Jump to content


  • Posts

  • Joined

  • Last visited


0 Neutral
  1. Sorry, I do not get to this site a much as I would like to so I review some of the postings to "catchup" on items of interest and this one caught my attention. Chip13 stated that this was for an CPFF IDIQ task order for services where they appear to have established a Fixed Fee relationship regarding future Task Order needs. If it is IQ (FAR 16.504) does that not speak to the issue that the Government has a known amount of service support requirements and are seeking to establish a business relationship that will meet these future service support needs. CHIP13 went on to comment that "cost will be negotiated and fixed fee established before any cost is incurred". So when these future Task Orders are solicited the Government and the contractor have each had their opportunity to raise market conditions that would affect the prior fixed fee relationship. I believe that the prior relationship was prepared as "ohnoudidnt14" commented to derive a "reasonable approach and very helpful to the Government to be able to anticipate what to expect in advance of issuing a Task Order." That CHIP14 has looked down the road at the future work requirements and tried to establish a reasonable working relationship with the industrial partner for future work requirement needs should not discouraged. After all how much variance in the future work product will not be known until these future Task Orders surface. If the work is redundant it would seem to me that he has set in place a plan to quickly and efficiently place new work. Isn't he trying to be proactive? Why speak ill of this approach.
  2. Vern or Bob - If this has been asked and answered numerous times could you please direct me to those prior responses? Thank you!
  3. What approach have you seen used to establish a significance to "Cost". On the fixed price issues you have something you can put in the contract with a financial cap that the Government can hang its hat on, but the cost venues you have nothing. Have you seen any approaches used to try and place a relationship on the contractor for his proposed costs to performance?
  4. My command is looking at doing a Multiple Award IDIQ solicitation under which we expect to utilze multiple contract type Task and Delivery orders (CPFF, CPFF/LOE, FFP/LOE & FFP). The Program Office is expecting to use Cost Reimbursable LOE Service Task Orders for Studies and Development requirements, and then Fixed Price Delivery Orders for Production Unit buys. We anticipate around 8 potential offerors at the IDIQ level and expect to succesfully downselect and award to 3 or 4 of these firms. The Government is looking at a minimum of around $2M and a maximum of $150M under the IDIQ. My question is what is the significance of "Cost" in a Multiple Award IDIQ downselect? I realize that under FAR 15.304 "Cost" must be evaluated but what is the significance of cost at the IDIQ level when the true competition on cost/price is not really established until the Task or Delivery Orders are competed from among the successful IDIQ awardees. Would like your thoughts...
  5. I believe your question refers to the direct labor rates. They will be verified via DCMA, DCAA, payroll data, or using salary survey data.
  6. For a cost type Level of Effort contract, where best value tradeoff without discussions is anticipated, my command has come up with an approach to perform a cost realism analysis as directed in FAR 15.305(a)(1). In our approach each offeror shall submit a self-assessment that it's generatic internal labor category resources being proposed meet the Government established minimum labor category requirement. The self-assessment consists of the offeror checking a box next to education, technical, and experience requirements of each government labor category asserting that the internal resource category they are proposing meets each requirement.The Government cost and technical evaluators will be required to confirm that the offeror's self assessment for meeting labor category minimum requirements was performed. To conclude its cost realism analysis the Government shall then perform a verification of the associated rates for each offeror's self-assessed labor resource offered and derive the Government evaluated Probable Cost position on the results of these cost realism findings per FAR 15.404-1(d)(2). That Probable Cost position shall then be used for the Best Value tradeoff determination per FAR 15.404-1(d)(2)(i). With the swing to procuring more Services via the LOE methodology I was wondering if others are using this approach or your thoughts about its usage.
  • Create New...