Jump to content

FAR-flung 1102

  • Posts

  • Joined

  • Last visited


0 Neutral

Recent Profile Visitors

3,964 profile views
  1. I think the answer to that (whichever it is) once embraced will help us address the matter of how to apply thresholds to MATOCs. Maybe it's to be found somewhere, but I've looked and not located in policy or regulation, any clear treatment of how to value MATOCs when applying thresholds for such purposes as Agency approvals and applicability of the Contractor Performance Assessment Reporting System (CPARS)...
  2. tlr56, Sounds like this may be a service...it's maintenance after all, so on the off chance that the header indicating supplies is not the whole story, I will venture. If services, you may want to carefully read the inserted language of the option clause. Depending upon the language used, it is possible (perhaps some might say even likely) that the time period within which the option may be properly exercised extends somewhat beyond the performance PoP. See FAR 17.204 (d) "The period may extend beyond the contract completion date for service contracts. This is necessary for situations when exercise of the option would result in the obligation of funds that are not available in the fiscal year in which the contract would otherwise be completed."
  3. For the certificate or a pre-approval of some kind to be effective, it would need to involve a reliable assessment of the vendor's current terms and not just indicate their willingness to accept GPC. Online vendors not willing to accept GPC is one thing (in my experience there are a few of those vendors). It's another thing to have an online vendor whose routine practices involve terms that are contrary to those a GPC holder can accept while staying inside the bounds of federal law & GPC rules and regulations (in my experience there are a lot of these vendors). Absent some sort of pre-approval or implementation of a portal, the issue of unacceptable terms can easily get missed or misunderstood by the only Government personnel in a position to spot it before the purchase happens: a GPC cardholder or their approving official. And even when spotted ahead of time, resolution may not be easy. Online vendors would probably have little ability or incentive to change their business system accommodate the unique needs of a party wanting only one or a few purchases. I've seen one such GPC issue elevated all the way to an agency Chief of Procurement who engaged with the company head before concluding that source could not be used. In 2015 GSA a GSA identified 15 types of terms commonly used by vendors in their agreements that the federal Government cannot agree to...I've linked to it recently in another thread.
  4. You might be surprised at how many online vendors would have the cardholder commit to terms and conditions that are inconsistent with use of GPC (as a method of purchase). This should solve that.
  5. GSA created their own order of precedence see MV-15-03 Supplement #1 (sorry, I could not get their link to copy).
  6. Interesting. Sorry, I can't reach the article to read it so maybe I should just keep my words to myself...but I have heard Gen Holt speak in person and been paying attention to him since 2018. So I'll share a few thoughts. Even if the sense of it did not come across to you, I know that there is substance behind the parts you've quoted...an impressive amount of substance, actually. In addition to the examples Jamaal cited let me mention some of the more memorable ideas or practices, some realized and some which proved only aspirational aims... Written instructions to address use of ordering procedures to avoid more formal and unnecessary practices, A meaningful emphasis on creation and use of tools (not rules) to meet mission requirements. Tackling the urgent national need for respirators at the beginning of COVID crisis, Confronting a vendor model based more in sustainment than up front costs (my characterization not his), incentivizing a different profit model for industry. Locally re-programming funds freed up for better use Contracting personnel turning to peers as mission partners instead standing apart as in the traditional view of "customers", inspiring mission focused business leaders to be more than they currently are. You might see hints of some of the above in the article...I do in the parts you referred to. Gen. Holt worked for a boss (Will Roper) who wanted us to increase virtualization of prototyping (raising formula one race cars as an example...there is no physical prototype of the race car and every part is virtualized) and pursue iterative development to change the industry incentive from "winner take all" efforts (and massive and expensive sustainment costs) to something smaller, sooner & faster (iteratively) with improvements in each new generation. He cited the 100 series of jets as a model. That addresses your emphasis on competing with near peers. The tenure of both Gen Holt & Will Roper leave me with the distinct impression from their words and actions that they each gave us quite a bit, but both still had more to offer than we at the time had room to receive. I don't think they opened the aperture all the way, but nonetheless they had folks sprinting. The above are just my personal impressions, not based on anything representative or official and as indicated above not having read the article.
  7. Vern. Thank you for the history, it's good to learn more about where we've been. I am trying both to lift where I stand and orient to the horizon and not just the immediate surroundings. It's relational contracting that I'm getting ready for.
  8. Govt2310, The advice I give folks in setting up a performance based service contract includes the need to create a summary in the Performance Based Work Statement of the contract's most important performance objectives. We call this a Service Summary. Our performance objectives are snippets of the PWS pulled from the most important shall statements in the PWS. In my world we try not to complicate things and typically try to limit the Service Summary to twelve performance objectives...usually much less. This Service Summary and it is set up as a matrix or table within the PWS and is also duplicated in the Government's Quality Assurance Surveillance Plan, where it does get one additional column not placed in the PWS service summary: a listing of the methods of surveillance applicable to each service summary items. The QASP is kept out of the contract so that the Government may change the method and intensity of surveillance in light of the contractors performance; when shared with the contractor this information in the QASP itself can be an incentive to contractor performance. In the Service Summary, for each performance objective, we establish a minimum acceptable threshold value for performance which we call the Performance Threshold. The Performance Threshold is based upon some sort of metric, occurrence or event. Our best practice is to specify at least one service service summary item falling in each applicable rating area (Quality, Schedule, etc) of the Contractor Performance Assessment Reporting System (CPARS) and carefully specify a range of several rating criteria for each service summary item. In our monthly/quarterly surveillances we like to use as many as practicable of the five rating criteria used in the CPARS Annual Evaluation (Exceptional, Very Good, Satisfactory, Marginal, and Unsatisfactory). Some service summary items might be compliance or safety items which only lend themselves to Satisfactory/Unsatisfactory rating criteria, but we typically have a number of service summary items for which we can use all five of the rating criteria. The Satisfactory rating criteria itself is anchored to the Performance Threshold described above and the other rating criteria are set according to measured performance levels above and below the Satisfactory levels. Sometimes we can't set ratings for all five, so we may choose just three or four rating criteria for a particular service summary items. The idea is to give the contractor a non-monetary incentive toward greater contract performance than just recognizing a Satisfactory levels of performance. Without implementing this practice Government folks are usually left with a choice of giving Satisfactory/Unsatisfactory Ratings each surveillance period (typically monthly or quarterly), which after a year of performance can leave little basis from which to give anything other than a Satisfactory or Unsatisfactory CPAR rating for contractor performance We do surveil performance outside of that specified in the service summary and when doing Annual CPARS Evaluations we do use and don't ignore the CPAR rating descriptions and notes in the tables at FAR 42.1503 in connection with ratings given. These procedures we apply to services and not Systems contracts, Construction or Research and Development...do help folks get organized and thinking about facets of contractor performance that the Government values and for which the contractor can get recognized without necessarily creating monetary incentives.
  9. Thank you, Vern in addition to Joel...I kinda see now how mighty a lion that is to tame!
  10. On the contrary, Joel, thank you, and please go on if you have more of this...The chance to examine these examples second hand all at one sitting many years later is quite enlightening!
  11. If DoD, see also https://www.acq.osd.mil/dpap/policy/policyvault/USA005039-13-DPAP.pdf
  12. I'm watching to see what will become of the Open DFARS Case 2019-D034, Preference for Commercial Construction Services, which has not had a status update since April 2021.
  13. GABE, When is notice not required by FAR 5.101?
  14. Krimz, Things might be a little easier if it's the case that both are Defense Agencies (within DoD), so please let us know if that is the case...
  15. Thanks All for hitting the target very well. Vern, you for prompt me to renew discovery of that SOW preparation guide. Not too long ago I had the same concern that formerfed brought up (needless overlap between work statement and CDRL) and found that SOW preparation guide by serendipity. The guide did help me with that issue...yet it left me to wonder why I had not seen it years earlier in training or topical resources on in some other breadcrumb trail. When I checked out the guide I was happy to see that earlier revisions are also available, so at least through comparison I can learn a little of the history of things. I'll also check out the other links. Joel, you nailed an immediate concern...the need to clearly and simply establish the performing party. As for elimination of shall statements, I think I may have some unlearning and unwinding to do.
  • Create New...