General.Zhukov

OK, CO's aren't avaricious. They are risk-averse. Pro Tip 1: If we are talking about a commercial contract, don't call it "G&A." As others have noted, very explicitly cite 212-4 Alt 1. Pro Tip 2: When conducting price analysis for a competitive commercial contract, which includes travel as part of T&M line item, nobody cares about your "G&A" rate on travel. Honestly, just make it zero, and mark up some other T or M element (legally and following the rules, of course), so net change is zero. For the record, CO here who dislikes travel as ODC in my commercial contracts. Because: 1) The line item including travel is now T&M, which triggers some rather onerous procedures per 12.207 (b). In particular, getting HCA approval if the PoP > 3 years. makes the contract no longer fixed price. Executive dashboard KPI needles move, in the wrong direction. 2) If the conditions of 12.207 (b) (1) (i) - basically, it must be competitively awarded - cannot be met, then T&M, and therefore travel, is verboten, or its not commercial. 3) I do not like dealing with, and know very little about, indirect costs. For example, G&A vs. Material Handling. What's the difference? Do I even need to care for competitive commercial contracts? I'd rather not think about it at all. 4) My customer, the requiring activity hates, just hates, both obligating money upfront for theoretical travel which may never occur AND not obligating money upfront for actual travel which needs to happen but for which there is no longer sufficient remaining money.

This is what I was going to write, except its already been written. Amen. I have an action right now that I am about to award, this is its actual timeline: Identification of need -> 'acquisition package' to contracting office: Maybe 2 months Receipt of Acquisition Package -> Solicitation: 3 months Solicitation - Award: 2 weeks What is the PALT here?

I suspect DoD just wants better contracting writing software, and felt obligated to add a buzz word. I don't think this document would be much different if AI were swapped out with another trendy tech "Machine Learning CWS" "Blockchain CWS" "Robotic Process Automation CWS" Mark my words, some of us will still be 1102s when we see RFIs for "Open Source CWS" - My opinion is that this should have happened 20 years ago. "Augmented Reality CWS" "Quantum Computing CWS"

Asking for a PPQ from a reference is like asking someone to go out on a date with you. If they don't want to go on a date with you, you shouldn't keep asking them to go on the date with you. Ask someone else.

You're right about the regs. Its allowed (I think). But... The problem is not what any particular reg does or does not state, its what the COR thinks they state. Talking to the COR will be more productive than trying to prove a negative (that the FAR, et all. does not prohibit them doing a PPQ).

Irrespective of what you are buying, three methods to finding an appropriate PSC. 1) Ask the seller. If they are experienced with the federal government, they'll know. 2) Reference previous contracts for the same thing, and see what PSC was used then. In house contracts or FPDS. 3) Punt. Ask Program Office. If particularly important and difficult, ask for help from Legal.

This overlaps with the much ballyhooed 'Smart Contracts.' Which run on the blockchain, the blockchain I tell you, blockchain! /sarcasm Smart contracts execute pre-determined actions when predetermined conditions have been met and verified. Basically, (if -> then) contracts that are entirely outcome driven. Much research these days looking into how smart contracts can be used by Government agencies, and presumably some of that research is about funding and legal authority. Also, https://govlab.hks.harvard.edu/pay-success

See Veterans Healthcare Supply Solutions, Inc. B-409888. Quote, from GSA: "If the procurement at issue is for a single SIN, then it would stand that both/all members of a CTA would need to have the particular SIN on their respective FSS contract." My very unofficial understanding of this protest and how CTA's work is: 1) Despite the quote, my position is that a CTA member who does not hold the referenced SIN isn't necessarily ineligible. The CTA's proposal would need to demonstrate how the CTA member helps provide the solution. Like, for a given HACS need, I could see how a solution may involve closely-related SINs (like CDM or PKI) and have a CTA member who has those SINs, but not the cybersecurity. In contrast, I doubt a CTA member who has a unrelated IT SIN (say, A/V equipment) could legit join a CTA for cybersecurity. 2) This protest is from 2014, and GSA has changed how the schedules work since then, so this reasoning may not be fully valid in 2021. 3) The solicitation matters, since it can customize what types of CTAs can respond. For example, an RFQ may state that all CTA members must hold a specific SIN. 4) There are lots of protests about CTAs.

In terms of the basic legal part, you definitely CAN enact a contract mod to increase the value from $385M to $1B, under the right circumstances. Such as getting the funds to cover the increase, and getting God-level approval for a huge, non-competitive, out-of-scope modification (possibly an equitable adjustment?) that reflects poorly on everyone involved, having OIG parachute in, and other unpleasant things. Basically, you want stuff that you thought would cost $10. And now it seems like it will cost $30. As Vern notes, you have limited options: 1) Get another $20 2) Get only about 1/3 of the stuff you had planned on getting. 3) Pick up your marbles and go home (terminate, find a different means of acquiring the stuff). Quarrelling about whose at fault for the variance between $10 & $30, stalling for time, or being unhappy with situation won't change these options.

As everyone else here has noted, don't mix FAR 15 and FAR 8.4. Vern's quoted GAO decision has the key phrase - " fair and equitable." What's important is not so much what the CO tells to one particular offeror, but rather how the CO treats the offerors with respect to each other. Whatever criteria the CO uses to engage with one vendor should be used for all vendors. This isn't complicated, nor does this criteria need to be mechanistically implemented. The CO's criteria could be quite straight-forward 'I'm not going to bother telling offerors about 'weaknesses' that are unlikely to have an impact on who gets awarded." In your case, what the CO is doing regarding 'discussions,' while not the preferred method (using FAR 15 procedures), does appear to be 'fair and reasonable' because they are treating the offerors the same. Usual caveats apply.

Agree with the grey beards 😁 Its is not a competition issue. FAR 13: Contracting officers may solicit from one source if the contracting officer determines that the circumstances of the contract action deem only one source reasonably available Your circumstance: This order fixes a mistake. We bought the wrong size product, returned product to vendor, have credit, and now want to use credit to buy correct size product from same vendor. I can't speak to the mechanics of how credits in ECATS work, but in my experience, every procurement system has a way of dealing with 'oops. we bought the wrong thing and want to exchange the wrong thing for the right thing.' You can explain the vendor that simply they have your money, you have nothing in exchange, and they either give you your money back or give you the product you want, figure it out.

I have read many books on the Eastern Front (no surprise) - but not that one. I'll check it out. Come and See. As a combat veteran, its one of the few war movies I can tolerate, but I will probably never watch it again. The sound design is incredible, like nothing else. I've heard about a similar film 'The Ascent' - but haven't built up the fortitude to watch it.

Agree. Remember that complexity vs. complicated discussion? Well, the word 'subcontract' appears in the title of 21 clauses, and a total of 1,771 times in FAR 52. I suspect prime contractors add 52.219-9 because they (reasonably) read the application in 19.708 and think 'well, that's us.' - rather than wading through that complexity.

I wonder if this is true. My policy analysis training wants me ask 'failed compared to what?' I want to compare the US fed acq system to other systems. Are comparable acquisition systems - large states like CA, TX or NY, or overseas with vaguely similar legal structure like UK, EU, AUS, or Canada - 'better than' the US FAR system? By what metrics would the FAR way be better or worse? Someone, somewhere, has done this comparative analysis.

Its a bit of a linguistic game, of course, but my vote is - Complicated, not complex. The Federal acquisition system has bazillions of parts, so its pretty complicated, but it doesn't have those properties I associate with complexity. It doesn't have emergent behavior- like there isn't anything about it that is more than the sum of its parts. At least, not that I observe.

This is a thing that probably every B-School or general management book covers, something like 'empower your team' or 'how to delegate to your direct reports' Google re:Work has a bunch of stuff on this. https://rework.withgoogle.com/ Get *honest* feedback from the CO's themselves as to why they are acting like that, and listen to it. Explicitly define the responsibilities. Don't micromanage. In your case, perhaps that means refusing to answer the question. Forgive mistakes. "I told you to make your own eval criteria, and you did, and your sol flunked review. That's okay. Let's go through, and try again."

https://hallways.cap.gsa.gov/app/#/doclib Many examples. Maybe hundreds.

Part of a pitch I'm putting together for management. Essentially, I am arguing that we need some technology solutions to simplify some work processes that are frequent, time-consuming, and 'brainless' (ie, can be straight-forwardly handed-off to software). As an example of this type of process , I drilled down into exactly what should be done to correctly use the extremely common FAR Clause 52.212-5, within my department, HHS. It appears to be worse than I thought when I started out. HHS has three separate deviations for clause 52.212-5. In addition, the -5 clause refers to multiple clauses which themselves have different HHS deviations. By my count, the 52.212-5 clause, in order to be compliant, has to refer to at least four different HHS deviations. These deviations have mandatory language that cites clauses which are obsolete, or have been removed from the FAR. My conjectures: 1) Not a single -5 clause in any HHS contract in existence is compliant, in that they correctly identify the (at least) four deviations, and have updated deviation language. 2) Very few people, possibly just me, are aware of this fact (if it is true). 3) Very few people who know or who learn this fact, possibly nobody (myself included), actually care enough to get it right. I am venting. I have no questions. I would like to be wrong though, so please let me know if I am.

Yes, as the experts above have stated. Its permissible under the HHSAR KP clause (I am also in HHS). This is fairly common for projects where the contractor, especially small businesses, need technical expertise. Say you are doing run-of-the-mill software dev, but need to connect your software to some weird archaic government IT system (this is very common, btw). This is a small but crucial part of the project. You might want to hire, as a consultant, an expert in that weird system. You expect you'll only need a few hours of their time (hence consultant, not employee or sub-contractor). Since its a crucial part of the project, GVT may want to make that consultant a KP. All of this is normal.

In my agency, less than 5% of all contract actions are competitive using trade-offs. Less than 1% are competitive using FAR 15 procedures. There may be GS-13 FAC-C III 1102s in my agency who have never done a FAR 15 action. I'm speculating here, but it wouldn't surprise me if it were true. OK, some tactical advice. The main issue, as I understand it, is that the Program side doesn't want to spend a lot of time and effort on the low-value task of reviewing lots of proposals when the contract will most likely go to the LPTA offeror anyways. This is a common issue, and there are some common methods to deal with it: 1) Avoid complication: a) Do not use FAR 15. b) Use one of the the many, many, many IT service acquisition vehicles out there, rather than going open-market. GSA has a list of 43 of them. Probably hundreds more that aren't tracked by GSA. c) Do not use FAR 15, seriously, don't do it. 2) A two-phase evaluation. Phase one should be easy-peasy-lemon-squeezy to evaluate and screen out all but a handful of most promising offers. DHS's PIL has a clever version of this - advisory down-select. 3) Performance Price Trade-Off (PPT) Process is what you are proposing to do in one of your comments. If you use this method, then for the sake of everyone involved, do what Vern has said many times, and do not have an elaborate "technical proposal." Caveat: In my experience, I cannot and would not do a quasi-LPTA for IT Services, but that's me. 4) Directly solicit from a few good sellers, rather than posting a public solicitation open to anyone. Although, you gotta follow the (complicated) rules about how to do this. 5) I have nothing to say about Sealed Bidding. Never done it. Never seen it done. No clue about it.

I have had to do something like what you are describing. Basically, for system reasons, I couldn't add funding to a CLIN that needed more funds. Do not recommend except as last resort. We created a new CLIN just for funding. Its description was something like 'CLIN 2 replaces CLIN 1 as of date. No change except for funding.' It was actually quite complicated to do this, since we had to transfer over the incomplete work to the new CLIN, close out the funding for the old CLIN, update a bunch of stuff since CLIN 2 didn't exist nor was anticipated at time of award, etc. We tried to clearly and repeatedly describe what was going (for invoicing/payment, auditors, new people on the project), but that didn't work. Everyone else was confused forever, up to and including contract close out. That said, I think creating a new contract/order would be worse. Maybe, technically, a starting over would be less key strokes. But it would be a review/approval/audit nightmare, covered in red-flags, and attracting interest of people you want to stay away - legal, IG, irate competitors who see something sketchy on FPDS-NG, etc.

Hmm, yes, you are right, I change my mind. Do it commercial, so long as I can make the contract reflect the inherently very-high-risk nature of that type of work. For example, ensuring (contractual) hellfire will reign down upon the contractor in the event of a data breach. Honestly, I don't know why federal contracting has such a bright line between commercial vs. non-commercial (although I am 100% sure somebody reading this does know why).

In all seriousness, there are thriving markets for any and all types of cyber attacks and information collection - tools, methods, data, techniques, Cyberwar-As-A-Service, you name it. That joke about spying on Mexican narcos? That's a commercial service. Hacking into encrypted iPhones? Cellebrite (private company) can do it, but not the NSA. Its all commercial. My guess is anything 'investigation' related or otherwise that involves gathering and/or analyzing digital information is commercial. I also think we (GVT) should not treat these services as commercial, even if they are.

I've both received and (self-servingly) presented this argument, which is false. Its not the classification (labor category) of the workers that matter, its the thing being worked on. Counter-factual 1: Let's say the service is off-the-chart obviously non-commercial. Updating the on-board guidance system for the AMRAAM medium-range air-to-air missile in response to recently discovered PLA ECM tomfoolery. We agree this is non-commercial, right? Well, it so happens that the AMRAAM guidance system is written in the software language ADA. So you hire someone to write the code. Computer Programmers, even those who specialize in ADA for avionics, and have TS/SCI, exist on Schedule 70. This fact, rather than making this project a commercial service, is irrelevant. Counter-factual 2: Are there any IT services which don't have the applicable IT categories on schedule 70? I think the answer is no. No matter what you are doing, you can find a generic broadly scoped LCAT somewhere on FSS 70 that's a fit. You want to exploit a CNI-planted backdoor in Mexican cellular networks to geo-locate narcos based on their social media uploads? What you need is a SME IV, available on FSS 70. Commercial.

Yes, we covered it in grad school (Public Administration). As I recall, all the case studies were from UK (apparently its much more widely applied over there), EU or transportation in US. Seems to be a reasonable option when there's a large up-front capital expenditure that the government is unable or unwilling to finance, plus a predictable future revenue stream, and low interest rates. They do tend to be very expensive - hefty premium when the contractor is responsible from cradle to grave, and break-even is like 20 years in the future - but sometimes its worth it. P3's have other issues too, but I think this arrangement is no better or worse than the alternatives, just different. Close to home, I think some of the northern VA toll roads are P3s. Results are a mixed bag - the specifics of the project matter a lot.