BorderC

Joel - For clarification, I'm not with GSA. This is a BPA established under a GSA contract. Jacques - Thanks for that information. I wish I had thought to research the final ruling.Here are some facts to my case that are relevant to what you posted: there was only one D&F for the BPA that had been signed by the contracting officer prior to establishing the BPA. There were no D&Fs for individual orders. So, there are issues there, but I'm not sure how much they played into the actual discussion/debate. In my case the contract type itself was never an issue. The approval of the D&F by the HCA was the point of contention.

Coming back for some opinions from the community. Let's say you have a 3-year BPA that is coming to an end and you want to extend it an additional 2 years (for whatever reason, you can't start a new contract). The Limited Sources Justification is approved. A D&F for Time and Materials was approved by the contracting officer for the original BPA (3 years). The BPA has previously issued only T&M orders that are one year in duration. The FAR states: Focusing on (h)(ii)© here, Question 1: Considering you are extending the BPA itself from 3 to 5 years, not the individual T&M orders (again, each are only 1 year in duration), does this even apply? Question 2: If it does apply (or if this were a T&M order instead of a BPA), should one reasonably interpret that the requirement for HCA approval still applies even though the action does not execute the base period (merely extends it)? My thoughts are that it doesn't apply because it is a BPA, not an order. I'm also leaning towards it not applying to the extension because it does not execute the base period. The FAR seems to be specific in precluding the execution of the base period of the T&M order greater than 3 years, but not an extension of up to three years. One could just establish a new BPA instead of extend the current BPA and it would no longer be required. However, many lawyers disagree with me on both points. The issue is already resolved, but I'm curious what this community thinks and if there is another way I should be viewing this. Thanks.

I work for a civilian agency and, aside from the FAC-C program, we have no formal training. A few of us are looking to put something together and are exploring what other agency's (especially DOD) are doing. One thing we came across was the OJT Tool that was recently introduced. Does anybody here have experience with this as a training/development tool? Has it been effective or was it largely treated as a "check the box" activity? I'd be interested to hear thoughts and opinions on the merits of the tool. Otherwise, anything else out there that we can benchmark? Thanks! Reference: https://acc.dau.mil/CommunityBrowser.aspx?id=398979〈=en-US

I'm looking through 8.403 and the GSA webpage and I'm not noticing anything that suggests that a GSA BPA is a contract. In the "Sample BPA Format" that is posted on their website they state and How can you have a binding contract without a minimum obligation/consideration? Looking at the GSA FAQ on BPAs, the only difference they seem to point out is that Part 13 BPAs are subject to requirements at Part 13 and GSA BPAs are subject to the requirements of Part 8..... I am curious because I'm working on a GSA BPA procurement at the moment. Perhaps I'm missing something but I am not seeing evidence to conclude that GSA BPAs are contracts.

Fair question. At the risk of sounding dumb - I have argued the former position to little effect on some of my more seasoned (and more intelligent) colleagues. I have had a difficult time convincing them that My viewpoint is the better/right interpretation. I suspect it's either a lack of communication skills and knowledge/experience on my part or, simply, I am the plain dumb one. I could certainly use a better understanding regardless. Thanks.

All, There is a discussion in my office on the correct authority that gives the Government the right to increase the estimated cost (and funding) on a CPFF contract that is required due to contractor overruns. In this case, there has been no Government-directed change in the requirements. It is an R&D contract that, due to some performance complications, cost more than was competitively proposed and the Government wants to fund the overrun. The LoF clause says that the estimated cost must be increased as well. So, the office discussion has revolved around what gives the Government the authority to unilaterally increase the estimated cost in these circumstances. One position/interpretation is that the Limitation of Funds clause itself grants the contracting officer the authority to increase the estimated cost and allotment of funds. This would allow the contracting officer to unilaterally increase the baseline cost estimate without increasing the fee. Another position is that the Changes clause is the proper authority because to continue work past the baseline estimated cost requires additional time, effort, etc.(even though there is no change to the Government's requirements) from the contractor. From a fee perspective, the Contractor would then have the opportunity to propose fee but, in our circumstance, would be negotiated out. I suppose that in both situations the contractor could always submit a claim for fee if they thought they deserved it. This seems to be a pretty fundamental C-R issue but it shows how there are different interpretations from all levels (in my office at least) on what seems to be a right or wrong type of answer. So, I thought I'd come to this board to discuss/receive feedback and see if I can get some other opinions. Thanks.

I can say that our training is absolutely pitiful. Most of what we get is focused on new hires that don't have the context to understand. The rest, I'm convinced, is simply for CLPs and not really training. We have some real problems in this area. I drafted two separate responses already that I've deleted because I got on my soapbox. Basically, most contracting officers are to proud to admit they need training and the management doesn't particularly seem to care about traing COs (only new hires). So, the new hires get "trained" but that is soon forgotten and the REAL training comes from on the job where the CO (who usually doesn't know what they are doing) is coaching the contract specialist. Anyways, I promised myself I wouldn't get on my soapbox. I visit this board daily because of the poor/lack of training.

All, I'm just curious what evidence contracting officers out out there are requiring and/or what contractors are providing to support clause 52.232-7 requirements. My observation/experience is that the Government (where I am) asks for and has been satisfied to receive only a breakdown of direct labor costs by labor category, number of hours, and the contract rate. For example: SLC Hrs Rate Price EN2 10 $10 $100 EN3 10 $15 $150 TOTAL 20 $250 That would be sufficient to pay the $250 (or $250,000 if it were the case). The payment clause (52.232-7) states: I wonder, from your experiences, is it more or less common for the contractor to be required to submit the items from (i) and (ii) above? What other substantiation (iii) is commonly requested?

I work for a civilian agency and the only way to get hired (that I know of) is through an internship program. To be eligible for the program, you have to be in school working on a degree (preferrably business for contracting). Once you are succesfully enrolled, you can submit your application to the HR person that runs the internship program and then go through a selection process. I think they do this selection once, maybe twice each year. You would be required to do a number of "tours" as an intern and then, once you've graduated or are in your final semester, hope that you get an offer. That's how it has been for the last 4 years. The only other way we get new people is by sniping experienced people (GS-12s) from other agencies. Edit: By the way, you can be in a post-graduate program (like an MBA) and be eligible. This is probably preferred since you would start at a higher pay grade. I think it can even be an online university. Edit 2: To be clear, that 1st sentence may be specific to the agency I work for.

I work for a civilian agency and I'm pretty happy with it. I think we get quite a bit of flexibility in my agency and are allowed a bit more of a leash (from what I've heard, at least). You may want to consider the feedback in one of the "Best Places to Work" surveys they do for federal agencies every year.

Thanks all for all the information and citations. I REALLY appreciate the thorough responses because I was just told that I may have to go brief management on why it isn't treated as a Part 33 action.

Thanks to both of you. I was starting to come to the same conclusion myself. If the "penalty" of the protestor not submitting a certified claim per the FAR is that the CO doesn't have to provide their final decision..... I'm not sure how that really would apply with the GAO who has already "recommended" that the agency pay. So, in the context, it doesn't really make sense. Just took me a couple of days to think about it. Thanks to you both for taking the time to answer.

When the GAO recommends that an agency reimburse protest costs and tells the protestor that they must submit a certified claim for costs, what exactly does "certifed" mean? Does that mean that the protestor has to certify all costs and submit the claim per FAR 33.207 (including the statement at paragraph c) or does GAO "certification" mean something entirely different? Thanks.

Thank you very much for your answer. That is a very expensive set of books. I wish there were more reasonably priced resources....

I'm looking to see if there is a "right" or even "best" answer out there. Background: 100% single-award, IDIQ contract comprised completely of (multiple) CPAF task orders and 52.232-22 is incorporated at the contract level (for administrative purposes, funding is at the contract level and not the individual task order level). With the above facts, lets say that the contractor is overrunning some orders and underrunning others, but the net is an underrun. Would the steps for overrunning in 52.232-22 apply? Meaning, is the contractor accountable at the task order level (and TO overruns require additional allotment by the CO to complete work) or at the contract level (where there is no overrun). Thanks all. I appreciate the advice and guidance. (Sorry if this has been discussed previously. I searched and didn't see anything with the above fact pattern.)