General.Zhukov

I am genuinely curious about the answer to this question. There is a good presentation about unavailable key personnel here. However, its grounded in FAR 15 and relies on the concept of 'discussions.' Under other, less rigorous procedures (say, 16.5 or 8.4) or in the case where the RFP did not have an explicit prohibition on late proposal modifications, I wonder discretion the CO would have to respond to a change in KP. For example of something that would not fly under FAR 15 ( I think) - Say we've done the technical evaluation considering KP. Then GVT receives notice of change to KP. Could the GVT then determine the two KP are equivalent and let the evaluation stand as is? Perhaps allow for a revision to the proposal to update KP, without notifying or undertaking further negotiations with any other offerors?

1) With the usual caveats (do what the solicitation says, depends on the details of the specific case, etc.) - Yes, they definitely should notify and probably have to notify. Change to key personnel would (might) be a material change to the proposal. An evaluation and award, conducted when the winning proposal did not reflect a known material change, can be successfully protested. See Greenleaf B-293105.18. https://www.gao.gov/decisions/bidpro/29310518.pdf 2) What the solicitation states is important, and so forth. But generally yeah, the Agency has to allow the substitution if notified and update their source selection process (like the evaluation part that covered KP) accordingly. However, I could see circumstance where the CO could legitimately toss out the proposal, or allow everyone to update proposals. The fact that proposals were submitted 10 months ago suggests the Agency should accommodate changes...but who knows. 3) If I am the offeror, I tell them of the change and the circumstance around it. I'd then look carefully at the proposal and figure out what has to change along with that KP (maybe nothing, maybe a lot of stuff). I ask the CO if I can submit a revised proposal reflecting the change in KP and any other resulting changes to the proposal (maybe that KP's labor rate or LOE changes, and so all the pricing data needs to be updated). If CO allows it, then I'd ask for any specific instructions about revising the proposal and check those instructions to make sure I can change everything I need to change. If I were the CO, and I find out about the KP post-award, I would be at the minimum be annoyed about it and would suspect I did not get notification for some nefarious reason.

Here is what my office typically does in this common scenario. Re-Post: No, but you can if you want to. Sole Source: No. Negotiate: Depends. Probably do have to type up a brief written determination explaining why this isn't a de facto sole source. Its in FAR 8.405-1/2/3. Like brief - a paragraph is usually sufficient.

Probably yes to both. One of the things CO's look for in an RFI are what sources are available and where. I have personally been persuaded to switch acquisiiton vehicles due to feedback, including RFI responses. Like a reallly outstanding company tells us they are not on X (say GSA's FSS) but are on Y (say NITAAC) that will weigh in my decision about switching from X to Y.

I couldn't find any more useful protest info about it.

Seems a bid protest contributed to the CDC’s national stockpile of ventilators failing. https://www.nytimes.com/2020/04/01/us/politics/coronavirus-ventilators.html In fact, the contract with a company that was maintaining the machines expired at the end of last summer, and a contract protest delayed handing the job to Agiliti, a Minneapolis-based provider of medical equipment services and maintenance. Agiliti was not given the $38 million task until late January, when the scope of the global coronavirus crisis was first becoming clear. It is not known whether problems with the ventilators predated the contract lapse, but maintenance of the machines did halt. That delay may become a potentially deadly lapse. “We were given a stop-work order before we’d even started,” said Tom Leonard, the chief executive of Agiliti, which had won the contract to service the ventilators in the stockpile. “Between the time of the original and the time of this contract award, I don’t know who was responsible or if anybody was responsible for those devices. But it was not us.” This is the protested contract solicitation or contract LTV1200-75A50119R00041 https://fbo.gov.surf/FBO/Solicitation/LTV1200-75A50119R00041 This is the new contract 75A50120C00005 https://govtribe.com/award/federal-contract-award/definitive-contract-75a50119c00070 Thoughts?

Personnel/SETA contracts aren't my thing, I mostly do IT services. But I feel your pain. The problem of evaluating people who may or may not actually do the work is a very common problem. The general solution is to not evaluate people, evaluate the firm, because that is who you are going to hire. And for firms, the best thing to evaluate is - surprising absolutely nobody on wifcon - Past Performance. The larger the project, the more true this is. If I were evaluating say a three-person consulting team, I definitely would evaluate those three individuals. If it were a 50+ person team, I would not evaluate that stack of resumes. Here is some guides/examples of typical IT services solicitations that may serve as inspiration for your sections L &M: https://aida.mitre.org/agile/agile-rfp/ https://resources.sei.cmu.edu/asset_files/specialreport/2016_003_001_484063.pdf https://hallways.cap.gsa.gov/app/#/doclib?document=5144

Yes, it would be bad to get it. Those Who Recover From Coronavirus Can Be Left With Reduced Lung. People who recover after being infected with the novel coronavirus can still be left with substantially weakened lung capacity, with some left gasping for air when walking quickly, doctors in Hong Kong have found. If you are in good health, you can still die.

You have a 'Long-Term Contract' which means the company does not have to re-represent for a few years. As I understand it, until they do re-represent, you carry on treating them like a small business for the purposes of ordering and reporting. No my area of expertise though.

I am a CO, and former Army guy who has spent more days at military " role playing training facilities" than I care to remember, although never at one specifically for SOCOM. The key here is that the requirement is for a large training area, enough for 4 village sites and a road network, "within 15-mile radius of Camp Mackall." How many such areas could possibly exist? My guess is - one. There is only one possible location. Everyone in the know knows exactly where it is, who owns it, what their price is, and what can or cannot be done on it, and how. If you have any chance at getting this contract you either own that land, or are best friends with whomever does own it. Given that fact, SOCOM probably felt no need to go into further detail in the solicitation.

Probably yes. Phase One's purpose is to quickly screen for proposals that are worth evaluating in more detail during Phase Two. So what we are looking for are: - Criteria that are pretty good at indicating high-value - Criteria that is relatively easy to evaluate - objective, minimal interpretation needed, this usually means quantitative data. - Proposal information that is relatively low-cost for offerors. Avoiding FAR 15 procedures, or the appearance of using FAR 15 procedures. Pretty Good Screening Criteria I Have Actually Used At Least Once, And Did Not Regret Using Samples. I had a requirement that involved, basically, scrubbing and QCing some messy and complicated data. Our scientists made some fake data, with some subtle errors in it. An evaluation factor was 'analyze this fake data and tell us what you found.' If they don't find the errors - Fail. If they find the errors - Meh. If they find the errors and explain them - Good. This took less than 10 minutes to evaluate per proposal. Everyone involved (Program personnel and Offerors) liked it. Quasi-Past-Performance. Criteria about offeror's experience and performance on similar work, but not FAR 15 Past Performance exactly. PIL has something about this. Offerors have some essential credentials, warrants, licenses, etc. CMMI Level II. FedRAMP. SCIF. Has appropriate State licenses, etc. Pretty close to responsibility determination though, so be careful. Challenge Questions / Short Q&As. Offeror's give brief (like really brief - 1/2 page, a few slides, 10 min. presentation) pitches for how the offeror proposes to do the work. This is much more subjective, but if done right, this can be very productive. In my area, IT, we would probably ask about proposed architecture, platforms, software development methodology, etc. Often our technical folks will immediately know they do or do not like a particular approach based on these answers. Summary "Technical Approach."Give us the short version. 1 page. Key Personnel. Sometimes in my area (IT), at the end of the day we are buying smart people that can code. The rest is window dressing. You may consider just asking for KP info at first. But be careful about this approach, it has some serious down-sides and, generally,and is appropriate only for select circumstances (small & highly technical).

I love the fact that a comparative evaluation used in phase one of a multi-phase source selection has serious mathematics hiding just below the surface. Bottom Line: Don't try comparative evaluations if you expect to get a lot of proposals. Its a much more challenging math problem that it may first appear. Its a special case of what I think its called a comparison sorting algorithm (note: I like math, but am no mathematician) that is known in math and computer science. When the numbers are low, just basic math required to figure out the number of comparisons necessary. But as the number increases, this problem gets exponentially more difficult. Quickly goes from intuitive to computationally hard to God-level AI needed. Number To Be Compared & Sorted Number of Highest Rated You Need To Know Who Can Do The Math To Figure Out How Many Comparisons Are Needed 3 1 Child 5 2 Educated Adult 8 2 Well-Educated Adult 15 5 Computer Scientist 30 5 PhD in Combinatorics 100 10 Von Neumann + Quantum Supercomputer 1000 50 Deep Thought

Ah, you are correct. I was thinking of a new TO issued against something like an agency IDIQ, which for small $ isn't protestable; while an out of scope mod would be. This is not an area I am very familiar with. My mistake. The general point was that an otherwise inexplicable method of procurement sometimes makes sense if understood as a method of avoiding a protest-happy contractor.

There are strategic reasons. People: That's the only contract available for that particular contractor. Time: A bilateral mod on an existing TO may take a few days, while a new TO might have a lead time of months. Avoiding protest / legal strategy. In some situations, an out-of-scope mod to a TO (or other type of contract action) can't be protested, but a new contract/order could be. If you are in a contentious litigation with a company who has declared their intent to expand their protest further (possibly to pressure the Government to take corrective action rather than wait for a decision), then this may be a good idea. Particularly if the stop-work(s) is (are) becoming very painful.

I don't have a real rationale, nor argument. I can terminate a commercial contract unilaterally, which is far more drastic a measure than a stop-work, but conceptually very similar, so if I can take a full-measure, why not a half-measure? Again, not going to argue this point. This is kinda sorta like the rationale in Robert A. & Sandra B. Moura, PSBCA 3460, 96-1 BCA ¶ 27,956: Excellent feedback, thank you all. Much appreciated. I take the point that the clauses in the contract, not the FAR, is what's binding. In my particular case, a contractor is performing work under a commercial services contract. By all accounts, doing a very good job. However, there are several major issues with the contract. One being we (GVT) are considering terminating it due to change in our business strategy, but haven't yet made that decision. . Second, the contractor seems to have been receiving interim payments, not delivery payments as intended. And at this point has been paid in full, but the work is incomplete. Given these circumstances, the grown-ups have decided we are in a hole, and need to stop digging immediately. I feel like there is some basis for issuing a stop work in this case, although I cannot find on in the texts.

What's going on with stop-work orders for commercial contracts that do not have 52.242-15? FAR 52.212-4 & -5 do not appear to have anything allowing issuance of unilateral stop-work orders. Does that matter? My intuition is that it doesn't, I can go ahead and issue a unilateral stop-work order for any commercial contract and that stop work order will be legally binding. FAR 42.1303 Stop-work orders - this part of the FAR indicates to me I can issue a stop work for a commercial contract, regardless of clauses, so long as the contract meets those weird critieria. Why does FAR 42.1303 have these weird, seemingly arbitrary criteria? Implying no stop work order for simplified, sealed bid, 16.5 orders, incentive contracts, time & material, etc. This makes no sense to me. negotiated fixed-price or cost-reimbursement supply, research and development, or service contract Why doesn't the FAR say the government can issue a stop work order, always - the end?

Validating stuff from external sources - (SAM.GOV). Compliance reviews Organizing, preparing contract file & documentation. Routine correspondence. Automating contract writing - checking boxes, adding boilerplate T&C, etc. Acquisition planning - esp. filling out technical documents or forms. All the back-office purchase card stuff.

This is a clue. My guess is that they are trying to price the change (maybe an equitable adjustment?) and can't figure out how to do that without more granular pricing data.

Thanks!

Off topic: Companies will charge as much as they think customers will pay. Last year I found myself getting a tour of a McLaren 570GT by its super-enthusiastic owner. Brakes had recently been replaced, at cost north of $2,000. It may well have been $2,000 just for labor and testing. In any event, it was insanely expensive. On topic: Inspection & Acceptance in the contract is mostly covered by 52.212-4, with a few additional caveats. The AoA was done in very close coordination with the COR & PM, and the COR took the AoA, modified it, and presented to higher-up. This took somewhere between 1 and 5 weeks. I consider that government acceptance.

Thanks for the advice. I am finding the Contract Lawyers Handbook and Contract Pricing Reference Guides to be very helpful resources. Asking the SBA to step in is also quality advice. They want to give me what I need in terms of information, but its been tough going, and it would be great if an outside adviser could give them some help on this. Regarding the clause and authority to do an REA.... This is a commercial contract, so it has 52.212-4 and the paragraph about changes by mutual consent. So, that is that in terms of clauses. In terms of "Should the contractor be compensated for event X?" - that is what I struggle with, especially when its fixed price and there isn't any cost data. This is particularly true when it comes to this contract. Contractor does research, submits an AoA to PM. PM takes it up the chain, and thereby implicitly accepting it, and the higher-ups reject the AoA. Contractor revises AoA, re-submits, kicked-back again. Third time is approved. At the same time, internal Government issues lead to delays where the contractor needs guidance from the GVT that is not forthcoming so they sit on their hands for a while. I have mixed intuitions about whether the contractor did either the right or the legal thing by doing the re-work rather than refusing to work further once the initial deliverable was accepted. In any event, thanks again for the advice.

I have a Request for Equitable Adjustment for a FFP Commercial Contract for IT Services, and its killing me. Two related questions. 1) How to price EA for FFP when I have no cost information except some really simple info (1 slide, containing $/month) sent to me by contractor? Our agency has no cost/price analysts or handy support staff, and minimal experience with Equitable Adjustments so far as I can tell. 2) Are there, out there on the interwebs, any good examples of actual or theoretical Equitable Adjustments for FFP? Background: Direct 8(a) within a special IT program. Objective of the contract was to support Business Case Analysis for replacement of an IT system, and then to prototype one or more of the selected alternatives. Fixed price. About $1MM over 1 Year. There has been about 6 months of delay for at least 4 discreet reasons, not all of which is the GVT fault. 1) Performance started late due to on-boarding and security clearance issues. Probably not our fault? ~ 1 Month. 2) GVT shutdown. Our fault. 1 Month. 3) Requirements gathering 'more complicated' than anticipated. Probably not our fault? 1 Month. 4) The Analysis of Alternatives was kicked back by the GVT at least twice for very questionable reasons and not within a reasonable time-period. Our fault. 3 Months.

1) Justification for Other Than Full and Open Competition (FAR 15) 2) Justification for Exception to Fair Opportunity (FAR 16.5) 3) Sole Source Justification (FAR 13.5?) 4) Limited Source Justification (FAR 8.4) 5) Brand Name Justification (scattered throughout the FAR) 6) Determination and Finding? 7) Probably other ones too? (Maybe FAR 14 has its own?) How's this for acquisition streamlining, just use option #1 for everything. Over SAT = Use FAR 6/15 Rules. Under SAT = Use FAR 13 Rules. The end.

Caveat: Not an expert, so not the definitive answer: Yes. A FAR 13 'Sole Source; (FAR 13.106-1 (b) ) does not have any specific authority in U.S.C. In addition, the same is true for FAR 13.5. Under FAR 13.5, you use the 1) format, 2) notice and 3) approval from FAR 6. That is all. You do NOT cite any FAR 6.3 sole-source authority. The authority for (almost) all source-sources under FAR 13 is FAR 13 itself - ''CO determines only one source is reasonably available'.

I caution against over-relying on FAR 15 for this, unless you are sure FAR 15 procedures were used. The vast majority of contracts do not use FAR 15 procedures (in HHS, my best estimate is less than 4% of new contract actions are straight FAR 15). FAR 3.104 is worth a read. As a CO, its very unclear to me what exactly can and cannot be disclosed in a debrief - other than if you guess wrong and disclose too much its instant death.