SSKO

Lorena like you our "policy" people have adopted our attorney's 30% threshold which is a roadblock even with my analysis.

Our attorney is pushing "more than 30%" is out of scope based on Liberty Corp.,B-232234.5 I tried to explain I use the test for CICA applicability to determine whether there is a material difference between the original contract and modification (type of work performance period, cost (which is not alone a determining factor) whether the original contract advised offerors of the potential for change and whether the modification would have reasonably anticipated at the time of award). I have a de-scope with an approximate 33% decrease in price, but my determination with all other factors considered is that the de-scope is not out of scope!! I word searched and could not find reference to 30% in the decision. I asked the attorney to show me specifically......dead silence.

You have no choice but to instruct the offeror to provide a third party review based upon a firm that understands how DCAA determines the adequacy of the accounting system. DCAA will not conduct a preward accounting system review, only post award on the winning offeror. I included this language in Section L and after award requested a review. The offerors shouldn't be excluded because of Government/DCAA backlog: Cost Accounting System. L. 6.5.6.4.1 FAR 16.301-3 Limitations, requires that a contractor's accounting system be adequate for determining costs applicable to the contract prior to the award of a cost reimbursable contract. The offeror shall provide documented evidence to substantiate it has an adequate cost accounting system or will have the system in place prior to award. L. 6.5.6.4.2 Documented evidence can include but is not limited to: Certified Public Accountant (CPA) audit within the last year (perhaps for IRS purposes) who can provide a certificate that the accounting system that can comply with the requirements for collecting and segregating costs as listed above. Billing rates or evidence of submitting progress payments from a previous government contract(s). Evidence that a CPA is or will conduct a cost accounting system audit and certify compliance prior to award. Documentation/certification from the result of performance of a compliance audit conducted by external consultants/CPAs or internal auditors. Source documents, accounting records, SOPs and policies.

I read the legislation in the FY 2012 National Defense authorization Act and the class deviation issued by DoD states ".....NEGOTIATION OBJECTIVES .......... The Deviation language is not the same as the legislation and adds "..........for other than acquisition of commercial items or competitively awarded contracts or task orders" How do you interprete the directive for award?

Yes, 52.243-2 Alt I, CHANGES-COST REIMBURSEMENT is included. Sorry Vern. The current requirement is to provide intelligence services to the warfighter. That requirement will NOT change. The only change is the location of the analyst providing the service. Currently, the location is in the U.S. The change is to send analysts to Afghanistan to perform the same work.

I would not just arbitrarily increase the maximum amount

I submitted and J&A to the competition advocate who approved the out of scope ceiling increase. Yes, the maximum amount.

We currently have an IDIQ contract in which task orders are placed to provide intelligence analytical services to support the troops outside the U.S.. The contract provides analytical support from analysts based in the U.S. Now, we need to send analysts out of the U.S. to perform the same work. The IDIQ SOO does not cover analysts serving outside the U.S. Do you consider this change out of scope? Is that clearer?

You are right, I misspoke and deleted the comment to not cause further confusion.

SORRY TITLE SHOULD SAY "OPTIONAL TASKS" Due to the Iraq drawdown, the impending Afghanistan drawdown, depletion in funds, and mission changes we are having difficulty projecting the contractual requirement past the base year. Even for the base year, customers are sending me PWSs/procurement packages (for services) with a large percentage of "optional" tasks. For example, the PWS may include funded or known tasks for $4M and optional tasks for $7M. The outyear requirements are completely uncertain. I have found information regarding a "Phased Tasking" model contract Tasks are broken down into 3 categories Initial Tasks Optional Tasks Future Tasks [*]The contract is signed for a Committed amount Total of Initial Tasks (ordered implicitly at contract start) [*]Maximum Contract value which is Total of initial tasks Total of optional tasks Total of future tasks [*]I cannot find any guidance that limits the number of "optional" tasks however, I want to provide the greatest flexibilty to accomodate the unknowns but not have this contract turn into an open-ended "wish list" that would impede future competition. I would appreciate any feedback or suggestions.

Vern, You are right....I forgot about reporting the determination to SBA. I believe the procedure you suggested is solid and provides small businesses an alternative to being held hostage by DCAA.

Vern, http://blogs.cbh.com/govcon/?p=830 Excellent reference!!! Thanks.

---------------------------------------------------------------------- SSKO: You first asked your question six days ago. I am the only one who has offered a suggestion, one that I know can work because I have done it. .......................You in the meantime are beginning to sound pathetic. You have your one suggestion. If you don't like it then don't use it. If you are a contracting officer, then it is your job to come up with something, not ours. If you cannot figure this out for yourself, then give the job to someone who can. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- This is your response I received via email. "Pathetic"? Hardly. If I wasn't a good Contracting Officer I would not be seeking a solution but would merely determine the offeror did not comply with the solicitation. I also would not be so persisent if I wasn't dealing with a small business set aside procurement. I was trying to bring to light that 1) DCAA has changed its policy on Preaward Survey reviews of cost accounting systems and will NOT review until an offeror is selected for award and 2) This policy change greatly affects small businesses who do not have an audited accounting system in order to compete on cost type contracts. Eventually, other contracting officers will run into a similar situation. I have revised Section L and M based on your response, as best I can interprete. I appreciate all the feedback. Thank you.

There is no good reason to push for a bid bond in a performance based service contract. As for protecting the subcontractors so they can get paid? Thats really not our concern........remember privity. You may do this at the expense of impeding competition. What about a cost type of contract? A payment and performance bond is required as a security to the job completion. What is the contractor promising to complete?

I'm asking for some alternative ideas. Yes, many of us are aware of the problems with private sector CPAs. Again, DCAA is NOT going to conduct preaward reviews on accounting systems prior to selecting the offeror for award. I understand what we "can't" do or what is "wrong". So, how do we determine if the small business accounting system is adequate? HUM?? Just one?