woops85

Thanks all! I will use this to help the program folks craft an argument for senior management that is better than their current "we were always able to before". But to answer your questions. C Culham - 3 tests are in first paragraph of original post. My shop does the money and we have to add line of accounting to the 182s. Every time I refuse to do so and tell them they must do a PR, we're getting a little tempest in a teacup. And it's easier to rail at me than do what I tell them - take it up with the boss if they don't like my answer. Just getting a little tired of the repeated monthly drama. Previous management allowed based on their definition of the facilitated delivery as an "instructional service". Desparado - Several agencies actually do allow use of 182 but only up to 25K. Asked the question in a multi-agency working group I'm in but didn't ask about the non-warranted part. Scary part about our policy is that there is no training requirement outlined in the policy before someone can obligate using a 182. Not even purchase card training or anything about doing market research. And yes, I've raised it with the policy folks that they have left a big door open to trouble. Don - This course is very specific to my agency - includes a lot of agency policy and we actually have an HR person for one 2-3 hour period to respond to questions that come up the first 3 days. It's a very interactive course. There's a bundle of online courses that are taken before - many from OPM's HRU website on the basics of stuff (Merit Systems Principles, etc) as well as a couple assessments (MBTI, DISC, etc). Many vendors do have supervisory courses that are equivalent to the about 24 hours of the material and there's no issue if they order those courses using the 182. Heck could even do one of those courses and then tack on an extra day to have an agency instructor and HR person team up to do the other material with no issue. Vern - not classified or FOUO. But to be presented to other agencies, about 6 hours of classroom time would need to be changed to be pertinent to those other agencies. That's why I don't think the course manual is COTS. I can actually see the argument for the facilitated delivery as an instructional service of a GOTS product that would meet the agency 182 use rules.

My old organization used to do it routinely at the macro level - definitely not at a CLIN level. Would give estimated dollars or hours but never both. Vendors who proposed outside the range were asked to include an explanation in the cost proposal of why they were outside the range. Maybe they saw risks we didn't, etc

Department of the Interior has an Acquisition Development Management Program that posts vacancy announcements throughout the year. It's a 2 year term appointment under the Pathways program (where veterans' preference applies) and folks are brought in on a 9/11/12 PD. DOI (one of my coworkers) runs the program but the positions are funded by various agencies. DOI has an agreement with Office of Personnel Management that allows the individuals to be hired by the funding agency at the end of the program (usually a Pathways term appt can only be converted by the agency holding the position). Participants are DOI employees during the program, receive all needed training for FAC-C Level 1 or 2 depending on the funding agency requirement. Can find some info at https://doiu.doi.gov/programs/acquisitionInstitute.html. May be too junior for you. We currently have a cohort for DOD Washington Headquarters Service and are about to recruit for a cohort for Interior's Acquisition Group.

Thanks Old-Dog. Using the definitions on the Cendi page, it's definitely a Government Work, created by Government employees as part of their official duties. But Cendi doesn't help with the question of "Can the Government provide the course materials to any vendor and allow that vendor to add the course to their commercial catalog?" Because in order to use an SF-182 to order the course from a vendor IAW our Departmental Policy, the program folks would need to show their market research and get vendor quotes/catalogs showing this as one of their products.

My Department allows the use of an SF-182 as an obligating instrument by non-warranted personnel if (1) it's below the SAT, (2) cost is of a fixed nature (price per student, per course or per program) AND (3) program, course or instructional service is off-the-shelf and no modification or development resulting in increased cost is needed to meet the need. We've got an in-house developed supervisory course that presented by an instructor certified to deliver the results of the assessment the student take (MBTI, 360's, that sort of thing). Originally was supposed to be all Government folks presenting the class with the occasional contractor brought in in case of conflicts. Based on staffing changes, it's now rare to have a Government person teach the class. At one point, senior management was comfortable that the hiring of a facilitator/coach to present this curriculum was an instructional service and met the requirements for using a SF-182. New senior management came in and said nope - doesn't meet the three tests. The Department has a BPA for coaches so we started using that. Only issue we have had with this approach was that program folks arranging the courses have been waiting too long to submit purchase requests so everything gets rushed. No ratifications yet but only because of acquisition folks jumping through hoops. Now program people are trying to claim that the government development course is "COTS" and they can hire any company they want to using a SF-182 to present the curriculum. Reality is they want to sole source to an instructor who is not part of the coaching BPA. Since they don't understand acquisition enough to make an argument that makes sense to us, can anyone here explain to us why the program folks might be right?

I've done this twice before within GSA where we and the other office had different payment systems. We were lucky enough to be able to do it at the option year of the contract so had a clean break point. In each case the old office did a bilateral mod that was effective on the last day of the current option period transferring administration of the contract. The new contract office executed and funded the option period. We revised Section G, Contract Administration, to include language that all matters involving payment for costs incurred were to be handled by the contracting office that had cognizance during that period of performance. That way no funds changed hands between the two offices, and the old contracting office was effectively able to do a contract close-out on their portion after they got the last invoice and provided a copy to the new office. (Luckily neither one was Cost Plus)

"What the heck does "incorporating/exercising" mean?" I would guess that means they intend to add the clause allowing options and then exercise the previously non-existent option in the same modification. Hopefully MeryWifcon will respond soon to clarify

At my old organization we had a contract with the Reserves that included support for various distance learning centers (the infrastructure install, maintenance, de-install if needed). Because the contract POP was covering years when BRAC moves would be made, the customer knew there would be times when an existing learning center would have to be de-installed from one location and then re-established somewhere else, usually in the same geographic area. They were able to use previous BRAC move history to estimate a number of times this would occur but they could not estimate the when - RFP was on street before BRAC commission announced recommendations and then there's the fighting afterwards to stop it. They set it up as an optional task within the SOW and the cost proposal for that task was for a specific scenario - take it down from point A, re-establish it at Point B within a 500 mile radius. Timing was good as BRAC recommendations came out during evaluations and Govt wound up using a NTE number for that task each year based on vendor bid and their estimate of number of times it would happen. As I recall, wound up not having that task exercised until Opt 2 but they were pretty close on number of times we needed to do it each year.

Re Vecchia Post #16. Don't forget the folks who erroneously use the term "sole-source" when referring to a competitive procurement process that resulted in a single bid.

Unfortunately the guy in the tub drinking a glass of bubbly (Neely) was allowed to retire. Too bad MSPB could not negatively impact his retirement in some way

GovExec says the article is being published by Dan Gordon in the Public Contract Law Journal in the spring.

A variation of the language is still in the GSAM (at least the one linked on Acquisition.Gov) if you're with GSA. May still be in other agency supplements as well 519.502-1 Requirements for setting aside acquisitions. (a) You may make awards under the 8(a) Business Development Program (see FAR 19.8), or set aside for the Historically Underutilized Business Zone (HUBZone) Program (see FAR 19.13, Women-Owned Small Business (WOSB) Program (see FAR 19.15), or Service-Disabled Veteran-Owned Small Business (SDVOSB) Procurement Program (see FAR 19.14). (B ) Once a contracting activity acquires a product or service successfully on the basis of a set-aside, the activity must acquire all future requirements for that product or service using set-aside procedures. If you determine that you no longer can reasonably expect to receive offers from at least two responsible small business concerns and make awards at fair market prices, use the procedures in FAR 19.506 to withdraw a repetitive set-aside. However, the availability of Federal Prison Industries, Inc. and Nonprofit Agencies Employing People Who Are Blind or Severely Disabled (JWOD) mandatory sources which may not have existed at the time of the original requirement are sufficient reason to discontinue setting aside a continuing requirement

Maybe someday that threatened OFPP inventory of all IDIQs/BPAs in existence will actually get produced and then it can be a required check when determining acquisition strategy.

Having spent the morning working sequester drills, I can tell you that my agency, at least, has lots of flexibility in how we get to our number. Right now we are looking at things we can cut and the impact of those cuts. I'm sure there will be a lot of discussion next week about whether it is better to reduce non-personnel funds for a program (and this would include contractor costs) or personnel funds for the same program and what the right mix is. And the word "optics" will get thrown all over the place before a decision is made.

The contractor's stated practices and their timekeeping/accounting system are also drivers on billing quarter hours versus by tenths