leo1102

Navy Seaport-e is set up as a Multiple Award Contract Vehicle and is therefore subject to FAR Part 16.5 and awards placed under the Seaport-e contract vehicle are Task Orders under Fair Opportunity. 

GSA E-buy contains Multiple Award Schedule Contracts subject to FAR Part 16.5.  Awards placed are task orders open to Fair Opportunity.

 I am not familiar with the other onces you mention.

Sub-contractor receipt requirements may or may not be in the Prime contract with the Government.  If it is a requirement, did the Prime  flow that down to the contract with the sub-contractor?  Even if there is no mention of sub-contractor receipt requirements in the Prime contract, the Prime could have placed it in the subcontract.  

Is the Prime able to justify the costs in any other way without the receipts?

The King of Contracting - long live Vern Edwards!!!!!

If you do not have confirmation from an authorized budget person that the funds are available, then you can not tell the contractor that funds are available.

You can exercise the option without funding if the proper clauses are in the contract (Availability of Funds).  The contractor has the right to not perform if no funding is provided.

It is a double edged sword - you can exercise without funds and the contractor may or may not perform or you let the contract die and you risk the chance that you will have to reprocure.

I recommend you consult with your contracting officer and policy branch.  

Question -

Does the IDIQ permit the addition of non-negotiated "new" labor categories?  If so, is there a percentage limitation?  It appears to me that if the IDIQ does not specifically address this possibility, then you may be wanting to do something that is out of scope of the IDIQ contract.  

On 6/8/2018 at 9:18 AM, joel hoffman said:

No celebrity worship here. 

I saw the article while refreshing my memory on what his official title was during the time. It provides some background on him,  the policy and industry perspective

You are a contractor and entitled to your opinion. I was a career government acquisition employee (technically still am as a re-employed annuitant when called upon for an assignment) and am entitled to my opinion concerning the policy. 

I don’t intend to debate you, as a contractor, about it. 

 

Vern as a Contractor - really Joel - that is ridiculously minimizing to Vern's decades as Contracting professional with the Federal Government, his many published articles, his sage advice on this site, not to mention his impact on many of us currently succeeding as 1102s.  I am, quite frankly, surprised at your post.

The contractor should have thought about this cost when they provided their price proposal.  This is a FFP task order.  To me this is a Other Direct Cost only if the WiFi is being use solely on this task order.

Was the AF blocking known by the Govt at the time the solicitation was issued?  Should that information have been part of the solicitation?  Is utilizing WiFi the only way to do the testing event or is there another way?  Did the solicitation include any specifics on this?

Now, having said all of that, the contractor could come back with a claim or an REA  - I'm not sure if they would if the cost is minimal.  The claim may cost them more than the actual reimbursement.

1.  Entering the 1102 field - if I hadn't I would still be at Ft Benning as a 0318 GS-5.  Not trying to learn everything at once - Taking my time and trying not to be overwhelmed. Listening to wise more experienced personnel and never ever thinking that I know it all - not even now.

2.  I don't regret a thing.  

3.  Ignore those who will bring you down - those who are less capable than you, those who are jealous of your initiative and success.  Focus on your own success - cultivate  friendships and network - diversify your contracting experience.

Are you sure you don't mean 13.501(a)(2)(ii)?

My current office is primarily digital - only the largest of drawings, schematics, etc are printed.

17 hours ago, MBrown said:

VA1102,

I'll offer one caution to you as you consider the jump to DoD.  Depending on the agency, if your Contracting certification is not DAWIA, you might be required to recertify.  I have a co-worker with FAC, who had to recertify with DAU / DAWIA courses.  

 

Very True - I know of a GS-14 who transferred to DoD with a FAC-C Level III who had to take all Level II DAWIA courses to earn his Level II DAWIA certification.  On the other hand, I just transferred to a non-DoD agency with DAWIA Level III and I was presented with my FAC-C Level III without having to take any FAC-C courses.  

18 hours ago, Desparado said:

I don't know that I would say a non-DoD agency is "less of a challenge".  

I meant that because of the foundation built on my DoD experience, the transfer to a non-DoD was made easier.  I did not say that a non-DoD agency is less challenging.  Thanks for the opportunity to clarify.

I started out as a GS-7/9 with the Army, competed for GS-11 and for GS-12.  I then moved to the US Army Corps of Engineers laterally.  Selected as a supervisory GS-13, I moved to the Navy NAVSUP where I was eventually selected for a non-supervisor GS-14 with Navy MSC.  I was then selected for a Supervisory GS-14 with GSA PBS.  I gained experience in commercial and non-commercial material/supplies, personal and non-personal services, IT and Engineering services, and construction/restoration/rehabilitation.  I am a firm believer in gaining diversified experiences.  It is my experience that Hiring Officials look for it.  Working for DOD established my foundation in the FAR, DFAR, AFAR and NMCAR.  Switching to a non-DoD agency is less of a challenge because of that foundation.  

19 hours ago, bob7947 said:

Below is Rule 2 from Terms Of Use:

I have completed my review and have deleted posts dealing with the discussion of an entity.  I also removed a citation to an old IG report. 

Feel free to discuss Section 846.

Sorry Bob - Thanks for the reminder.

Then change my name to Luke Skywalker!!!

A Viking 'Heaven"  - really Vern  LOL  Please know that many of us have "grown up" in contracting with you as our father figure; a wise man who challenged us, encouraged us and pointed us in the right directions.  I could wax poetic, but I won't.   I thank you, I will miss you, and WIFCON will miss you.

Vern - THANK YOU!!!    You inspired me to be the best contracting professional I can be.  Your knowledge has been a beacon in times of darkness.  I wish you much deserved happiness in your retirement. 

Vern -

You said,"I don't teach anymore, but still I get paid to research and write, so I'm constantly working in a variety of databases about a variety of topics in contracting. However, all this is coming to an end soon. So one or more of you will have to take up the slack." 

Does this mean you are retiring soon?  Please say it isn't so!!!

We are looking into the possibility of sponsoring a PWS writing class for our Government customers.  Does anyone want to recommend a good contractor?  Would DAU come to our location and provide training? 

Ok Vern.  Thanks.

Hi Vern

The topic took a turn after GWGerard1102's initial post in this thread.   We all know that this case does not rate anywhere alongside of "Fat Leonard" for the dollars, reach or impact. 

In my prior post I was wondering what basis the defense had to request the verdict to be set aside.  I know it was not set aside. 

I thought we were talking about Contracting Scandals.  "Thrower" may not be a "Fat Leonard", but it was a scandal to DWGerard1102 and those of us involved. 

Grasping at straws -  my contract file had his signature on a non-disclosure agreement and on a conflict of interest statement and there was the altered insurance paperwork that was found in multiple contract files during the investigation. 

Yep - that's it Vern.  It appears as if it wasn't just the three contracts that I knew about.  The article said eight contracts.  I also did not know that Mr. Thrower's lawyer had tried to get the jury verdict set aside.  I wonder on what grounds the set aside was based? 

The link that DWGerard1102 furnished in this thread is the one I was referring to in my Friday 9:58 AM post.  THROWER

In the case in which myself and others were involved, the contractor was performing on a daily basis, had many employees and was receiving monthly payment IAW the contracts.  Having said that, Mr. Thrower was the COR on all of these contracts and would have been the one certifying the invoices for payment.  They were providing Human Resources and Administrative work under at least three contracts, if I remember correctly, in support of multiple Ft Benning organizations.  I did a site visit on the one contract that I worked and Mr. Thrower and his sister were both there.  It is not unusual for the COR and the Contractor to be present during a site visit.  Just like during source selection, I had no idea that they were related.  He even signed a non-disclosure agreement and a conflict of interest form.  CID got involved when another new contract specialist noticed that the insurance document provided by the contractor to prove that they had sufficient insurance to work on a Government installation appeared strange- the type font looked altered.  That eagle eyed contract specialist called the insurance agency, found that the company did not have insurance with that agency, and then reported her suspicions up the Contracting chain to CID and CID investigated.   Not only were the insurance documents found to be fraudulent, but the compensation received by Mr. Thrower from his sister and their familial relationship was discovered.  In early 2005, a bunch of us went to Boston to appear before the Grand Jury and in July 2010, the trial was held.  Mr. Thrower's sister was sentenced before his trial started and he was sentenced, I think, in October 2010. 

I have no knowledge of whether protests were filed after the verdict as I had left that particular contracting office in 2008.

Yes - Thank you!!