Jump to content


  • Posts

  • Joined

  • Last visited


0 Neutral

Recent Profile Visitors

The recent visitors block is disabled and is not being shown to other users.

  1. In theory yes, there is a GSA medium available, but that decision is way above my pay grade with it being leaderships prerogative to have our own in house program. Some of the downsides of the 5+5, is with respect to labor rates and economic price adjustments . I think you’d have to have a way to address the situation of rates not reflecting market conditions in say year 6. Heck, we even have that issue now in our 5 year IDIQ, with some labor categories, where all IDIQ holders have said “our rates are no longer in sync with the market so therefore we can’t submit an offer for a new TO requirement” (year 4 of 5). Management wasn’t interested in re-opening rates to address the specific issue. We then punted it to the open market/GSA buy team. I had come from working on supply IDIQ and we’d have items and pricing and would have language that pricing was to remain fixed for a minimum of 12 months after award and then after that the price couldn’t go up higher than a certain percentage under the EPA with supporting info. Where I work now we don’t reassess rates even if market conditions change significantly-instead leadership tells our customers “go to GSA” which begs the question , why not use GSA for the whole program. I don’t have an answer, but again that’s above my pay grade and involves office politics and the like.
  2. So on my reading e(i)(A) says you can’t have a base period exceeding 5 years, and e(i)(B) and (C) I read as saying that you can have a options, however the sum of the base period of the IDIQ and the option period can’t exceed 10 years? Thus, my idea isn’t in contradiction to it?
  3. I agree, however I have PM is risk averse and would rather not trying anything new, but instead do it the old fashioned way. It’s frustrating, but I do have a supportive boss, and he reminds me, the Contracting office decides the contract type not the PMO. Also, someone said FAR part 22 might forbid my proposed plan, but I think they are confused with a straight 10 year contract vice what I have spelled.
  4. I am working on a follow on IDIQ for general support services ( not Advisory and Assistance Service or IT) and historically like the current generation the Base IDIQ had a 5 year base and no options with TO's awarded with a one year base and 4 one year options. My thought process right now is why don't we do a 5 year base+ one 5 year option and to be compliant with the FAR when it comes to the TO's to then re-compete the TO's as needed for the option period and perhaps not exercise the option for underperforming contractors and have an open season to bring on new contractors as needed to compete. I don't think for the TO's we could have a similar structure and that they would need to be rec-competed? Currently and in the past, planning would commence towards the end of year 3 and I think it would be save immense resources if we could save a lot time with the scenario I outlined above. The value for 5 years is about 700 MM, so with the option period I outlined it would have a value of over a billion and thus require more oversight and sign offs ( which some people would rather avoid). Thoughts? Any examples of similar IDIQ's with such a structure? Thanks!
  5. I am working on a enterprise service contract follow on effort for a DoD 4th Estate agency, and looking for any enterprise service RFP's that you can share the RFP link from beta.sam.gov. The RFP can be for a multiple award IDIQ ,single awardee, or anything in between. It can be from a non DoD agency as well. The purpose of casting this wide net is to get ideas, see any innovative source selection methods etc. If your RFP/program requires fully burdened labor rates, even better! If a link isn't available from beta.sam.gov and you'd need to email me the RFP, send me a message and I will provide you with my work email. Thanks in advance!
  6. This is through a IDIQ task order and as I had mentioned it’s being filled through a labor category that aligns with the requirement. We released a draft RFP and made revisions based on the feedback received. As I stated it’s not merely a call center position, as I used that descriptor to illustrate the sort of work that will be performed. Really, it doesn’t matter, as the question comes down to more of a philosophical question of how you want to interpret the FAR with respect to the unique circumstances of this requirement. The way I described it was “call center with lipstick.” There’s coordination responsibilities, some data work, etc.
  7. I’m going to have a talk with the PM, esp re contract types for the next gen IDIQ program. Industry seems to prefer FFP LOE. Other than this task order, which is a outlier, the rest have predictable hours 8 hours a day. The task orders lay out all the positions job description and duties, some of which are very technical. There’s also optional positions that can be exercised. So I think, FFP may be more appropriate, and have the invoice terms reflect invoicing based on actual hours using the negotiated FBLR from the IDIQ that’s discounted on the TO further. Like I surmised previously it comes down to the terms and how you tell them to invoice. A lot of what many of us do in the 1102 field is kind of maintain the status quo and repeat what others have done-even though it’s not actually right. I don’t think I agree with the PM’s view that unless you get into gnarly details of duties that “general terms” is represented by duties such as “take detailed notes in meetings, conduct analysis of x, monitor y etc.” “General terms” I would take to reflect no specificity of what you intend them to do.
  8. Basically. It’d be a bilateral de-scope to the effect of reducing the hours for positions A/b/c/d from xx hours to yy hours.” Contractor could propose price increase in that instance.
  9. Ha. The powers that be have said we will go with FFP-LOE. The PMO is interpreting FAR 16.207-1(b) to mean the hourly labor rate not a “lump sum.” Further since we outlined specific hours that they must work while reserving the right to reduce them as conditions warrant. Further, the PMO is interpreting that FAR 16.207-1(a) “general terms” to mean general duties-answer phone, handle data collection, coordinate with xyz” which is what the SOW vice “80 percent of calls need to be answered within 50 seconds” to meet the definition of “general terms.” “Fixed dollar amount” and “general terms” aren’t defined in the FAR and thus per the FAR unless it says otherwise you can do please within reason. I’m not sure I’m fully onboard with his opinion, but it’s above my pay grade. I intend to have conversations with the PM on the next generation of the IDIQ and the types of contracts that will be used for the subsequent TO’s.
  10. In the SOW we included our baseline hours expected hours. 12 positions, 40 hours a week M-F. But we stated in the SOW that that could be subject to change based on conditions and could change and sufficient lead time would be provided for contractor to adjust. Right, the government is dictating the hours. The labor rates are fully burdened. So I think going back to what I originally said is that “pick whichever, and just specifics how to invoice.” The base IDIQ states contractors are to invoice actual hours. So that’s partially what drove me to think simplistically. The duties are clear as they have been performed by gov folks up till now. All the other task orders from the IDIQ are LOE and invoice twice a month based on actual hours worked. The difference between those and this particular Task Order is that hours could change. And no. Not WHS.
  11. None of them fit perfectly, but the LH sounds like it would be most appropriate, considering that we aren’t definitely sure how many hours may actually be needed at the end of the day, though as I stated previously we established positions with FTE and PT, but noted that hours may change as conditions warrant.
  • Create New...