Jump to content

REA'n Maker

  • Posts

  • Joined

  • Last visited


0 Neutral

Profile Information

  • Gender
  • Location

Recent Profile Visitors

5,176 profile views
  1. Interesting thought exercise. As long as those terms are unambiguous there seems to be nothing that says you can't. I would be more concerned about obtaining the necessary HCA-level pre-approvals for a PoP longer than 5 years (if it's base + 4).
  2. Maybe they just like saying "cyber". It's not as much fun to say as "Francisco", but it's close. 😐
  3. I was saying both business processes lead to the same result, never suggested sole-source wasn't allowable (I asked "why do it" if it's not necessary), and deliberately didn't cite regulations and statutes because that wasn't my point. I'm also not following the "regulatory bureaucracy I am creating" comment - there's no bureaucracy created by following 36.6 without exception. If your point is regarding the SBA aspect, that's a wash either way, correct? It would be cleaner if we were not involving SBA, but that's the same for everything else in Federal contracting so why should this be any different...?
  4. Yet another reason to just follow 36.6. Put out your public notice regarding submission of SF-330's restricted to 8(a), evaluate them, rank them, negotiate price with the top ranked guy, and award. The first 3 steps are essentially what you should do (informally) to properly support a sole-source J&A anyway. Both processes lead to the same result, but only one constitutes competitive procedures. Neither procurement involves competitive pricing, so C or P data requirements are a wash. Sole-source Bad; Competition Good!
  5. Subpart 36.6 leads you to negotiating price with the (sole) source deemed most qualified, same as the sole-source/JEFO process*. Why waste time and effort on the competition exemption process? (*assuming we're talking about 6.302-1 as the justification)
  6. Would you say it's appropriate for the government to engage with the new contractor during the limbo between award and PoP start date? Or is the presumption that the vendor do all the planning and preparation and hope for the best? Every transition I've been involved with requires government involvement and approval. Can the new awardee engage with the existing vendor when planning their seamless continuity of services? Seems kind of pointless otherwise. 99% of government contracts are not awarded early and yet all the stuff you mention happens anyway. i.e., "early award" is clearly not required for proper transition planning. Where is the data that suggests otherwise? Conjecture or not, contractors taking any action related to a contract with no coverage is a risk. And when they file their claim the Government will be on record as tacitly encouraging them to incur those costs. Is it reasonable to assume all these actions can be accomplished at no cost? [* The rationale I've seen so far reads like a "parade of horribles"]
  7. Yes, but what on that list is in the Government's best interest? "Beating PALT" is administrivia, "closing the protest window earlier" doesn't make a protest less likely to occur (and there is pretty much 0% chance a protest would be resolved by the start of the PoP anyway), "Enabling current TO to utilize any remaining funds on the current contract and minimize doing a De-Ob" has nothing to do with an early award, and "providing the contractor more time to plan" is pure conjecture and begs the question of unauthorized pre-contract costs. So, my question still stands. For the record, my point was more existential in nature, as in "every CO should ask themselves this question as Step 1".
  8. There are many, many reasons that an experienced professional could imagine where it might not make sense to have a space of time before date of award and the start of the performance period.
  9. This scenario would also be somewhat applicable to an option exercise ("is there such a thing as exercising an option too early?"). What if your awardee ends up on the SAM/PPIRS naughty list between award and start of the PoP? What if their SAM registration expires before the start of the PoP? The FAR requires a CO to check SAM for exclusions immediately before award (I was dinged in an audit for checking SAM the morning of the award, which occurred later that afternoon.) The obvious intent is to make sure you're not awarding to an ineligible vendor. "They were fine when I checked them 2 months ago" won't fly. What is the upside of awarding early? Of all the posts on this topic I have yet to see anyone justify why it's in the best interest of the Government to award months before the start of the PoP (e.g., for supplies, supply chain lead-time might be a justification).
  10. The requirement for the CO to accurately assign NAICS codes isn't just limited to OASIS (FAR 19.102(b)(2)(i)). How that could apply to anything other than a task order/call is a mystery, but this is SBA we're talking about.
  11. PII is not an administrative issue and likely would involve multiple, high-level agency reviews and approvals. That's a heckuva' last-minute add.
  12. Did it have CLINs in it or any other indication of how pricing was to be submitted? If so, then it is definitely not the worst solicitation in the history of procurement. That honor would go to an RFP released by a former 1102 "colleague", who, after wearing down his paper-thin reputation here to the lowest level possible, got a job at another agency, only to find he couldn't pass the CO competency exam. For the same job he held for the prior 10 years.
  13. Absent any specific prohibitions in the RFP, past performance as a JV member is often treated much like past performance as a sub. Just make sure the relationship hierarchy is clearly explained and that it's clear what part of the work you did.
  14. I really like the idea to eliminate the decision itself as grounds for protest, if for no other reason that the current system is based on the premise that two parties can be forced into a contractual relationship without regard to the will of one of the parties. No one outside government would ever consider such a preposterous concept. The goal of a protest is to win the contract in question, not "increase confidence in the system". “The threat of protest has valuable regulatory effects; it both deters and corrects inappropriate awards” Nonsense. How many actual "inappropriate awards" have been deterred by the protest process? In all of my reading of GAO decisions, I have never seen an award that was deemed anything other than "incompatible" with the forest of laws, rules, regulations, directives, policies, clauses, provisions, and random thoughts of program and policy offices which comprise the basis of the Federal contract award process. If a protest has ever actually uncovered malfeasance, I'd like to see it. "increasing bidders’ confidence in the integrity of the procurement system" More nonsense. A protest is the weapon of the lawyered-up, entitled, corporate entity with the resources to engage in prolonged litigation. One more advantage for the big guy. If the one granted the CICA stay is the incumbent as they almost always are, protests do the exact opposite of increasing confidence in the system. "increasing the public’s confidence in the integrity of the system," Get over yourself pal; the public has no idea what GAO does or doesn't do. (And I'm not sure who you think is talking GAO up to the "public" because it sure ain't me.) "He artfully characterized the costs as “real" Unlike the billions of dollars raked in over the years by undeserving incumbent contractors as the result of frivolous CICA stays? (who by the way have no incentive to do a good job while working under a stay).
  15. When I was a contractor PM, much of my day was consumed by documenting and reporting the activities of my team. Even though we were under an FFP arrangement, the fact Government CORs are apparently only able to count butts in seats compelled me to treat it like a cost-type effort (drove me nuts, but a topic for another day). The Government is like the biggest elephant in the world: slow-moving and clumsy, but it never forgets. I knew certain (incompetent) contractor PMs who would smugly believe they didn't have to report anything because they were so awesome and the client loved them and doesn't want a report anyway, only to have to retroactively document 2-year-old activities when they got caught in an audit. No matter how often I told them the monthly report was actually for us (the contractor) they didn't believe it until they got burned firsthand.
  • Create New...