

formerfed
Members-
Posts
2,365 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Blogs
Events
Store
Breaking News
Everything posted by formerfed
-
Carl, you just beat me to it. I started to post something similar. The SOW and overall objectives of this effort are clearer once someone takes the time to read and understand. A shortcut on what’s involved is looking at the CLIN descriptions. I think the problem we all had here arises from a lack of clarity on the overall objectives and what you concluded by saying “the government was challenged and created a procurement the best they could.” This seems like the contracting people not really understanding technically what’s needed and vice versa. There are probably several ways to structure this contract and likely none are perfect. The issue really is about how to contractually acquire commercial vessels and support services and make it fit within contracting boundaries. If the solicitation provided a better explanation upfront, it would be easier to grasp. Also explaining the rational for both fixed price and cost reimbursable orders is beneficial along with grouping associated applicability of clauses - these clauses are applicable to FFP orders and these clauses are applicable to cost reimbursement orders. In the most simplistic terms, the government is acquiring marine vessels through a contractor and requires a variety of support services including maintenance, repairs, and alterations. What’s needed is a clear strategy that best communicates and accomplishes that for both government and industry. This example falls a little short in understanding at least.
- 55 replies
-
- commercial items
- bilateral awards
-
(and 3 more)
Tagged with:
-
As an old timer, I can attest this is a perfectly legal action. 40 years ago we did a contract for an IT facility manager. The contractor acquired a large mainframe computer system for the government which became government property. The contractor acquired space, installed the computer system, and ran it using their own staff and subcontractors. We placed orders under the contract using a mix of fixed price, LH, and cost reimbursement types.
- 55 replies
-
- commercial items
- bilateral awards
-
(and 3 more)
Tagged with:
-
Section 508 Compliance Supplementary Language
formerfed replied to Guardian's topic in About The Regulations
Ask the company what other agencies bought their software. Check with them too. -
I give it a 2. I went through many of the documents going back to the original solicitation. What a mess! My take this was conducted by government people that didn’t know what they were doing. Most likely the contracting people (saw multiple names over the course of the procurement) don’t understand what they were buying. On the other side, the program staff don’t understand contracting. That’s usually the case when we see that many revisions and amendments. Market research would go a long way to improving this. Talk with a few industry leaders to find out what works and what doesn’t. Ask them what information they need to respond and the best way for the government to make that available. Check with other government agencies and get them to share experiences and lessons learned. Overall SAM.gov needs a major revision. The original system was designed many years before development even started. Then as technology evolved and practices to make documents available occurred beyond what was even envisioned, SAM.gov was changed to awkwardly accommodate. It is operationally outdated.
-
https://youtu.be/jroT8ZCleTg?si=RQzp-54WB438r9xj Pretty funny. My first FAR: Teaching bureaucracy to children
-
Lots of missing information here. @Neurotic why don’t you just ask the contractor why they think the billing is proper? Is there contractual language restricting the key person to the fixed price task. You mentioned you didn’t know what the proposal says in terms of price/costs and technical. How about looking and reporting out? This is the simplist way out rather than looking up legal decisions. Edit: I see I’m duplicating some of HTH’s questions
-
I’ve seen this 3 or 4 times. The only difference with this situation is the CLIN structure is Labor Hour instead of cost reimbursable. In one instance, the COR inquired. The contractor’s response was each time they are tasked for work under the LH CLIN, they decide who’s best to perform the work with staffing availability and knowledge of the job considered. So they decided to use the person designated as key under the fixed price task as the best choice. As Retrofed noted, as long as the fixed task is being performed properly, it shouldn’t be a concern. In the absence of additional information, what is wrong with it? We don’t even know what the contractor said in the proposal.
-
Yes and this can be difficult in the government environment. Most drafted contract language gets reviewed and often changed by multiple parties of varying disciplines. Sometimes the first cut, while it may be fine, gets altered so much the final product is much different. It’s hard to get buy-in because sharing that knowledge can involve people you aren’t even aware of in the process.
-
Then there’s a huge cost of bureaucracy in administering the program. SBA has a large number of staff dedicated. There are dozens of procurement center representatives. Add in the small business specialist in every agency contracting activity. Plus there’s the administrative costs of capturing all the award data and reporting. There’s the legal support effort from challenged set-aside decisions. Think about the recent thread here on selection of NAICS. If someone did a comprehensive analysis, the results would be staggering.
-
Did the ASBCA get performance and delivery incentives wrong?
formerfed replied to FrankJon's topic in Contract Administration
Vern, using my prior example, if the negative incentives only apply against to what the contractor earned, is that considered punitive or damages? I’ll add that the overall amount can’t go below zero. -
Did the ASBCA get performance and delivery incentives wrong?
formerfed replied to FrankJon's topic in Contract Administration
All good points. I asked in one case. The response was “we are paying for excellence. If the contractor slacked off, why should they keep the bonus?” I always ask agencies if they did market research and was incentives discussed, make sense, and motivated performance. The negative incentive is just the flip side of the bonus. If excellence is worth $100, why should performance below the threshold not be nicked the same $100? This all is above the contract minimum standard of acceptability. This just is the rational many agencies use. I doubt if anyone measures the effectiveness of the bonus or deductions. -
Did the ASBCA get performance and delivery incentives wrong?
formerfed replied to FrankJon's topic in Contract Administration
I just know from practical use and terminology, negative performance incentive is a credit or deduction from earned incentives. For example an agency establishes a 95% performance objective. If the contractor exceeds that level, they earn an incentive amount for each point above 95% - $100 for 96%, $200 for 97%,, and so on up to $500 for $100%. If performance drops below 95%, the contractor loses $100 of the earned amount for each point less than 95%. -
Numerical Scoring In Source Selection: Lessons To Be Learned
formerfed replied to bob7947's topic in Recommended Reading
Yes, reading seems to be out of style. The trend now is quick information to solve a problem or answer a question. Those immediate responses are then used in a situation even if they aren’t correct. I’m amazed on how many think source selection can be easily learned and applied from just taking a brief course or looking at examples. -
Numerical Scoring In Source Selection: Lessons To Be Learned
formerfed replied to bob7947's topic in Recommended Reading
Showing my age here but in the mid-1970s when GSA was the centralized authority for buying ADP, GSA promoted use of a formula based scoring in source selection. Numerical ratings from technical factors were added together to come up with an overall technical score. Then proposed prices were assigned points based on a formula where the low priced offeror received maximum points and higher priced offerors received proportionally less. The offeror with the most points, technical and price combined, was the winner. -
The gist of the post I referenced along with a supporting article was that GAO decisions and COFC decisions sometime conflict. But they are based on the same FAR language and their decisions can alter the way FAR gets implemented despite what common practices are. In essence, these bodies are setting new policy. The author blames, in part, drafters of the FAR for this situation. If the regulations are unclear or ambiguous, OFPP and the FAR Council need to take actions. Somehow my original link changed or was faulty. I can’t find it to repost. But I’ll keep looking.
-
That’s good then. Thanks Vern.
-
LOML hasn’t come back with additional information so we’re left with speculation. But I can see two reasons which a program office, especially one with limited understanding on the contracting process might want this data. One is for negotiation of future task orders. The other is providing assurances that the contractor is making satisfactory towards final performance objectives. It’s important for the contracting office to understand program offices needs upfront and craft an approach to help meet those without surprises like this later.
-
Contract signed in one fiscal year but won't begin in another
formerfed replied to Minnen's topic in Contract Award Process
Don’t even have to do an online search. It’s available on Wifcon Red Book here -
Numerical Scoring In Source Selection: Lessons To Be Learned
formerfed replied to bob7947's topic in Recommended Reading
Wow. I’m posting to a year old thread! Maybe too much coffee this morning 😁 -
Numerical Scoring In Source Selection: Lessons To Be Learned
formerfed replied to bob7947's topic in Recommended Reading
I don’t agree with Ralph Nash’s Addendum comment concerning attorneys. He states he understands how a Contracting Officer including those above him or her might not understand fundamental rules of the competitive negotiation process. Then he adds he doesn’t see why no Air Force lawyer didn’t see the flaws or stop the procurement is discouraging. He’s assuming government contract attorneys have the knowledge, expertise and experience to do so across the board. In my opinion that thinking is flawed in today’s times. The government has a difficult time recruiting, training and retaining experienced people regardless of their job series. Some agencies do better than others but his rational seems flawed to me that the Air Force can do better with attorneys than Contracting Officers. -
Sustainable Products and Services
formerfed replied to Vern Edwards's topic in About The Regulations
I see this is at a 5 level. Much of the sustainable products and services are acquired through lower grade contracting staff used to simplified acquisition procedures and the less complicated contracting methods. They likely lack the expertise to conduct the required analysis using the referenced life savings costing tools. So they will ask the requesting/program office to perform the analysis. In many instances these are logistics and facility management personnel who also will struggle with the tool. What it boils down to is long delays and high administrative time and expense. I’ll add my comment really applies towards what I think are the majority of transactions - low dollar value for routine supplies and services, and not for the much fewer number of complex projects agencies undertake. I’m thinking about the huge number of simple transactions for base level support, agency buildings and facilities, depot and warehousing, etc. In those instances of the more complex acquisitions, performing energy utilization studies is just one of many required to justify, fund, and obtain overall approval to proceed. Edit: Or they buy Energy Star stuff or the like without regard to price differences. Then I would say it’s a “0” in terms of hassle. -
Excluding offers that don't come through GSA Ebuy for GSA RFQs?
formerfed replied to NewbieFed's topic in For Beginners Only
I was part of a task force studying GWACS and MACS. One of the surprising findings from interviewing program managers responsible for these contracts is there are so many instances of improper agency ordering use. That’s why those contracts contain extensive instructions for ordering agency use. I know a couple of the largest contracts require agency program management and contracting personnel take online training before they become authorized to use them. In this specific case Newbie admitted upfront he wanted the question moved to the Beginners section. That implies he doesn’t have much experience of knowledge. That also assumes he likely doesn’t know enough to do extensive research to even ask the right questions. Asking GSA for their help likely would get a quick and proper answer. GSA is staffed with people to promptly answer questions and help. I started to respond with all the fairly obvious items like quotes aren’t binding, the solicitation didn’t specify rules, procedures say you must accept responses from contractors even if you didn’t solicit, and so forth. But then I realized I didn’t know what rules GSA established - those might be in some agreement with GSA contract holders when signing up to use eBuy. So asking GSA the question upfront seems best. If Newbie had doubts with the response, he could verify with his agency. I’m pretty certain he would get a very quick, if not immediate answer to his question from GSA. The alternative is spending a long time researching on his own including asking his legal office (and so many legal offices across the government seem to need a lot of background and written questions before responding). I should add this is my personnel perspective and recommendation. Lots of ways exist to address this situation. I just gravitate towards what I feel is the most efficient and responsive within the time frames.