Jump to content
The Wifcon Forums and Blogs


  • Posts

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by Acq_4_life

  1. C Culham, The plan is to award 2 single award BPAs to a small business with teaming arrangements. I appreciate all the feedback and will take them into consideration.
  2. C Culham, Yes, the next step is to get the head of the agency's determination to do so. This has all been dropped in my lap, so I am seeking recommendations on the most efficient way to move forward. I appreciate your feedback.
  3. ji20874, The 2 requirements were initially combined and competitively awarded as multiple BPAs. After 3 years of performance, the contractors (small businesses) struggled to perform both services. As stated by the program office, the 2 requirements are unrelated and should have been separated from the very beginning.
  4. ji20874, I appreciate your response. Yes, the intent is to competitively establish 2 single-award BPAs -- each one competitively. And yes, the contract review board has recommended that I competitively establish one single award BPA. I agree that FAR 8.405-3(a)3)(ii) requires a determination that (A), (B), (C), or (D) applies. I was only making a point that (B) would definitely not fit the Board's recommendation, along with (A), (C), and (D). In determining whether to establish a single-award BPA, the Contracting Officer has already considered the factors laid out in FAR 8.405-3(a)(3)(iv) and documented the decision in the acquisition plan. However, after reading your post it appears that the CO would not be able to justify establishing two single award BPAs (each would be under $100M). Is this accurate?
  5. I would like to get your feedback on Single-Award BPAs issued against the GSA Schedule. I plan to issue 2 separate Single-Award BPAs pursuant to the authority of FAR Part 8.405-3. Both BPAs will not exceed one-year in duration and have up to four one-year options, which will enable our agency to fulfill necessary requirements in the form of issued Orders. Orders will be issued on a Firm-Fixed Price, Time-and-Material and/or Labor Hour basis. Before moving forward with this acquisition strategy, the Contract Review Board (consisting of Branch Chiefs and COs) recommended that I combine the 2 Single-Award BPAs into 1 Single-Award BPA to avoid the administrative burden on the assigned Contract Specialist’s workload. I do understand the administrative burden; however, I am not in agreement with this recommendation because the estimated value of both BPAs combined would exceed $100M. Per FAR 8.405-3(a) (3) (ii), “no single-award BPA with an estimated value exceeding $100M (including any options), may be awarded unless the head of the agency determines in writing that – the BPA provides only for firm-fixed priced orders…..” Since both BPAs will be issued on a Time-and-Material and/or Labor Hour basis, this recommendation would conflict with the regulation stated in the FAR. I plan to present my reasons to the Board for not considering this recommendation. Do you agree that the Board’s recommendation conflicts with the FAR?
  6. I used mailroom support services as a scenario to address the question at hand. The services are for Construction Data Analysis where the incumbent contractor is required to obtain the most comprehensive database of construction project information available that will allow the agency to publish monthly estimates of the total dollar value of construction work done in the United States. The incumbent contractor has provided these services on a sole source basis for the past 20+ years. Recent market research has revealed that several companies have the capability and experience to provide these services. Converting from a sole source to a competitive environment requires more time for internal processes (such as, legal review/internal reviews, technical evaluation, final proposal revisions, etc.).
  7. Thanks Vern! In issuing a bilateral modification (supplemental agreement) for the “new work”, I am not sure what authority to cite on Block C of the modification. Most contracting agencies cite “Mutual Agreement of the Parties”, which I understand is the least preferred authority to cite. Please advice.
  8. I am administering a firm-fixed price (sole-source) award contract for mail room support services. The former C/O utilized the option to extend 52.217-8 clause to allow more time (six-months) for continued performance under the existing contract while a new contract is being solicited and awarded. An additional extension is needed beyond the six-months. Question: If an extension is needed beyond the six-months option to extend clause, is it accurate to say that the extension would need to be supported by a J&A and a bilateral modification? Additional, under what authority should the C/O cite on the bilateral modification?
  9. ji20874, I appreciate your recommendations. I use this site quite frequently, because it is very useful and a reliable resource. I just do not like to read comments that I feel are unkind and unprofessional. I am frustrated as well as the “regulars”, because I work in an environment where professionals believe that “figuring it out for yourself” is the best thing possible. It seems as though no one wants to share his or her knowledge let alone provide hands-on training. I will never understand it.
  10. Vern, I have limited documentation for this contract. The former Contract Specialist and C/O are no longer with the Agency. There was no PNM or any other supporting documentation to support the basis for this contract. However, I do know that the award was made through the Ability One Program, which is a statutorily mandated source. I understand that services and products that have been set-aside under the Ability One Program remain Ability One contracts for as long as the requirement exists. And the FAR exempts AbilityOne procurements from the justification requirement, which normally applies to other than competitive procurements. So, I am assuming that the former Specialist used this as the basis for the single award.
  11. ji20874, The former Contract Specialist structured the umbrella IDIQ contract (price schedule) to include a General Clerk I @ 4,016 hrs., a General Clerk II @ 6,024 hrs., a Project Manager @ 2,008 hrs., and a Floor Supervisor @ 104 hrs. The total hours proposed for each individual category reflect the number of hours needed for both task orders. In other words, a General Clerk I requires 3,016 hours for Task Order 1 and 1,000 hours for Task Order 2. (Note: These positions are covered by the Service Contract Act). The former Specialist structured Task Order 1 and Task Order 2 (price schedule) to include a firm-fixed price payment schedule. The price schedule (for both task orders) does not list any of the categories established for the umbrella contract; it only lists the firm-fixed payment schedule that the contractor is required to invoice monthly. This price schedule is shown for the base and all option periods. I am uncertain on what the contractor's proposed prices are based upon, since there is no language specified in the umbrella contract on whether the proposed prices are based on workload volume, personnel serviced, etc.
  12. The option will extend the period of performance for Task Order 1. After reading some of the recommendations posted here, I believe exercising the option for Task Order 1 after negotiating a change that would cover both agencies seems more reasonable. Thanks Vern.
  13. ji20874, The umbrella IDIQ contract was awarded as a single award to the incumbent contractor XYZ, a non-profit organization through the Ability One Program. The general requirements under the umbrella contract require XYZ Company to operate a full service mail and express parcel operations center as well as manage the high volume of workload on a regular and daily basis. Since XYZ Company has provided these services to both agencies for more than ten years, XYZ Company is familiar with the high volume of workload that they are required to manage. As far as the workload volume, neither the umbrella contract nor the individual task orders provide any specifics about how much workload the contractor is required to manage on a daily basis. However, the individual task orders provide specifics about incoming and outgoing mail. I hope this helps. If not, please let me know what specific information you need me to provide. Again, I appreciate any recommendations you can provide.
  14. ji20874, The parent IDIQ contract does not make any other promises that I haven't mentioned. Thanks for your recommendation.
  15. Jamaal Valentine, This is a single award IDIQ. Both task orders were awarded at the same time; therefore, both options are up for renewal. Additional, this is a commercial service. I believe It is possible to renegotiate the new terms to include the additional workload into the option, since the requirement is within the scope of work. This is something I will need to present to the program office.
  16. I am administering a firm-fixed price IDIQ contract that consists of a base and four 1-year option periods. Under Task Order 1, the contractor is providing mailroom support services for Agency 1 located in Maryland. Under Task Order 2, the contractor is providing mailroom support services for Agency 2 located in the District of Columbia. Effective July 30, 2016, the Department plans to relocate Agency 2 to Agency 1 located in Maryland. Since Option Period 1 is due to expire on June 30, 2016, Agency 2 is required to notify the contractor that mailroom services are no longer needed at this location, as well as not needing to exercise the next option period. My question: Is there a need to renegotiate the contract? The contractor is providing the same services for both locations. The contractor is managing the proper receipt, collection, handling, processing and distribution of both agencies’ mail and express parcel workload. The difference is that the mailroom workload is much heavier at Agency 1 than at Agency 2. Agency 1 consists of 4,265 employees and Agency 2 consists of 610 employees. Any recommendations you could provide would be greatly appreciated.
  17. Someone may already have addressed this question, so please forgive me if I am addressing it again. I am administering a 5-year (FFP) contract (AbilityOne award) where the SCA applies. The contractor submitted a request for equitable adjustment based on a revised wage determination increase in health and welfare benefits. I understand that the contractor is free to grant wage or benefit increases as he sees fit, but there are strict limits as to what portion of those increases can be passed through the government in the form of a price adjustment. My question is does this increase in health & welfare constitute an equitable adjustment? I would appreciate any recommendations you can provide.
  18. Retreadfed, If I am interpreting this clause correctly, the Government may require the Contractor to correct the problem by replacing the contractor's employee. In this situation, Contractor A dismissed the employee from further employment with their company. Now, Contractor B has hired the same employee; and Contractor B is not aware of the employee's performance with Contractor A. At what point would Contractor B replace the employee? The start date for this employee to begin services is not until next month.
  19. Retreadfed, The services are considered commercial subject to FAR 52.212-4, Alt I. The program office identified the hours of operation (in the SOW) required by the contractor. The project manager re-assigned the employee's work to another employee within the same company so that the work would be completed within the time required. Thanks for your input.
  20. Joel, According to the COR, the employee worked for 3 months before he/she was dismissed. Within those 3 months, the employee's performance was unacceptable. Additionally, the employee came into the office a few days out of the week when he/she was required to work 8 hours a day/5 days a week. Due to the large volume of work required by this employee, the program office felt the need to inform the contractor's project manager of the employee's unacceptable performance. I appreciate your input.
  21. ji20874, This is a time-and-material type contract. There is no wording in the contract giving the Government approval of contractor employees nor words saying the Government may deny facility access. The contractor's performance is satisfactory; however, the program office has an issue with this one individual coming aboard.
  • Create New...