Boof

The idea is that each contract would have a COR assigned (with GTMs to assist in some cases) but they would not do the day to day management of the contractors. The PMO company would. If company B fails a checklist, the PMO would contact the COR of B to take corrective action. If maintenance company D fails to repair on time, the PMO would contact the COR of D and report it for his action. If the COR of Logistics company A needs to depot overhaul some high priced parts, he can have the PMO subcontract the work like the prime does now. Invoices from all companies would be obtained by the PMO, QC'd against the specific contract and verified to the point that the COR can just approve or reject them. (CORs approve invoices in our agency). Provide any QA and schedule support requested by any of the CORs and approved by the PMO COR. Like I said, I don't like this idea but the requirements office got sold on it and I am trying to either get facts to push back through my management or change my mind about it being a silly idea.

Thanks all, One vendor cited an example of a program management contract but the term "integrater" was used by the Government contract specialist so they may be close to the same thing. The PMO is really doing what the Prime contractor would normally do in coordinating sub-contractors and compiling the subcontract costs into a single invoice. The requirements office wants direct control of what used to be sub-contracted functions but don't have the manpower to do all the administration that the current prime does for us. So when several companies that only manage projects came to our industry day and stated that hiring management companies was a new trend, our requirements office was convinced this would work great. They also want to build a body shop element into the contract so any time they get a surge, they can just order up some more personnel to help them. I am concerned about some functions being inherently Governmental and some functions causing proprietary issues. I am told that Associate Contractor Agreements put together with a locally written clause will enforce the contractors cooperating with each other but I am not convinced yet and nothing I have read on this forum so far is changing my mind.

Vern, I deleted the posting but since we are months away from a formal solicitation I don't think it harmful. We are in market research mode right now. We held an industry day for over 200 companies last month giving our current requirment and asking thier advice. We held over 100 twenty minute one on ones. (Speed dating for vendors) We really have a blank sheet of paper but after the meetings, the requirements office began pushing for the multi stove pipe system I described. We must separate a couple of functions to award to small business primes but my management and I are not sold on having more than one large business contract. Thus my request for comment from the WIFCON community. I don't want to obstructionist if it is really a 21st century success story but it defied my logic.

Deleted

Sorry Vern, I noticed the error as soon as I logged back in. My requirements office wants to replace a large prime contract with lots of subs with 7 contracts. 6 stove pipes and a PMO cloud over them and coordinating all thier efforts.

All, Our PMO wants to break one very large prime contract up into 7 separate contracts at the recompete point. Since the administration will overwhelm the manpower both the program and contracting they want to award the Program Management Office services to a third party contractor. The PMO is expected to ride herd over the other 6 large and small prime contractors, do all the admin work for deploying the other contractors, ensure the other contractors stay on schedule, do quality assurance on the other 6 and advise the CORs of thier findings. This would seem to lead to a lot of fingure pointing every time something doesn't get done. However, I was told by industry that this is becoming common and it works most of the time. I am not sure they were fully honest with me. The Program sees this arrangement as giving them more direct control over the 6 primes that used to be subcontractors. They also see savings in not paying the prime for the overhead and fee on all the subcontracted work. I am not sure the PMO and the CORs will be able to coordinate the complex efforts required of the 6 other contractors. So does any WIFCON readers have any experience in this type of arrangement? Anyone have any success or failure stories? I am fearing we will do a lot of work and have it be declared a failure a in the first year. However I want to have an open mind on this.

You will need to get Defense Base Act insurance for your employees

How many customers even know what a PSC is? None that I know of at my agency. We in the contracting office correct the codes before award and we have an oversight shop to do random QC of our work. The HCA has to certify FPDS accuracy and my HCA uses the QC report to back her certification. The memo wants the PSC codes by line item but that will not be captured by FPDS which wants the code of the perdominate cost driver.

Department of State has a DOSAR clause placed in all service contracts that allows paying for the hours. See paragraph c on down. OBSERVANCE OF LEGAL HOLIDAYS AND ADMINISTRATIVE LEAVE (APR 2004) (a) The Department of State observes the following days as holidays: Christmas Day Full list removed to shorten. And any other day designated by Federal law, Executive Order, or Presidential Proclamation. ( When any such day falls on a Saturday or Sunday, the following Monday is observed. Observance of such days by Government personnel shall not be cause for additional period of performance or entitlement to compensation except as set forth in the contract. If the contractor’s personnel work on a holiday, no form of holiday or other premium compensation will be reimbursed either as a direct or indirect cost, unless authorized pursuant to an overtime clause elsewhere in this contract. © When the Department of State grants administrative leave to its Government employees, assigned contractor personnel in Government facilities shall also be dismissed. However, the contractor agrees to continue to provide sufficient personnel to perform round-the-clock requirements of critical tasks already in operation or scheduled, and shall be guided by the instructions issued by the contracting officer or his/her duly authorized representative. (d) For fixed-price contracts, if services are not required or provided because the building is closed due to inclement weather, unanticipated holidays declared by the President, failure of Congress to appropriate funds, or similar reasons, deductions will be computed as follows: (1) The deduction rate in dollars per day will be equal to the per month contract price divided by 21 days per month. (2) The deduction rate in dollars per day will be multiplied by the number of days services are not required or provided. If services are provided for portions of days, appropriate adjustment will be made by the contracting officer to ensure that the contractor is compensated for services provided. (e) If administrative leave is granted to contractor personnel as a result of conditions stipulated in any “Excusable Delays” clause of this contract, it will be without loss to the contractor. The cost of salaries and wages to the contractor for the period of any such excused absence shall be a reimbursable item of direct cost hereunder for employees whose regular time is normally charged, and a reimbursable item of indirect cost for employees whose time is normally charged indirectly in accordance with the contractors accounting policy. (End of clause)

I believe the intent is to limit the cost of labor and avoid contract hires making more than TCN's and CCNs working in the USAID offices. They probably meant it to cover sub-contractors too but you should contact the USAID office that publishes the AIDAR and have them clarify the meaning of the clause. Point out that they seem to have forgot to require a flow down clause.

I inherited some IDIQ labor hour service contracts that did not specify how TO rates should be proposed and the contractors were proposing one rate till it matched the base contract POP and then the next year higher rate the rest of the TO period. It was a very complicted TO so it was an administrative nightmare tracking timecard dates to the rates on invoices. So on the recompete I ensured to inform that the rates in place the date of TO award would be for the whole TO year. A roar of grumbling ensued but they accepted the requrement. Lesson learned - make sure it is spelled out in the contract and task orders what rates/prices apply and when.

31 hours and 400 procurement actions to go. Yippee.

A lot of people refer to them as 5 year contracts especially in informal conversation. You say, "is that a 5 year contract?" They may reply, "yeah, a base and four".

Unfortunately some budget offices do not apportion the funds that way. They seem to read the law like retread and you can't convince them otherwise. They will only provide funds to the continuing resolution expiration date. Some blame it on OMB for doing the same thing to the Agency. We went nuts cutting mod after mod on those 2 week CRs we had a few years ago. At least this time we have 6 months.

Rose2010, Please clarify your issue. But in basic terms, if you are a DoS Government Employee use the FAM/FAH. If you are a contractor use the terms and conditions in your contract which may mirror the FAM/FAH or may not. If you are a contractor's employee then follow company policy/guidance. As a DoS CO, I don't consider the demobilization complete until the employee has been relocated and their property shipped. The task order usually ends at final demobilization and the company can no longer invoice cost incurred after the task order period of performance ends. Thus they may make thier employees ship, and incur the cost, prior to final demobilization.

I have found it typical to award a services task order for the year with incremental funding on it. All the rest of the funding mods are unilateral administrative mods just to add funds. If funds do not come, the services have to end but I have never seen that happen.

Seems to me the element would be part of a sub-factor and if deficient, it could make the entire sub-factor deficient?

Now you got my curiosity up. What service are you buying $2,500 or less at at time that will add up to Millions? Thats a lot of orders to manage.

LPTA should not have strengths and Weaknesses. Each evaluaton element should be acceptable or unacceptable.

It is getting closer to being a final rule: Subject: FAR Case 2011-028, Nondisplacement of Qualified Workers Under Service Contracts MEMORANDUM FOR CIVILIAN AGENCY ACQUISITION COUNCIL (CAAC) Subject: FAR Case 2011-028, Nondisplacement of Qualified Workers Under Service Contracts The subject FAR case is presented to the CAAC for consideration as a Final Rule. This rule proposes to amend the Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) to implement Executive Order 13495, which provides for nondisplacement of qualified workers under service contracts. The Department of Labor was assigned responsibility by the E.O.for developing implementing regulations, upon which the FAR rule is based. Team Report TAB A – FAR Text TAB B – Federal Register Notice TAB C -- Federal Acquisition Circular TAB D – Final Regulatory Flexibility Analysis TAB E – Training Form TAB F – Data Collection Checklist TAB G – Matrix of Public Comments TAB H -- DOL implementing Regulation TAB I -- FAR Proposed rule TAB J -- FAR Case checklist TAB K -- E.O. 13495 TAB L -- Clause Matrix This case is an Administration priority and is being handled under expedited procedures. This case will be overviewed at the Wednesday, August 15, 2012 CAAC meeting. Comments from the CAAC are due by COB,August 23, 2012 and the case will be discussed at the August 29th, 2012 CAAC meeting.

Department of State DOSAR: Subpart 605.3 - Synopses of Contract Awards 605.303 Announcement of contract awards. (a) Contracting officers shall make information available on awards over $10 million to the Bureau of Legislative Affairs, upon request, in sufficient time for an announcement by 5:00 p.m. Washington, DC time on the day of the award. This requirement applies only to awards made by domestic contracting activities where performance will take place within the United States or its possessions. However, most are done a few days after award. We have Aquisitions admin staff that watch FPDS and make us provide a synopsis of the award to them. They format the info into letters to the congressman/Senators of the district of the awarded contractor and present them to the liasion office.

Definitely a good resource that I never knew about. Thanks Vern.

GTM stands for Government Technical Monitor. They are basically assistant CORs. They usually assist the COR at different geographic locations in the field but in some cases work for the program office in Washington assisting in the "back office". They have the same COR training and have to be certified as FAC-COR in order to be a GTM.

Thanks, H2H, It is not the CORs fault. It is an Agency organizational problem more than anything. The COR is forward deployed to manage the actual work in the Middle East. The invoice review of everything not performed in country and all travel is done in Washington. The GTM assigned to review invoices here in Washington insists she needs proof that the person travelled. I agree a boarding pass doesn't provide proof which is why I started this thread. I am interested in what others use as proof that has been acceptable to DCAA and OIG.

We have contracts that require the contractor to conduct an oral board intended to stress the candidate and our rep sits in. If he thinks a candidate may not be as good as his resume states or shakier than his psycological test shows, he will strongly suggest the company HR reject the candidate. Our contractors carry weapons and advise high level foreign officials so we have to be certain of thier abilities and mental state before they deploy.