C Culham

Exactly why a written clarification from the agency would be appropriate...not saying I'm right just an interesting double view.

One of those occasions where it is best to put your question to the contact listed in the solicitation, in writing would be my suggestion. This said.... I am going to guess that STO is "Safe Torque Off" and the "ZDO72" has something to do with a specific drive.

DoD centric or would civilian agencies have the ability to use some of the same or similiar authorities? Yet my overall thought when I first saw the post and did a quick review of the document I wondered about industry outreach pre-notice. Maybe my view is too simplistic as at first blush the document represents a big ask that then says just wait for the individual solictiations. Then I wondered as I thought harder is this just one further twist to accomplish the "competition" requirement so no further notices need to be posted as afterall it is posted as a "Combined Synopsis/Solicitation (Original)"? In my simplisitic view I settled on thinking this was just an easy way out for trying to engage industry in a very large endeavor. Saying so because once again in the simple view isn't (or shouldn't) every need be negotiated with industry to find the agreement/contract that provides to best solution to have industry accomplish the mission. It just seems that this approach is out of sinc with project planning. strategies as I would think the government would settle on the best approach to accomplish a need and then move forward with it. Or maybe as exemplified by the approach the government already has and is using the approach to shortcut industry outreach? I am not settled that the approach is a new wize bang to mission accomplishment.

Joel has you on the right track but your example suggests two different National Stock Number Items are being procured and shelf could be different even though they are in the same general catagory as it is up to the agency under MIL-STD-129 to determine shelf life type.

Or maybe it won't change that much.... Reference - PUBLIC LAW 114–328—DEC. 23, 2016 NATIONAL DEFENSE AUTHORIZATION ACT FOR FISCAL YEAR 2017, "Sec. 888. Requirement and review relating to use of brand names or brand-name or equivalent descriptions in solicitations."

Well they were not around in 1984 so one can not consider what their historical view was when the FAR was published, but I wonder. And my wondering caused me to do some simple research that made me further wonder..... 180 days to wade through history to do something sweeping today? Just a tickle of what one might look at. https://guides.loc.gov/federal-government-contracting/understand-past And this discussion from 2014 popped up....https://www.wifcon.com/discussion/index.php?/forums/topic/2848-shrinking-the-far/ 180 to propose? How long to finalize and amend?

Substance would be regulatory, statutory, and human capital management changes done together. Currently all are archaic. And I am not talking about anything related to "systems" or whatever one might call it, systems is just my simple terminology. Just to prick the surface. Statutory - Rid Federal contracting of Davis Bacon and Service Contract Act at the most or at the least increase the thresholds. As already noted FAR part 12 becomes prominant for everything, including construction. Intent on the latter is to raise the SAT not for economic adjustment but for reality. I live in an unsophisticated area where my neighbor is building a house for $500K and the contract for it is much less than what the FAR demands. Regulatory - Keep the FAR and kick the proposed guide books idea to curb. Yes pare FAR down as best can be accomplished but 40 years ago it was the right idea. Heck even consider what happend 40 years ago, kick the FAR name to the curb and rewrite it as anything but the FAR. Maybe make OTA's the prototype to follow. Human Capital - Why should I have mastery when in the end someone else is telling me I do not care what you think just get it done. Investing in people and making their counsel and advice of high importance make them feel worthwhile and will generate mastery. Not doable at the surface is what you and almost everyone will say. Too simple of examples, whatever! In this world anything is possible and there are lots of things that can be done that are of substance. Yet, and again, I simply reach back to the EO that started this and the number of "shalls" in it that won't be met. In the end it is being done because of politics and not with an ideal in hand to make it a substantive change to how the Federal government does business. As this rolls down hill my expressed hope in previous posts is fading quickly.

I agree in the invest. A lack of investment that ripples to 2.0 effort as well in my view as the intent is less of the FAR will produce less need of an acquisition workforce instead of realigning "the manual" to make it a better one. And while I am at it, I wonder if the 2.0 rewrite has some industry folks sitting in, afterall the basic tenant of Federal acquisition is that it is suppose to be a team effort that embraces industry. Is it much ado about nothing or will it be of substance, time will only tell.

In truth I really have a problem with opening post. Why? Hopefully the intent of the T&M was to accomplish a need when it was not possible at the time of placing the contract to estimate accurately the extent or duration of the work or to anticipate costs with any reasonable degree of confidence (FAR 16.601). "Use up funds" does not seem an appropriate need for the original order nor a good reason to extend it. If me I would not allow it and believe doing so would be counter to the intent of Federal acquisition. Maybe your opening post needs clarification ........

Suggests a DoD contract to me. At the same time you are submitting a claim I would suggest contacting at the highest level the appropriate Small Business Program Office (link below) as well as your legislative representative. Doing so is no replacement for the claim route but I would suggest the pressure might help in getting to the matter solved facter than it has been. https://business.defense.gov/Work-with-us/Military-Departments-and-Defense-Agencies/

@realquiet Big "IF". My experience would suggest that most contractors in any setting are not in 100% compliance with even their own terms and conditions. If you look hard I suspect you can find the leverage to strongly suggest they should cooperate or otherwise they are gone as to me the leverage does not have to be for the specific issue. Or as noted another element of negotiation.

From another view. A solicitation to fill a position that has been vacated by Trump edict that the agency hopes only the ex-employee responds to?

Kind of a repeat.....but, Yep they do. There is not privy of contract between your sub and the Government. Or as stated absent some subcontract language to require the supplier to provide you are at the mercy of your sub. What to do? Get a new sub? Provide the detail as the prime and hope it fits what your sub is telling you? Take your dilemma to your CO and ask them what they would like you to provide. If they say they want it from the sub and on the subs letterhead then you might be back to - get a new sub if the sub does not want to cooperate?

5 None Quick thoughts - Acquiring a "person" aka "one (1) qualified mechanical equipment specialist" not a service? 52.212-4 not tailored so it really isn't short. The format, even with some discreation regarding what FAR 12.303 says I have to wade through provisions etc. to get to what the work really is. Bottomline - Its a people problem not a FAR problem.

Bluntly this all does not make sense when coupled together. FLSA exempt employess do not have to be paid overtime. Leadership does not dictate when a workday starts the contractor does. A Labor Hour Contract for exempt FLSA employees? Bottomline you are thinking too much like the Labor Hour Contract is like the Federal government is hiring employees. I would suggest your need does not fit your hopes for a Labor Hour Contract and you should be looking at a different type. Remember a labor hour contract may be used only when it is not possible at the time of placing the contract to estimate accurately the extent or duration of the work or to anticipate costs with any reasonable degree of confidence. I say this because it sounds like you are anticipating the work and how long it will take to complete because of a stupid budget or leaderships false sense of "budget overruns". All this said I am on board with the predominant theme of other posts - Negotiate with your potential contractors. What I think that you have not done is market research - maybe a RFI - to get the contractors to tell you how you can pound you square peg into a round hole! Armed with that information and a refined solicitation you would then negotiate a contract that fits the needs so that "budget" is not exceeded, which in my simple view is a Firm Fixed Price contract if everyone is so confident that the work can be accomplished at a certain cost/price. Bottomline for me.....a Labor Hour Contract is not accomplishing what sounds like the primary goal of your need....stay within "budget".

So my quick thoughts with no research. Why couldn't they. You seem to be trying to relate the question as what would happen to a Federal employee in travel status. Could not a Federal employees on temporary duty (TDY) fly someplace and then work in the same 24 hour period? Same response as above. I would suggest none exists with regard to travel regulations. But I wonder why you are looking at travel limitations? What may matter is the Fair Labor Standards Act with regard to limitations applied to a contractor. Let your potential contractors figure it out. By example why couldn't the contractor just have someone (like a subcontractor) in El Paso do the work?

Deleted. I overlooked the cost reimbursement part completely. How is anyones guess.

Using the most appropriate NAICS is important as well as it would hopefully equalize the competition amongst those most interested as it would hopefully reach those contractors that are usually doing the kind of work represented by the NAICS. Remember contractors can setup SAM creating search agent criteria for notification of a particular solicitation based on NAICS.

To accomodate the offeror yes but should you? Remember it is up to you, as the Federal agency, to make a determination of what NAICS applies to the solicitation. Take a read of FAR 19.102(b). And a further thought. If the originally listed NAICS is considered to be the appropriate one and the supplier might qualify under it but does not have it listed in SAM have both you and the supplier considered FAR 52.204-8 paragraph (d)?

WIFCON Terms of Use Rule 16. Abbreviations are to be kept to a minimum--preferably none at all--so that others can interpret a post and respond to it intelligently.

Interesting discussion. But considering the reference one would think that "somtimes" is not applicable to the use of "shall" in the FAR because "shall" as an imperative is manifest in the FAR. I guess I disagree based on my past experience as a 1102, 1101, warranted Contracting Officer and even within the historic bounds of WIFCON over the years wherein shall as an imperative was debated and/or abused (maybe even by me). Everyone has their own view. I do wonder what "shall"s and "must"s will disappear. After all "shall" appears eleven times in this EO “Restoring Common Sense to Federal Procurement”

No. Why? My view is while there is an element of risk aversion the biggest reasons are individual bureaucratic discreation and the continued meddling of legislative intent. I was around when the FPR became the FAR and have always viewed it as Federal Contracting For Dummies or as the quoted resource states better regulation of how to do the job. Legislative meddling often tells the practioner how to do their job because of some special interest(s) or otherwise unknowing legislative staffer thinking they know better how something should be done. I point to a subpart of a FAR Part already mentioned 16.505 and mulitple award IDIQs and fair opportunity. FASA demanded it in 1994 because contractors felt locked out of single award IDIQs. My personal view a complication added to a contract type that was working just fine. I would add here, in light of previous post, that FAR Part 16 carries 14 references to the USC. I have not researched in detail but it would seem per my reference to FAR 16.505 and a total of 14 USC references that FAR Part 16 does have some statutory context. To individual bureaucratic discreation in my view agency management and their CO's are always looking for something to work around a FAR requirement rather than just taking it in stride and making it work. Think mandatory sources and the Committee for Purchase from the Blind and Other Severely Handicapped. I do not believe that the intention that 100% of all needs of an Agency that can be satisified by a purchase via the manadtory source of the Committee is actually practiced because of individual bureacratic manipulation that is fueled by intended or unintended bias. Additionally there is the complication of the FAR supplements that moved individual discreation to agecny discreation because they think they know better or otherwise have acquisitions that support their missions muddled by legislative intent. Yes, as already implied it turned a muddled huge FPR into Federal Contracting For Dummies. In the beginning it was welcome relief, today it is equal to the FPR when it was tossed aside. How is "change" implied? A reformed FAR will hopefully shed much that is not needed, including its supplements and policy intended as psuedo supplements, and get back to the basics that provides the opportunity to everyone to compete for the almighty Federal dollar in an easily understood Federal Contracting for Dummies.

No personnelist here but the quote intrigued me so I did a little research. GS 1102's have been in the excepted service. By example see the following link to a Federal Register notice of 2021 by OPM regarding positions in excepted service Schedules A,B, & C. There are references to 1102's in the notice. On point to the original poster regarding Schedule F by my research F was what I will call "created" in the first Trump Adminstration and is being reignited once again. Up until 2020 when F first appeared there was Schedule A,B,C,D & E. The references I found for my conclusions was an array found in doing an internet search which also pointed to the fact that creation of Schedule F is pursuant 5 U.S.C. § 7511 .

https://www.federalregister.gov/public-inspection/current Includes the following - https://public-inspection.federalregister.gov/2025-06904.pdf (aka Improving Performance, Accountability and Responsiveness in the Civil Service) which is to be published in the Federal Register tomorrow April 23, 2025.

Thank you