Jump to content
The Wifcon Forums and Blogs

vecchia capra

Members
  • Content Count

    24
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

0 Neutral

About vecchia capra

  • Rank
    New

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Male
  • Location
    Huntsville,AL
  • Interests
    Cycling, triathlon, running

Recent Profile Visitors

12,391 profile views
  1. Vern, I misspoke about the quote leading to an award, the misuse of terms in my office has started to bleed over into my own writing unfortunately. Brian, Yes, as the vendor who quoted the lowest price was told by the manufacturer (who was in contact with all the other vendors as well) who had the lowest price. The lowest vendor all but asked when his award would be issued when he called to ask for the status of the souce selection. To all, An interesting twist came up yesterday, after reviewing the quote in question and the other quotes, I was unable to substantiate that the quote indeed had
  2. The Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) has an opposing opinion to your first statement: E. Closing task and delivery orders: Task and delivery orders are not considered to be individual contracts. http://www.hhs.gov/asfr/ogapa/acquisition/contract-closeout-chapter3.html#Closingtask
  3. Yes, it is a claim. Certification is something applied to a claim so whether or not it is certified is irrelevant to its status as a claim.
  4. I am working on an RFQ where 5 quotes were submitted, and we are within a day or so of award. A vendor has been selected based on the lowest price, and the business clearance has been approved by the CO. Then, one of the vendors who was not the apparent lowest contacted me this morning and stated that his quote had a mistake where he included an extra option year into his price. A review of the contractor's quote backed that up, the untitled quote was added below the titled quotes. My question is: Is it appropriate to allow the vendor who made the mistake to correct his error? If we did n
  5. Once again I totally agree with you Vern! Construction is da bomb, IT is as complicated but not nearly as much fun.
  6. Vern, I don't disagree with you as you have much more experience than I do in observing how organizations administer their contracting profession. I can only base my opinion on what I have seen, which is pretty dismal currently. An example of how bad things are is in how long it takes to award contracts and simple delivery/task orders these days. The latest major award in my office for an Multi Award (3 contractors) ID/IQ contract took two years to accomplish. Basic DO/TOs are taking up to 6 months and rarely less than 3 months to award. Using NAVFACs system those activities took at leas
  7. Vern, I believe the entire system at NAVFAC SW Division office in San Diego was a good system. It supported the field 1102's with a variety of tools to assist and standardize processes without adding to bureaucratic burdens, provided a clear distinction between procurement and adminstrative contracting, supported true price and cost analysis activities, and enhanced the relationship between 1102's and the PM through matrixed teams that were co-located. In my office, I sat two cubes down from my PM so we could talk face to face within 5 steps from each others desk. No other office has done a
  8. Joel, NAVFAC avoided single award task orders starting well before it became widely practiced and set up multi-award, multi-contractor ID/IQ contracts that allowed for competition. The contracts were set up with pools of contractors for nearly every kind of work that NAVFAC did, from environmental remediation, military construction, commercial construction and speciality projects such as trailer renovation (the Navy had a lot of trailers but was not allowed to buy anymore, hence the need for trailer renovation). Most types had pools of small businesses and large businesses that could be eith
  9. When I was working for NAVFAC, we used a database of previous contracts for construction projects to assist us in determining the IGCE for work. We also checked those estimates against a commercially available tool that conglomerated the wage information, cost of supplies and building materials and other economic factors into a fairly easy to use system to logic check our estimates. To pay for the work, we simply verified that the invoice line items were linked to the contract clins, were allocable and allowable, and matched the project schedule associated with the contract. We also performe
  10. Rookie1102, It has been my experience that the task orders and the base contract are a unit, and the the retention period is for the contract AND its delivery orders as a whole. The only time I have seen anything contrary to that has been when a delivery/task order is awarded on a GSA schedule or external contract outside of the office awarding the order. I have never seen or heard of an office sending GSA or external award delivery/task order files to GSA or to another agency when those orders were closed out, so I believe those orders are treated as individual contracts. This experience ha
  11. Joel, Thanks for the reply. I think the key here is "a specialized, trained staff to develop, manage, negotiate and administer task orders", which to me seems a bit much given the atmosphere in Government contracting today. I remember the team that managed the BOS/JOC contract at Ft Benning, a team of three individuals, who spent months at a time merely administering the Award Fee determination, including negotiations with both the contractor and the base representatives. I just don't understand why an office would intentionally seek to use a process that required such specialized and train
  12. Joel, What is the benefit of using such a scheme? It seems to me that it is difficult to manage from both sides, and can be interpreted differently by each side even when the inputs are agreed upon by both sides. I can understand why I have never seen this pricing scheme, I have not worked for the USACE or the USAF, I have worked for NAVFAC and the Army Contracting Agency and they did not use such a complicated pricing system in those organizations.
  13. I wonder if the Army's pricing "scheme" (perhaps that word is especially apt in this case), is the norm for commercial construction contracting or found in any other Government contracting offices. I have worked on construction contracts for both Navy and Army organizations and I have never seen such a "scheme" in use in those offices. I cannot imagine that a commercial construction contract would base its pricing on such an arcane system when simply adding the allowable costs seems to be sufficient. I also wonder why any commercial company, short of desperation, would agree to such terms.
  14. I do not believe that the terms of the solicitation/contract that will be awarded will have a real impact because of this section of the clause "...whose employment will be terminated as a result of the award of this contract...". If the incumbent does not terminate their employees in the case it does not win the follow on contract, then the clause is irrelevant. I believe that the Right of First Refusal clause is primarily for SCA covered employees who will be terminated if the incumbent does not win the follow on contract. In cases where professional employees are involved, I believe the d
×
×
  • Create New...