

formerfed
-
Posts
2,362 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Blogs
Events
Store
Breaking News
Posts posted by formerfed
-
-
-
The language in FAR 49.108-8 makes it clearer that assignment of rights, title, and interests of the contractor and settlement of subcontracts are separate issues. Here’s part of the language
QuoteAs a general rule, the prime contractor is obligated to settle and pay these proposals. However, when the TCO determines that it is in the Government’s interest, the TCO shall, after notifying the contractor, settle the subcontractor’s proposal using the procedures for settlement of prime contracts. An example in which the Government’s interest would be served is when a subcontractor is a sole source and it appears that a delay by the prime contractor in settlement or payment of the subcontractor’s proposal will jeopardize the financial position of the subcontractor. Direct settlements with subcontractors are not encouraged.
So the smart thing for the government to do is stay away unless there are extenuating circumstances. You can assign rights but let the prime handle settlement.
-
FAR 49.108-8, Assignment of rights under subcontracts, provides more information. One interesting aspect is “The TCO shall not require the assignment unless it is in the Government’s interest.” So this only comes into play when the governments need that to occur.
i did hear this happening twice from a discussion at a conference. DoD terminated contracts for IT development when it appeared the solutions weren’t going to achieve the intended objectives and decided to start over. But they wanted to continue with software packages that the primes subcontractor for. I believe all it took was assigning licenses from the prime to the government directly. The prime just wrote the appropriate language.
-
Thank you for the update, Vern. It’s all really good news. Having to re-register is very minor. It allows me tho go back and use my real name the way I started with Wifcon.
So many popular websites use outdated technology. Once users and the site owners get comfortable and most of the bugs are gone, it’s not worth switching to something new.
Safe travels,
Stan
-
Good news
-
Yes. That is considered market research
This can give you perhaps some other ideas
-
I doubt any of those individuals referred to in the given advice posts have answers right now. I also doubt they would even speculate. Normally contacting those people mentioned is a great choice. But between the suddenness of the orders, court actions pending, and need to provide cohesive approaches between all the affective offices/agencies, it will take awhile to sort out. In short, nobody knows what will happen yet. Any smart person in charge won’t respond to questions until they feel they are on solid ground and their answers are correct and won’t change the next day.
-
I don’t think there’s precedent for a situation like this. The few instances I can think of where an agency was shut down happened gradually with a sunset date.
-
Yes, maintaining the status quo is important to large segments of the government and industry. On the industry side, the status quo presents a huge maze that newbies can’t begin to navigate. So the “old boy” pool keeps the competition to themselves. On the government side, major change upsets jobs. Some employees can’t handle it, and they know it. The status quo keeps management in power with all their prescribed rules, processes, and procedures they put in place. An enthusiastic employee who wants to try something different runs into a stone wall.
-
I’m reading the Formation of Government Contracts quoteDon posted as saying simplified acquisition procedures cannot be used for award if the value exceeds the SAP threshold. But if the value exceeds that amount, I see nothing wrong using the results of the simplified acquisition solicitation process to award a contract under FAR 15 procedures.
-
Great response Vern. I started to post something similar but this is much better.
-
@Minnen you said “subcontracting will not be accepted.” Do you really mean to not allow an offeror to subcontract or are you intending to just exclude requirements for subcontracting?
Quote -
Great news. Thanks for the update, Vern. Glad you have that relationship with the family.
Making Bob’s name as part of the site title is perfect.
-
2 hours ago, Retreadfed said:
Thanks, Vern. In the meantime, I think this Forum can and should continue.
The problem is it costs money and people resources just to keep it going even short term. Soon there will be a glitch of some kind or a software update needed and no one to fix things.
-
I don’t think anything came from the GSA effort from ten yers ago. I believe they awarded a few contracts for companies to develop prototypes. I’m guessing processes were too high for what they wanted.
-
Just because DOJ accepted the quI tam case doesn’t mean the attorney isn’t clear. That’s a violation of attorney/client privilege which could set the attorney up for a malpractice suit or disbarment.
-
16 hours ago, Jamaal Valentine said:
I think the situation in the original post is odd, but hey. All of that aside, what if the multiple-award BPAs were competitively awarded? Would the orders need to be competed?
Carrying that further, what if the solicitation from which the BPAs were awarded described the process in which calls/orders would be placed? It might include a non-price item like past performance? There’s no “Fair Opportunity” requirement with BPAs as well.
-
How does your question differ from the situation where a FAR 13 BPA has prices for a variety of commodities. Ordering activities issue “calls” which may be oral or written.
-
What you’re doing is not normalization in accordance with Information Ventures, Inc., B-297276.2 unless I’m missing something. You’re not asking for offerors to propose a level of effort. Furthermore you won’t be analyzing or adjusting offerors LOE or mix of categories.
-
@FL_Contracts I think I got the wrong impression of what you’re doing. I assumed from your initial post and the offerors question that your solicitation covered a rather specific and overall defined need. You had an overall LOE that everybody had to propose against but an offeror questioned their technical approach reduced the overall effort required. The overall scope is covered by the resulting contract and work is broken down by acseries of known task orders.
But now I believe you are just establishing an IDIQ contract with specific labor categories and the LOC stated will serve as the max. Then you anticipate a variety of tasks orders which will be negotiated on an individual basis with the contract labor rates. I’m also assuming you don’t know the precise nature of future task orders, some of which may not even be known at the present, so the purpose of the contract is to provide speed and efficiency in contracting for requirements as they arise.
Is that it? If so, I don’t see any problems.
-
2 hours ago, FLContracts said:
@formerfed - You raise a good point about evaluating the true potential cost of performance. The challenge is that as an IDIQ, we can't precisely define all the work upfront - the specific requirements will be established through individual task orders. That's why we've set ceiling hours as a maximum capacity for the full IDIQ. This is a standard IDIQ structure that most of NAVWAR uses.
The way many offices handle this situation is using sample (hypothetical or actual) tasks which all offerors must propose against. While not inclusive of all work, they are representative of the overall work covered by the solicitation.
-
An offeror has an approach which they assert will provide a lower cost than your estimate. But if you require them to propose something greater without any justification other it makes cost realism evaluation easier, you are on shaky grounds. You are not truly evaluating potential cost of performance. Instead ask offerors in their proposals to justify deviations from your estimates. Do you have technical people that can evaluate that?
-
In your example, Company A has a valid point. Actually I’ve been involved with many solicitations for help desk support. The majority just include workload data with the solicitation, which should be readily available for the government to include. Let offerors propose staffing resources based on their technical approach. Some agencies include the governments LOE as information as well as a basis for their evaluation.
-
Funny but there are a few spots where it all looked too familiar
Edit: you’ll probably have to click on the watch on YouTube button on the bottom left
Half my acquisitions team (newly hired to replace retirees) just laid off, don't know what to do
in For Beginners Only
Posted
Unfortunately this situation happens. The only successful approach I’ve seen involves (1) bring in experienced staff from other parts of the organization (2) use reemployed annuitants, or (3) use contractors. Regardless on the chosen method, success hinges on quick and relevant training, lots of oversight, and quality reviews with instructional rework when proposed actions aren’t proper. If government staff doesn’t exist, convince management that bringing in contract experts is essential for the short term.