Boof

I am going to throw my support to H2H's opinion.

Ok I am back. I was only pointing out that when going out to small business I don't think we can expect them to write our complicated contracts for us without undue burden on them. We can thank Congress for the complexity with having us enter socio economic preferences, labor law, buy american/trade agreement, subcontract reporting, trafficking in persons, corporate responsibility and a bunch of other terms and conditions that must be in the solictation and contract by law. I think it is better we write and they sign. According to some congressional act, the contract writing system should be linked to the financial system and operate as one. We went out ten years ago and got a whole new system just for this reason. After 10 years of enhancements it can actually save a lot of time if you choose to use it correctly and smartly. Too bad at least half the staff choose to complain about it versus learn to make it work for them. It is being enhanced again due to the DATA Act of 2014 and we will have to enter even more data into the awards. If we had a blank page, maybe we could use the offeror's contract but we don't have a blank page.

This might work for the large defense contractors but the mom and pop small businesses my agency deals with are not going to have any contract writing system available to them or a clue on how to write one. Got to think small business.

Sure its allowable, just give a NTP to procure the material that you approve to procure. Is it a good idea? That depends on tons of factors we have no knowledge of. Why has the NTP been held up? How sure is everyone that the project will go forward? etc.

No idea about the first paragraph as we would need more information. If they have 40 or 50 work standards I would say they have too many. So many measures dilutes the importance of each. As you stated they become a " so what". They could prioritize them I suppose. If this is a real procurement, I would not reveal too much on this website.

Commercial over $7M: FAR 14 or 15 and awarded on a SF1449 with commercial item clauses (with addendum if needed). Why the long discussion of 13.5 if it didn't apply? If under $7M, I would use FAR 13 and award on a SF1449. FAR 13.5 is no longer a test program. It is "Simplified Procedures for Certain Commercial Items"

Too complicated with too many variables to know how I would deal with it. Would need to review the complete contract, the proposal and all the negotiation information available in order to take a position. Then my position would have to be discussed with my legal advisor. So I guess that is how I would have dealt with the situation.

I think it is way to complicated for even the above average CO. Maybe for all but the Superstar COs. Plus it will be more time consuming and we don't have that time. The article says you can't trust past performance reports and then uses versions of them in the calculations. This may be usable if an agency puts together a full acquisition team and gives them a year to work one acquisition. I think this should happen on huge service contracts worth hundreds of millions of dollars but I do not see it from my vantage point.

Govt2310, FAR 6. 001states that it does not apply to FAR Part 13 which applies to orders under $150K. FAR 13.501 applies to those over $150K under the simplified acquisition for certain commercial items . 6.001 Applicability. This part applies to all acquisitions except— (a) Contracts awarded using the simplified acquisition procedures of Part 13 (but see 13.501 for requirements pertaining to sole source acquisitions of commercial items under subpart 13.5);

All this debate about SAP. Goes to show that SAP is no longer simple and straight forward. When I first started in 1998, I was told to just get three bids. That worked great and I never had an issue through 2011. Maybe I got lucky. Anyway, I moved out of awarding SAP and I was really surprised when I read FAR 13.104(b) about two years ago. Its discussion of synopsis pursuant to 5.101 basically overrode the rest of that section concerning getting 3 bids in the local trade area. It would seem the 3 bid process can only be used for orders under $15K and we don't get many of those since so many use PCards now.

I was always trained you could just get 3 bids and that is what I did for several years. I went overseas and when I read FAR 13.105 upon return I could not believe it. I do not remember that being in the FAR when I got basic training back around 1999/2000. No matter how much FAR 13 says it wants to reduce effort, FAR 13.105(a) makes synospsis required and so there is no more just getting 3 bids. The FAR seems to contradicting itself. You can do it under $10K but we don't get many purchase requests below $10K anymore.

Politicians are always condemning special interest programs on the stump but they can't wait to create more as soon as they are back in the office. I was told once that if they hang one more socio-economic program on the Christmas tree, it will all fall over.

From OPM: https://www.opm.gov/policy-data-oversight/hiring-authorities/direct-hire-authority/#url=Governmentwide-Authority GW-004, Effective September 30, 2012 is extended by Sec. 1103 of P.L. 112-239, National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) FY 2013, for Federal Acquisition positions covered under title 41, United States Code 433(g)(1)(A). This authority is based on a severe-shortage of candidates. Prior to using this authority, the department and agency heads (other than the Secretary of Defense) must determine whether a shortage of highly qualified individuals exists. When determining the existence of a shortage of highly qualified individuals, agencies are required to use the supporting evidence prescribed in 5 CFR 337.204(b). The supporting evidence must be kept in a file for documentation and reporting purposes. In accordance with 5 CFR 337.206(c), OPM may request information from agencies on their use and implementation of this direct-hire authority. This authority expires on September 30, 2017. Agencies may not appoint any individual to a position of employment using this authority after September 30, 2017. The legal authority code for SF-50 item 5-E is “BAE.”

We have "verification and validation" contractors out in the field who present thier findings to a Government Employee COR who may be in country or in Washington. They can go where our CORs can not.

Before award the overextended employee could be considered a risk and it should be clarified or discussions opened in negotiating the fixed price. However, after being awarded fixed price it is not cross Charging. The contractor must perform all three contracts fully for the fixed price and it don't matter how he does it. Some of my clients disliked performance contracts because we would award it fixed price with the thier assumption of 5 workers all the time. Then the contractor would meet the performance standards with 3 full time and 2 part time low paid students. They felt that was cheating. It was good business and what PWS with fixed price is all about.

When a contractor has a CBA, that agreement becomes the SCA for those workers. The incumbent or any replacement contractor must pay the wages and benefits of the CBA for the first year. During that year the workers can try to negotiate a new CBA. Don't feel too bad about missing the DOL deadline. We submitted a protest to DOL about the new CBA and even though it was substantially above the SCA, they would not declare it a substantial variance. Once my client got over the sticker shock, they loved the new CBA because turn over was reduced 50% and the workers were more motovated. You can get all the fine details about CBAs and the SCA from the DOL wage and hour Division website.

Does anyone have a link to where it tells why the SBA injected themselves into the contract award process to begin with? And why do they want to be Prime if they don't have COs that administer the contract. What where they trying to accomplish in the beginning that SBA has sent to the agencies now?

Our lack of expertise (plus HR refusing to provide more FTEs) is why Product Service Code Category R - Support (Professional/Administrative/Management) is very high in spend at most Federal Agencies. It is number one at mine. We use lots of consultants. That is not counting how much gets sent to non-profit FFRDCs to plan things for us.

Here is my view of the complicated wording. Others may disagree. There is no requirement for a formal J&A on procurements under $150K so all that is needed is a justification statement. (unless your agency procedures say different). We have a preprinted folder cover at DoS to write the justification on or you can write a memo for file. If you post over $25K to FBO then you state it is brand name and provide the why. FAR 5.102(a)(6) says the justification goes with the solicitation. If the solicitation does not have to be posted then neither does the justification. If you post on a public wall under $25K then it is part of your solicitation there. If you email the solicitation for under $10K to 3 vendors, you inform them of the why in the solicitation.

By my interpretation, it sounded planned but I don't know. Maybe someone in DoD can answer.

This gets contentious only because the Government Employee having to approve the cost is having to pay for thier own parking while the contract employee is being reimbursed for parking in a $18 a day lot under the building. Is the price reasonable? Well, all the garages in the area charge $18 a day for regular parking, some more. However, there is the early bird parking for arriving before 8AM that only costs $8. Then there is the lot 4 blocks away that the Government employee parks in that only costs $5 but he has to walk 4 blocks. The contractor chooses to arrive at 8:30AM and cause the Government to pay and extra $10. So what is really a reasonable price? So Mr. Fed is upset that he is paying and walking 4 blocks while the guy at the next desk can park in the building any time he wants and be reimbursed. The contract should have said we would not allow parking costs but then the contractor could just increase salary to reimburse without a separate charge for parking. Thus, what is one to do? Comparative compensation between Feds and contractors is always an issue, so much so that our contracts for danger zones contain line items for Danger Pay and Post Differential even though the contractor could compensate any way that gets personnel to go there. Problem is the higher paid contract hires see the FEDS getting the extra pay and threaten to leave country if they don't get it too. So you have the contractor pay them the same salary as the FEDS and then pay them the same extra pay. Problem solved. No, I am not the disgruntled FED. I have a parking pass. When my staff gripe, I tell them they should consider becoming a contract hire with its uncertainty.

DoD computers have shut out non .mil addresses for security upgrade. It is affecting many different systems. We cannot get FAC-C certifications on FAITAS because of this issue. They do not know how long they will be unaccessable.

In our electronic writing system which is integrated with our finance system, the unilateral purchase orders are obligated immediately when the CO hits the submit button in Momentum Acquisitions to award it. Please don't make my head hurt with all this talk of it not really being obligated until delivered.

I always supplied a breakdown spreadsheet and required the build up to make future modifications easier and to use the FAR Clause formulas in the case of labor under the Service Contract Act. Without knowing what the base year wages/benefits and other mark ups were, it was a lot harder to negotiate the new billing rates for SCA wage changes. In several years of doing it, I never had a complaint nor did anyone bring up market pricing. For high skilled professional services I also wanted to know how much was going to wages/benefits and how much to overhead and profit. A vendor may propose low wages and high overheads that lead to high employee turnover. Another vendor has higher wages and low overheads but about the same billing rate. I would rather the worker get the money for reduced turnover and higher morale then pay high indirect costs from the corporation not staying lean and mean. I know we are taught that we should not care about a contractors turn over as that is his problem but when hiring for complicated professional services the Government is the one hurt by high turnover. So you really want to know what the compensation plan for the employees will be.

Our last 1105s and 1106s were converted to 1102's for the pay reason. In Washington we could not get anyone any good at the paygrades of an 1105 and 1106 (Typically GS 5 to 9). Those we had that were good wanted to get above GS-9 and could not. They would move to the program offices that had higher grades. The pay grades have all escalated because the pay has not gone up enough within the grades. Now the "journeyman" (4 to 8 years) is a GS13 and looking to be a GS14 very soon. You must have 4 years to get your level III certification and many new personnel expect an unlimited warrant and a GS14 to come with that certification. A world of unrealistic expectation and yet many get it so it is not unrealistic anymore. I had a fast rise after a military career so I can not complain too much. It is good times for the staff but not so good for the organization. It used to be only Division Directors were GS15 but now we have Branch Chiefs and in some cases independent COs as GS15. I have relatives in the midwest that would die to get a steady $50K a year job but inside the beltway you feel unwanted if you don't make six figures.