but on face of what has been provided I still think "sustain" is likely.

I am no expert but have some thoughts. If there is a better expert than me that says no way then so be it. My thoughts are - It looks like the limitation you note is based on DFARS 235.016. By my read 235.016 is not limiting direction but direction where BAA's "may" be used for certain budget authorities. Or in other words it does not say BAA's shall not be used for 6.5. So would not FAR 1.102-5(e) come into play? My above is based on the document linked below. It too discusses 6.1 through 6.4 but does specifcally exclude 6.5. And then there is language in the link at "Restrictions" that talks about a "must" regarding the term "RDT&E funding" which is a term you also use. https://aaf.dau.edu/aaf/contracting-cone/baa/ All said it appears a depends might exist where a BAA can be used for BA 6.5. I would suggest some additional effort internally to get a more explicit answer for your intended project(s).

I think with the limited information provided there is risk of the protest(s) being sustained. Reference FAR 13.303-2(c) and 13.303-5(c). Especially if there was no competition to establish the IDIQ. More detailed information and research of protests might change my mind. It just depends. This protest is not on point but it might give a view of GAO's position on competition and doing future research on when the protest is cited in subsequent decisions might get you to a more on point decision. Envirosolve LLC, B-294974.4, June 8, 2005

Sort of related to formerfed's response a BPA pursuant to FAR Part 13 is a simplified acquisition method. An IDIQ is implied as a formal contracting method begging the question why not just use the BPA as a BPA no IDIQ is necessary.

Ditto. I just have to add that normalization in Ventures, as well as where I read that Ventures is cited in other cases has to do with proposal evaluation. This said the pitfall could occur if you normalize during proposal evaluation. You are probably aware of this but just sounding off anyways as it seems most protests are lodged against agencies for not following evaluation properly. It sounds like you, with your additional detail, that you are not normalizing in the solicitation wording ergo the ditto. I hope the discussion helps you apply sound reasoning to your approach in case the entity providing feedback to you protests your approach during the solicitation stage.

I think at first blush that the GSA CO is not applying the Anti-Deficiancy Act appropriately. As you have further conversation with the CO this reference might be an assist to better understand and sort out the CO's position. The reference contains a link to GAO's "Red Book" and a detailed discussion of the Act. https://www.gao.gov/legal/appropriations-law/resources

So here is what I think. My thought is based on the continued discussion in the thread and a review of several GAO decisions that reference Ventures. Your approach with regard to the RFP wording appears to move the issue of normalization to proposal preparation by each offeror to make your cost realism analysis easier rather than evaluating each proposal on its own approach and the probable costs (cost realism analysis) associated with each approach offered. If the government understands an offer why couldn't the government in doing a cost realism analysis create its own sample task and apply each offer to that task based on each offerors technical approach?

Thank you.... I guess I might still wonder..... PGI 216.104 Factors in selecting contract type. See the policy tab for Principal Director, Defense Pricing, Contracting, and Acquisition Policy memorandum dated April 1, 2016, entitled “Guidance on Using Incentive and Other Contract Types,” when selecting and negotiating the most appropriate contract type for a given procurement.

Deleted and rephrased.

I think this is very important. I think it has been forgotten that the Federal Streamlining Act of 1994 established a preference that agencies procure commercial services when they are available to meet the needs of an agency. This preference is acknowledged in the FAR at FAR 12.101. I think market research would suggest that help desk services can be acquired by firm fixed priced, firm fixed price with economic adjustment or time and materials contracts that are structured as an IDIQ.

Interesting. Thank you for sharing.

My condolences to Bob’s family. His dedication to WIFCON added unmeasurable wealth to my career. While we never met, yet my contacts with him over the years were a testament to his personal dedication to making Where in Federal Contracting a beacon for all. Sad news, very sad news.

My simplistic view - Say I made UAS prototypes now I am asked to make a USV prototype. What inputs for the USV development change? I as the vendor may have to augment my labor force but doesn't my existing labor force (think rate) stay the same? Could not I figure out what the rate difference is for aeronautical engineer versus a aerospace engineer? Does my accounting practices for capturing direct and indirect change? And sourcing of new materials changes but wouldn't it be like going from the airplane parts supplier to the boat parts supplier who have market/catalog prices? I agree my simplistic view changes if I as a vendor who makes potsticker protypes was asked to make the USV protoype. On one hand maybe it is a comparison to a similiar item (price analysis) and on the other it is not (cost analysis). In the end I don't think I can solve all the "depends" for you but hope my thoughts help you figure out the analysis dilemma.

Here is my best shot and I am tying my response, I hope, to your thoughts/comments in your most recent post. While mentioned with some confusion I am going on the premise that your efforts are subject to 2 CFR 200 and not the FAR. Yet you are trying to refine your analysis effots using FAR part 15 as your basic template to create an internal policy that meets 2 CFR 200 regarding subrecipient pricing. As noted as well pricing received does not require a certificate of cost or pricing data. So from my experience the techniques used in price analysis are - price competition, comparable prices, market prices where the product or service is sold in the commercial market place and even to the Federal government (think GSA Federal Suply Schedules and awards posted in SAM.gov),historical pricing, the cost estimate, comparison to similiar item/effort, parametric estimating, and value analysis. So if I do not have price competition what then, well sorry for repeating this quote - "the contracting officer may use any of the remaining techniques as appropriate to the circumstances applicable to the acquisition." Why is the CO pushing cost analysis as "required"? You have already said that certified cost or pricing data is not required. In my very simplistic view I am at a loss as to why there is not a price analysis technique(s) that can determine a non-traditional partner and/or small business price is reasonable. After all the implication is that the entities are doing work for someone! I lean to another thought here and that is if you can not determine through price analysis that the price is reasonable would you not ask the sub to tell you why it is. In other words one more technique if you will. All and all kind of 360 back to here-2-help's comment that I will paraphrase as -proposal (price) evaluation 101 with the reminder thoughts offered as my opinion are based on the limited facts known.

Well I did say that, yet it probably was not stated correctly. What I meant is if one or more of the price analysis techniques are not appropriate for the situation yet one element is then it could be the basis for the reasonableness determination. My view seems consistent with what it appears here-2-help was trying to pass along in responses in this thread. In a read of FAR part 15 (as the template for your policy) and based on your statement that certified cost or pricing data is not required, cost anaylsis is a "may". I do not know the specifics and that may be the missing link to my simple view but as I read through the thread this from FAR 15.404-1(b)(3) sticks in my head regarding price analysis -"the contracting officer may use any of the remaining techniques as appropriate to the circumstances applicable to the acquisition." As I drafted this response another thought came to mind. You suggest that your subawards are slow per your government customer. So what does your government customer think of your analysis policy/approach other than it is too slow? Or in other words do they think your policy goes too far to reach a reasonable price determination pursuant to the tenants of 2 CFR 200?

So I did not go back and re-read the whole thread but this thought occurred to me. So price/cost analysis is required. Your contracting department questions its need. So does your organization have internal policy to address the need? If not maybe it is time to create one. As to the tools to do the analysis I picked this up in a previous read of the thread and my own research/experience. There are several measures to do the analysis, some you have said are not existent, so maybe a policy again that says here is how you do analysis that allows for acknowledgement that if some methods are not appropriate the policy simply allows for it. Bottomline - Reasonableness is a subjective effort that if documented should hold up no matter what method or combination of methods were used. Or in otherwords are you too wrapped around the axle in trying to create an exact analysis effort?

Sorry but I can not help myself - are they not program managers and SMEs? This posed have you tried something this simple - Interent Search - "How to create an independent cost estimate for an r&d project + dod" Try it it might yield some helpful results. Likewise playing with wording regarding subawards and determination of price reasonableness I got several hits especially University policy and direction on making such determinations. Maybe weaving everything together you can solve your concerns and questions.