Contracting_in_Wonderland

I don't disagree. It's just frustrating when some of the tools do not even capture clauses that are prescribed as "in all solicitations and contracts." I get the ones that require a little more thought, but when they can't even get what I would call the easy ones right I just wonder why someone even bothered to build the tool at all! I would expect this to always be a hybrid human-AI activity anyway because of some of those tricky ones, but I'm still hopeful that one day there will be a tool that gives a good jumping off point. I'm not even an active CO anymore, but am still holding onto the hope for if/when I'm writing contracts again.

Good lord, yes to this. Each time I hear of a new clause logic tool, I get excited and then immediately let down when I attempt to use it. I don't know why I'm so gullible after all this time. These darned rose-coloured glasses I tend to wear, I guess.

Like many other things, I'm pretty sure it's an unofficial term in the 1102 world. I've used it myself for GS-12/13 positions. Just a designation to indicate that at that level you should know what you're doing but perhaps are not yet the expert. Some offices code them as "senior contract specialists." And certainly there are plenty of GS-12+ that do not meet the common definition, but that's another can of worms.

@Tzarina of Compliance Definitely sounds like a series of unfortunate events and I wish your client the best. Other commenters have already suggested some other avenues if not making headway with the CO and the request to reopen via the help desk. And now I am so curious who was on the other end of the CPARS Contractor Rep emails. The plot thickens! Best of luck.

Just to follow-up and for your information, I found one of the notification emails in my inbox and wanted to send so you could see what the PM would have received (in case this wasn't one that was recovered). From my point of view, it's hard to swallow that the PM didn't know what it was or why he was receiving it. I do hope your client is able to work out an amenable solution and this is a great lesson learned - if a contract appears to be eligible for an assessment IAW FAR 42.15, they should be sure to ask about it and provide the correct POCs (and keep them updated if personnel change!!).

CO here, though I may be more reasonable than who you are dealing with. A CPARS assessment can be "reopened" or an addendum added. The CO/agency cannot do it but they can request it from the CPARS help desk. The CO can modify the ratings as previously assigned or leave as-is and allow the contractor to take its 60 days to review and provide comment to go through the non-concur process. That said, knowing the company is trying to take issue with the assessment, there's not a lot of incentive for the govt to reopen it as then the agency would have to "deal" with the non-concurrence process whereas at current, it's a closed case. To be blunt, the "woe is me, we didn't know" angle can get tiring as well. I know dealing with govt acquisitions is complicated and govt POCs are not always/often helpful, but for me, I do expect some level of effort from the industry partner. You said the PM "was never designated as the POC" and I assume by that you mean your client hadn't specifically given that person's name. By virtue of the PM receiving notifications, it means he was put into the system as the Contractor Rep. He would have received an email at the time he was put into the system with information about the award, agency POCs, and how to register his account for access. (This should occur right around the time of award of the contract if the agency is registering timely.) He would have also received an email when it went to the Assessing Official and another when it was sent to the Contractor for review and comment. Reminders are also sent. Negligence on his part does not make it the Government's issue to deal with. The Assessing Official can also see a log of when users have looked at the record. If the PM happened to look at the record, that will not bode well for your client as well. Over the years I've been told "we didn't get notifications" or "it went to the wrong person" yet I could see when they logged in to review it. Whoops! (I do not know if this information can be seen from the Contractor Rep view.) Now onto my more reasonable approach, if a small business reached out and expressed clearly the five things that Mr. Edwards indicated in his post above, I'd be more willing to at least discuss the issue before deciding on whether or not to reopen. Not only would this likely be easier than any other action the firm might choose to take (claims and the like) but would be an olive branch for a small business contractor that is new to the Federal space and could really use the more accurate assessment as it'll be the only one in the system. **Note that none of the above would excuse the govt for putting in patently false information in the assessment. It is not uncommon that whomever drafts the assessment doesn't fully understand the process. The Assessing Official may either a) not read what the Assessing Official Rep entered or b) not fully know the ins and outs of performance and therefore accepts what is written. Either of these scenarios can lead to assessments that do not jive with reality.

No disagreement there. The GSA clause just so happened to come up in conversation right after I had posted my response and thought it was worth an add to the discussion. I'm not at GSA and do not use FSS much, but thought it was interesting that at least one agency has tried to address this issue within its authority and doesn't seem to think a change to the FAR is required to implement such practices.

In the organizations I've worked in, we tend to call them Fixed Unit Price contracts wherein the agreed upon rate/price is established and we then expend based on usage in the previous month/period. They're funded at an amount commensurate with predicted usage. Some COs will add some terms that are akin to the 85% reporting rule that you'd see in T&M and some other T&M-like safeguards, but some do not. For the most part, it works; even if many from the CO to policy to legal don't really love it since it doesn't fit into a specific contract type. Since I've seen it work, I'd agree a FAR change isn't necessary, but imagine it would help out in agencies wherein the CO cannot get something like this approved. Edit to add that GSA has added a clause on this: 552.238-199 SPECIAL ORDERING PROCEDURES APPLICABLE WHEN PROCURING CLOUD COMPUTING ON A CONSUMPTION BASIS (MAR 2022)

I was just reading my [This Week at OFPP Innovates] email. I find it to be quite entertaining. How to improve federal procurement, you ask? Well, allow the sales of hemp oil products at base exchanges, of course!

GovWin is only as good as the data Deltek can collect and I've found is often not that accurate. I'm on the Fed side so don't know the ins and outs of the system, but I've received a number of calls over the years from industry saying they saw XYZ on GoVWin and the info was not correct. Seems to be a good system, but not great. Quick check in FPDS and the most recent awards were in the spring and summer if I'm looking at the right ones. Looks like for the awards under MAS, they might have done what @formerfed mentioned and reached out to a smaller pool rather than posting on eBuy - shows competitive award under FSS with 3 offers received, but no solicitation number. VETS2 shows 1 award with 6 offers from solicitation 1333BJ22Q00280006. Like Deltek, I used the info I had available - in this case FPDS - so it could just as easily be flawed. Of the 4 contractors named in your post, I found the most recent awards by PTO, all of which had "cybersecurity" in the title. Only one, awarded to Xor, was called "cybersecurity operations contract support services" specifically. Have you tried reaching out the POC to see how they were solicited?

Ah, yes, my apologies. I was merely appreciating the snark of the statement as this is an issue I've run into countless times wherein the PMO gets really wound up about the amount of actual effort expended by the contractor in an FFP environment. "But we're paying 10 FTEs and Sally only worked 10 hours last week!" When I ask if the contractor is meeting delivery and quality metrics, the answer is almost always yes, so I have to try to redirect that we are paying for XYZ work at $ABC and not "for 10 FTEs". Tis all.

This is absolutely my favourite comment. Also, as a CO I have been given this exact argument from PMOs countless times... I then do my best to educate them on contract types and actual FAR requirements for using LH. I'm sure you can imagine how that goes.

Thanks for sharing. Bookmarking to read the full document soon. I haven't processed many commercial terminations for convenience but considering the text in 12.403, this is an interesting take to me as well. 12.403(d)(2) ..."the parties must balance the Government's need to obtain sufficient documentation to support payment to the contractor against the goal of having a simple and expeditious settlement." (emphasis mine) With legal support, this has always panned out as "get enough info to support a price that makes sense" and is usually a combination of receipts/invoices and payroll data. Perhaps I've been making it too simple and expeditious...

Keep in mind some agencies have deviations to not report at the thresholds in the FAR. DHS has one, quick google looks like Energy and DoD have them. I'm sure there are others out there.

Falling into the second-most populated category, today I'm feeling perfectly average. 😜