uva383

That or are demoralized when the “senior” person can’t explain or answer the question and just defaults to “that’s how we do it” The problem today is that the professional 1102 is caught between an organizational culture that does not value his/her skillsets. On the one hand we get told to take risks, lean forward, use sound judgement and business acumen, but on the other we are reduced to clerks who are told to rinse and repeat. Go to GSA and buy off the schedule because thats what GSA is for. We’re in a world where we are in CRs for atleast the first 1/3 of the FY if we are lucky then it’s a mad scramble to get everything awarded and the measure is not did we meet the requirement and achieve a successful outcome, no the measure of success is did we meet PALT and by the time we figure out if the delivery was made or the service was executed to expectations we are already so focused on the next urgent action we have no time to figure out what worked well and what didn’t and do more of the good and less of the bad.

If you set your CSO up like DIUx or MDA then no. You can solicit using a CSO and award an other transaction using a non-procurement authority that isn’t fixed price. You just wouldn’t use the procedures in the DFARS. It’s a solicitation IAW the rules in the statute of the non-FAR based authority you are trying to use.

Legally, I don’t see how it makes sense given the statutes, practically I don’t see where it’s needed and am struggling to see where the use cases presented can’t be solved with existing tools and structures if folks just through creatively about the tools they already had… feel like I’m missing something because a lot of smart people are excited about this and how it’s going to save so much time but just seems like layers of unneeded complexity to get the same results.

Isn't that the purpose of the logical follow-on exception to fair opportunity? In the scenario you describe, wouldn't you just do a class exception that outlines how the initial requirement was competed and the end state that you're hoping to achieve through the incremental development? If I'm reading the new 16.507, I'd still have to compete the BPA orders against the smaller set of BPA holders vs the IDIQ holder, or prepare the very same exception to fair opportunity to sole source the orders. And I guess if I wanted to establish a BPA, why wouldn't I either just write a CJ&A for all the calls under the BPA, or establish the pool of BPA holders and then compete the calls amongst them. Why go to an IDIQ just to do the same thing. Oh and then if I'm going to a GWAC, I'm going to still end up paying the servicing agency's fee for every dollar obligated to use their contract vehicle to get my BPAs in place and then all the calls. Just seems like layers of unnecessary complexity under the guise of innovation.

The FAR overhaul wanted to eliminate all policies and procedures not established by law. In looking over some of the updates, I noticed the new FAR Part 16 now suggests that BPAs can be established under multiple award IDIQ contracts, which is definitely not in law. In fact, it is actually contrary to law... The concept of fair opportunity is based in law, not regulation. 41 U.S.C. § 4106(c) states very clearly: "(c) Multiple Award Contracts.-When multiple contracts are awarded under section 4103(d)(1)(B) or 4105(f) of this title, all contractors awarded the contracts shall be provided a fair opportunity to be considered, pursuant to procedures set forth in the contracts, for each task or delivery order in excess of the micro-purchase threshold under section 1902 of this title that is to be issued under any of the contracts..." ALL CONTRACTORS SHALL BE PROVIDED A FAIR OPPORTUNITY FOR EACH TASK ORDER... That is the law I’m really struggling to understand why you would establish a BPA under an IDIQ and how would you go about establishing the agreement and comply with fair opportunity.

IMO putting SAM behind a paywall isn’t going to do anything. Those costs are just going to be covered in B&P which will be charged right back to the Govt which it’s already paying for. Maybe you’ll weed out those folks that register once and then never do anything again, but their registrations go inactive anyways so that data is archived and eventually deleted. As far as the changes to the thresholds, the one that really worries me as an 1102 is the proposed increase in the GPC threshold under the FORGED Act. $25M purchases on a Pcard, that will eliminate 80-90% of the contracting folks outside of systems contracting. Not to beat a dead horse but Vern says it all the time, until better training is given to acquisition folks, the processes that we award contracts will largely remain the same, regardless of the thresholds because there’s still the policy and processes on how to do things at each command and now with DRP and VERA so many folks have walked out the door that knew why the processes where there and what was done and when a process applied or not. Once the hiring freeze is lifted all the new folks will have no clue what to do, other than follow the local process which just recreates the wheel that Congress is trying to destroy by raising thresholds to make things faster.

Thank you Vern, good articles appreciate you sharing. I like those definitions of risk vs uncertainty and agree the term “uncertainty” is a better fit.

taking the OPs question at face value this is a common question that I get from folks that I work with. You have a contract for a job or a task, ie the Government wants the performer to do or deliver something. In this case we can assume the assume the something is repetitive and that’s why there are options. The something has such risk involved with it that do not permit us to come up with a set price, so we estimate a price and say the KTR is going to get a fixed fee for it. Each year, the estimated price was $1,000. In the first year we obligated $800 toward that $1,000 price. Based on the nature of the OPs question I’m going to assume 52.232-22 is in the contract which would limit the known expenditures to no more than $800 for the task. We are now in year 2. The question I would have for the OP is based on what you know for the situation, do you believe that the cost to do the task in this new year is going to be higher or lower or about the same as last year (the $800) or closer to the current estimated price of $1000 or even more than that. The CR contract type is not a blank check spend the money contract just because it cost us less one year and we can spend more for the same work this year. The govt hired the KTR to do something specific. Now if we want to talk about the something being less expensive and now we want more of the something’s to spend our budget because we over estimated the actual price of the something, I would say what does your contract say about that. I knew many CR type contracts that allowed for an increase in quantity of the contract was under running up to a certain delta between the original requirement and what can be afforded and stay within the awarded estimated cost but if the terms of the contract don’t have that, then I would say the OP needs to consider the reason for increasing the estimated cost of the line item and whether that is because it’s new work, the costs are higher or something else. If the costs are estimated to be higher for the exact same work, then have the KTR follow the process outlined in 52.232-20.

Pretty sure it means this ZD072: Hazard Communication Standard Notice: Effective June 1, 2015, Federal Standard No. 313-E, Material Safety Data, Transportation Data and Disposal Data for Hazardous Materials Furnished to Government Activities, establishes the requirement for preparation and submission of Safety Data Sheets (SDS) in lieu of Material Safety Data Sheets (MSDS) by suppliers who provide hazardous materials to government activities. The Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) has modified its Hazard Communication Standard (HCS) to conform to the United Nations Globally Harmonized System of Classification and Labeling of Chemicals. As a result of this change, GSA revised Federal Standard No. 313-E requiring Safety Data Sheets for classifying chemicals and communicating the applicable information on labels. In accordance with the revised standard after June 1, 2015: 1. Suppliers will be required to submit, to the contracting officer for review and approval prior to award, safety data sheets consistent with the requirements found at 29 C.F.R. 1910.1200 for hazardous materials delivered to the Government. 2. Suppliers will also be required to submit, to the contracting officer for review and approval prior to award, Hazardous Communication Standard (HCS) labels in accordance with 29 C.F.R. 1910.1200 requirements or current Consumer Product Safety Act (CPSA), Federal Hazardous Substance Act (FHSA) labels when subject to labeling requirements under those statutes. This product labeling is required for hazardous materials delivered to the Government. 3. Finally, suppliers must train their employees on the new safety data sheets, hazardous communication labels, and requirements of 29 C.F.R.1910.1200. For more information on SDS, refer to OSHAs website, available at: https://www.osha.gov/law-regs.html For information on 29 C.F.R. 1910.1200, refer to the below link: https://www.osha.gov/dsg/hazcom/index.html

Yes thank you Jamaal. That’s the thread.

I can’t find the thread at the moment but I’m sure with some creative searching you will. Vern posted about it a few years ago within wifcon. Just because the regulations say a contracting officer must “determine” or make a “determination” does not mean that a D&F needs to be prepared. A D&F is a specific document whose format is outlined in Part 1. When the contracting officer has to determine something and the regulations don’t say a D&F needs to be prepared, it simply means the contracting officer must document contemporaneously the rationale for the decision he/she has made. in your specific case, it would appear that you have to document why you chose the contract type that you did, but it doesn’t have to be in a D&F format outlined in Part 1.

Done a lot of CPFF term type awards, used the approach that you are describing and we included verbiage that stated if an offerer deviated from the government labor mix they were required to detail the rationale for the deviation or they were advised that their proposal would likely be found unacceptable. I can find the verbiage we used next week when I’m back in the office if you like.

Sad news, very sad news. My condolences to his family. While I never had the opportunity to meet Bob, this site and the information and people that contribute to it have made me a better KO. His dedication to WIFCON is a testament to his personal dedication to making us all better contracting folks. Thank you Bob for everything.

Based on the facts that you've presented unless we're all missing something sounds like your HCA needs some training on multiple year and multi-year procurements. This doesn't sound like either. Multiyear contracting enables agencies, such as DOD, to contract for more than 1 and up to 5 years of quantities while continuing to use funding appropriated annually to fulfill the contract. Unlike other contracts that span multiple years, multiyear contracts do not have to include options to be exercised each year after the first. This type of procurement can lead to cost savings derived from a number of sources, including: • purchasing parts and materials in economic order quantities; • improved production processes and efficiencies; and • better use of production facilities. A multi-year contract means a contract for the purchase of supplies or services for more than 1, but not more than 5, program years. Such contracts are issued under specific congressional authority for specific programs. A multi-year contract may provide that performance under the contract during the second and subsequent years of the contract is contingent upon the appropriation of funds, and (if it does so provide) may provide for a cancellation payment to be made to the contractor if appropriations are not made. The key distinguishing difference between multi-year contracts and multiple year contracts is that multi-year contracts buy more than 1 year's requirement (of a product or service) without establishing and having to exercise an option for each program year after the first. What you are describing doesn't seem like it fits either bill It doesn't sound like you are awarding a contract to a firm to go and study multiple populations of an endangered species and write multiple reports of its findings to be delivered over a defined period of years nor does it sound like you are awarding a contract that is a base and options for reports on an endangered species. This sounds like a single non-severable study of an endangered species that will take more than one year to complete.

GPC - Gov't Purchase Card CH - Card Holder