Jump to content
The Wifcon Forums and Blogs - 25 Years Online

Don Mansfield

Members
 View Profile  See their activity

  • Posts

    3,385

  • Joined

  • Last visited

 Content Type 

Everything posted by Don Mansfield

  1. Don Mansfield
    There is a way to make it apples to apples. But one would have to understand cumulative distribution functions, expected value, and calculus. You're probably not going to cover that in an introductory probability and statistics course, so most DoD contracting folks and cost/price analysts wouldn't understand it without some training. Some cost estimators may have such knowledge. I understand conceptually, but wouldn't attempt the number crunching without some help. The key is to not think of an offeror proposing a price--rather, they are proposing a range of possible prices and each of those prices has a corresponding probability. If you think of it that way, then it becomes an expected value problem.
  2. Don Mansfield
    What if instead of the Government structuring the FPIF, offerors were allowed to propose the parameters (target cost, target profit, ceiling price, and share ratios)? Let the invisible hand of competition do its thing?
  3. Don Mansfield
    The reason I asked is because if you considered the difference in PTA between offerors proposing different amounts for target profit, you may not be as concerned about an offeror proposing an "excessive" profit. Think it through.
  4. Don Mansfield
    This approach is fundamentally flawed, but it seems like that ship has sailed and you're not asking for a better approach. From what I understand, the problem you're trying to avoid is that two offerors can have the same TEP even though one can propose a higher target profit. If that were the case, which offeror's point of total assumption would be lower--the offeror who proposed the higher target profit or the lower target profit?
  5. Don Mansfield
    What is the overrun share ratio?
  6. Don Mansfield
    Potentially. However, a scope determination is fact-specific.
  7. Don Mansfield
    Does the RFP dictate any of the parameters of the FPIF arrangement (e.g., share ratios, ceiling price as a percentage of target cost, etc.)?
  8. Don Mansfield
    Contractor A isn't "ineligible". Rather, they are no longer contractually required to comply with the Government's task orders. They could waive that limitation. The question would then be whether the work to be ordered was within the scope of the original competition for the MAC. Just wondering what was the value of the original acquisition? What was the maximum in each contractor's contract?
  9. Don Mansfield
    Who knows? But, you should probably lower your expectations.
  10. Don Mansfield
    If that's your goal you will have to try a different country.
  11. Don Mansfield
    It doesn't comply with FAR 52.103.
  12. Don Mansfield
    DoD implemented a Clause Control Policy in 2015 that would require the same degree of transparency in the development and use of "local clauses" by the military departments and defense agencies as FAR and DFARS clauses (see PGI Case 2015-P003 and attached). Specifically, local clauses would be subject to publication for comment in the Federal Register and codified in the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR). However, not a single local clause has been incorporated in the CFR since the new policy was implemented. At the same time, there seems to be a lot more requirements in statements of work that don't have anything to do with describing work, but read a lot like a FAR or DFARS clause. Some of it is even prescribed in agency supplements to the DFARS. What's going on here? The Acquivores discuss https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fK6GKDEqAhM&ab_channel=DonAcquisition 2015-P003 DFARS PGI Text LILO.doc
  13. Don Mansfield
    To maximize opportunities for Government contracting consultants.
  14. Don Mansfield
    No Yes
  15. Don Mansfield
    The Government Property clause (FAR 52.245-1) allows the contracting officer to unilaterally decrease the amount of government-furnished property provided to the contractor and allows for a corresponding equitable adjustment to the contract. It also provides for an equitable adjustment if GFP is delivered late or is unsuitable for use. If the contract contains the basic version of the clause, the Government generally assumes the risk of loss of Government property. If you use your own company's equipment, then your company assumes the risks of loss, unsuitability of equipment, and late delivery of the equipment to the users.
  16. Don Mansfield
    Max Planck suggested that science progresses one funeral at a time. In other words, much faster than procurement policy.
  17. Don Mansfield
    Since the language isn't very clear, I would interpret it in a way that creates the least amount of work for the contracting officer. Old habit. So, I would not interpret a combination of contract types as a distinct contract type. I think "combination" in this context means that some line items are one permissible contract type and other line items are another permissible contract type. I also think that "contract type" in this context is referring to cost or pricing arrangement.
  18. Don Mansfield
    Good idea. In the interim, let's change the last sentence in FAR 16.102(b) to say: "Contract types not described in this regulation shall not be used, except as a deviation under subpart 1.4, unless market research demonstrates a different contract type is consistent with customary commercial practice."
  19. Don Mansfield
    Is it a Government call center staffed with contractor employees (or a mix of government/contractor employees)? Or is it a contractor call center?
  20. Don Mansfield
    The way I see it, @DCDOD2020 has a requirement for temporary staffing. Shouldn't he conduct market research to see how staffing agencies price their services for temporary employees and then use a pricing arrangement that is consistent with customary commercial practice?
  21. Don Mansfield
    DoD didn't ban local clauses, they just created more red tape for the military departments and defense agencies. Also, DoD was just trying to implement 41 U.S.C. 1707.
  22. Don Mansfield
    Let's suppose that you're right. What do you think is preventing people from putting needed contract text in Section H? Assume the needed contract text is a local clause that doesn't describe any particular work.
  23. Don Mansfield
    Is that an explanation or a justification?
  24. Don Mansfield
    What do you mean by "padding" costs?
  25. Don Mansfield
    You mean without providing a fair opportunity notice to other contractors?
×
×
  • Create New...