Motorcity

Many good ideas here. We are definitely looking at many different segments, including PALT, 1102 performance plans, and also comparing with other agencies. It is accurate an statement with regard to the document ending up in a drawer somewhere that gets updated every nine years. The big thing here is that the client office pays a hefty fee for procurement-related services and isn't exactly thrilled about our performance in several areas (notably, customer service). The big challenge here is that the program office is seeking input from across the board, so multiple divisions are going to have an opinion.

I am curious to learn more about Service Level Agreements (SLAs) in the federal procurement arena. My procurement shop is working on an SLA with a large and well-funded client office. I understand that the planned SLA will generally set forth a timeframe and process for various procurement actions. The existing SLA is quite dated and doesn't quite match the needs of the organization in its current state. Customer service has been the main sticking point between the two organizations for years. The client office has complained for years about slow response times and lack of "buy in" from various 1102s. Has anyone ever worked on or drafted an SLA between a procurement team and a client before? If so, what was your experience? What was the outcome?

Yes, the Q/A review process needs to be changed for sure. I suppose it depends on the agency, but it's definitely a hindrance that slows the process down. That said, having more independent COs can only be a good thing as long as they understand the mission. Many of our COs have all the certifications and knowledge, yet they don't invest the time and effort to understand the mission of their client.

It appears not, but I am still going through the file. It appears that several contract employees left the requirement and the program office couldn't decide on whether or not they had a need for replacing those individuals.

No problem, but we were curious because the setup isn't common. Had to have been a major pain when option exercise time rolled around and each CLIN needs to be funded with a different pot of funding.

My teammates are going through a few older 8(a) ANC direct award task orders for professional services. One of the orders ended quite a while ago, but we noticed a few interesting things. Mainly, that several CLINs were left unfilled on the task order, but they weren't taken off via partial termination for convenience. It appears that a CLIN was created for each labor category (and each CLIN was funded from a different pot of money as well).Seems that our picky (and powerful) program office couldn't decide whether to keep the positions, or remove them altogether. Looks like the now-retired CO left the positions on the requirement, but didn't fund (or even fill) them. Has anyone ever had this happen on a labor hour requirement before? Have you seen positions remain on the requirement, yet go unfunded/unfilled due to program/client issues?

Another thing I learned is that librarians are processing direct transfers for FEDLINK subscriptions/products I understand that the process happens like this...the program office will send the money to their agency's library team. From there, the library team transfers the funds directly to the selected vendor. I think some sort of IAA needs to be set up between the agency and the vendor for these types of fast transfers, which can be much more streamlined than processing orders via a CO.

Yes, I have read the link, plus all related information regarding FEDLINK going back years. It appears that FEDLINK has five separate contract categories (Books, Foreign Language, Electronic Resources, Preservation, and Serials). It appears that requirements within the Foreign Language segment need to be competed, as stated on their website. Legal stated that we don't need to be doing a FAR 16.505 justification, as FEDLINK is established by statute (2 USC 182c), and the statute authorizes agencies to purchase directly through FEDLINK. Other COs I know at other agencies have received similar guidance. The challenge here is that the LOC team is not very responsive or customer-oriented.

I heard that some people are putting FAR 16 Justifications into their files, but I'm not so sure if that is even necesary. It appears that these are not multiple-award IDIQs, but really just a group of standalone single-award IDIQ contracts. it also appears that each base IDIQ contract was awarded with a JA.

Has anyone ever processed orders off of any of the LOC’s FEDLINK IDIQS? Looks like the LOC has awarded numerous sole source single-award IDIQs for various database subscriptions, which can then be used by any agency. If we were to process an order, would we even need a sole source justification at the order level if one was already drafted at the base IDIQ level? This option is rather new to our office, but seems almost too easy, unless we are missing something. FEDLINK.

I believe there a few contractors serving in highly-specialized professional staffing roles that aren’t considered to be inherently governmental. I don’t believe the companies they work for would even be able to compete on any future requirement related to the demos.

I moved over to the IT program side a number of years ago. The new West Coast office I’ve been assigned to conducts a massive amount of market research year round with sources sought notices, RFIs, conferences, and demos. Previously, the program office had a penchant for almost trying to evaluate or down-select a vendor during the market research phase. The biggest thing I recall from my 1102 days at my old agency was that there was a policy in place where third-party contractors couldn’t even attend product demos. The new agency doesn’t appear to have a policy, but I don’t even recall TPCs being present at vendor demos. This team has a huge number of TPCs - is it allowable for a TPCS to attend a product demo? I assume that if so, they wouldn’t have to identify their contractor status. Perhaps posters could share their experience on conducting vendor demos and offer suggestions on what works and what doesn’t?

I've used it a few times. One challenge is that you have to go through training in order to receive the Delegation of Procurement Authority (DPA) from the OASIS team. One other aspect is that you can issue direct awards on OASIS. The OASIS Ordering Guide states that the OASIS SB contract also authorizes the OASIS OCO to choose to issue a direct award to a HUBZone, SDVOSB, or 8(a) contract holder, as authorized by statute (see FAR 16.500(b) and 6.302-5(b)). Please follow specific FAR and Agency guidance in making direct awards.

Jamaal, does your agency have research services or information professionals (librarians) that can be consulted? Usually, if I need something researched, i just email our internal library and they can usually find what I need. I know our library has several law librarians, so they are well-versed. I agree with Vern I that a person will have a great deal of difficult using rather complicated search tools and databases without proper training.

CPARS as well. Seems like a large amount of my time is spent on reporting and administrative duties that take up a great deal of valuable time. What was the real reason for eliminating the 1105 series anyways?