Jump to content


  • Posts

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by woops85

  1. And for offers under the GSA Schedules program, you need to pay close attention to the RFQ language on size certification, if any exists. If the RFQ is silent, the small business determination at time of Schedule contract award (or 5 year option renewal) is generally what is used. But a CO has the right to request current size determinations for a particular procurement. For example, a vendor who was 8(a) when they got their schedule in 2009 but graduated in 2010 could still get credit for being 8(a) under the size factor for a Schedule procurement with an 8(a) preference UNLESS the CO specifically requires a current size determination
  2. Since it takes most companies 2-5 years tog et their final audited rates from DCAA these days, why wouldn't they just plan on these being overhead or G&A charges anyway? Unless the subs are on FFP or T&M subcontracts, it could be years before they are ready to incur these costs.
  3. Using Hard2pick's suggestion - what if you make the 3 day week CLINs mandatory and the 5 day CLINs optional? You build your IGCE based on an assumption of XX lots (weeks) of the mandatory CLIN and YY lots of the optional CLIN. Contractor proposes 52 3 day work weeks and some set number of 5 day weeks that you dictate. Maybe you could even fund some of the optional 5 day weeks at time of award but put procedures in place for granting approval to utilize - similar to procedures for approving purchases or travel. If doable, could cut down on some post-award admin; otherwise you are doing short-notice mods every time they need a 5 day workweek.
  4. As part of the MATOC cost evaluation, there should be an direct and indirect rate review. A FPRA from DCAA easily provides the CO with the info needed for the indirect rate review. Direct rate analysis could come from DCAA (if they have audited the vendor) or by vendors providing sufficient back-up documentation, such as pricing used on other contracts, salary surveys or payroll records, to allow the cost team to evaluate the proposed direct rates for the task. Of course, it all boils down to what you tell the vendors you are going to evaluate about the cost proposal - is it the reasonableness of the rates proposed for each labor category? Is it total cost of the sample task(s)? I've seen it both ways but not been on the cost team to say which way works best.
  5. Why doesn't your letter just say " issued to all prime vendors under the XXXXXXXXX multiple award contract." Surely the MATOC has a commonly referred to name to go with the number - just like ITES-2S, Alliant, GSA SChedule 70, etc
  6. I'm not DoD but we identify the risks for each factor right along with the strengths and weaknesses. Risks are identified as significant or not, whether mitigated by something in the proposal and the Government's view of probability of occurring. Significant, unmitigated and/or high probability risks can reduce the factor rating - it's all up to the evaluation team to decide. So while the Army's combined rating might identify a proposal as Good/High, our system could result in an Acceptable (Using Excellent/Good/Acceptable/Unacceptabel scale). I work with the Army a lot and agree with KeSer that some local installations (if not big Army) will write a policy that requires a D&F or other supplemental documentation to support the evaluation method chosen.
  7. You forgot the easiest answer of all - What does Duke's finance guru say?
  8. I'm confused by your question. Is the funding agency (Agency A) also the ordering Agency? Or is Agency A providing funds to Agency B (the agency that issued the ID/IQ) and having Agency B be the ordering agency? One would think (hope) that if there is a statutory cap that it is addressed in the ID/IQ terms and conditions - either through contract clauses or within the Special Contract/Order Requirements section - thus making who the funding agency is irrelevant.
  9. Ours was not set up as NTE. Was a FFP per month that totalled the $80K. As I said, Govt got smart and renegotiated CLIN terms
  10. Years ago I worked on a T&M contract that had a CLIN for repair parts - we used DEC servers and had support agreement that required us to mail parts back and forth for replacement. CLIN started off as FFP for first 3 years of contract. By year 2, client had moved off DEC/VMS as environment and was in a Windows NT based server environment but CLIN remained FFP. First 2 years of the contracts, CLIN was FFP'd at 80K and because of higher cost of DEC parts, company was making about 5K in profit for the year (75K spent, 5K unspent but FFP). Year 3, we still got the 80K in parts funding but only spent about 40K because of ability to compete each parts orders and get better pricing - plus newer equipment meant less breakdowns. Year 4 Govt smartened up and changed CLIN to Cost-Reimbursible. Our costs were consistent with Year 3 and Govt got 40K back
  11. Wow - I guess we have all been doing things wrong for years under that reasoning. And here I thought FAR 17.200 covered what it says in the Scope 17.200 Scope of subpart. This subpart prescribes policies and procedures for the use of option solicitation provisions and contract clauses. Except as provided in agency regulations, this subpart does not apply to contracts for ( a ) services involving the construction, alteration, or repair (including dredging, excavating, and painting) of buildings, bridges, roads, or other kinds of real property; ( b ) architect-engineer services; and ( c ) research and development services. However, it does not preclude the use of options in those contracts.
  12. Vern and Napolik - Understand that the memo truly doesn't apply but that doesn't mean someone didn't read it and thinks it did.
  13. If you are in DoD, then source of opposition might be last year's guidance on Better Buying Power from OSD (ALT)
  14. But if the company is performing cost plus work, it is getting approval on it's provisional indirect billing rates from someone. Don't see how it could increase all those rates based on not recovering all the costs the previous year. The auditor isn't going to allow it. And the Government should be getting a copy of the provisional rate letter to support the indirect billing rates. Those costs were incurred the prior year and you can't "add" the unrecovered costs from last year as an item in this year's projections. I think the company has just lost potential profit for the year in the long run. Granted you may not know until audited rates come back (in however many years they are behind)
  15. Other things happen behind the scenes - (1) at annual raise time, employees on the Navy contract get a smaller percentage raise than their counterparts on the Army contract because the contract is a "loss leader". (2) People start leaving the Navy contract and the company tries to replace them with a much cheaper person in terms of direct labor rate so the load is closer to what it should be. At least that's the way it worked at my old company when the boss slashed the rates on a T&M contract so he could win.
  16. FAR 52.217-9 is the clause that pertains to the option periods that you have already exercised. 52.217-8 is different.
  17. Does your contract contain 52.217-8, Option to Extend Services clause? If so, why not use that? Since you are extending a T&M contract over the 3 year mark, you may have to receive HCA approval for the T&M based on FAR 16.601( d )( ii ). The clause states "Approved by the head of the contracting activity prior to the execution of the base period when the base period plus any option periods exceeds three years" [emphasis added] but you may have a local policy that requires the approval when you use Option to Extend Services.
  18. We've issued some IDIQs lately where we require a response to every RFP, even if it's a "I'm not bidding" email. Put it into the Ordering Procedures explanation and each one only has 3 - 6 awardees so not burdensome. Part of the reason is so that later they cannot claim not to have seen the RFP; other part is so we understand why they are choosing not to bid. We have On Ramp provisions as well so can draw on reasons people did not bid when deciding whether to do the On Ramp.
  19. Two things for me. 1) When I had discussed this with 2 GAO lawyers at an acquisition forum earlier this year, they thought you would follow the money applied to the Task Order to determine Title 10 vs Title 41 rules. Here they went with what agency issued the ID/IQ, not what agency issued or funded the order. (Important to those of us doing assisted acquisitions) 2) S.498 got held at the desk because the CBO estimate stated that "S. 498 would amend federal law to extend the process for protesting the awards of certain civilian agency procurements. Under the legislation, contractors could protest certain task and delivery order contracts through September 30, 2016. In addition, the legislation would provide that no funds are authorized to be appropriated for processing protests made under the bill." and further that... "Based on that information, CBO expects that complying with the bill would increase the administrative expenses of federal agencies for contract personnel, lawyers, and general administrative overhead. Such expenses would generally be paid from agencies? salaries and expense budgets, which are subject to annual appropriation. CBO estimates that such costs would total a few million dollars over the 2011-2016 period. " Seems to me that estimate of a few million dollars to allow for protests of Task Orders over $10M is an awful lot less than what NOT enacting S.498 will now cost based on this decision.
  20. In the context of this statement, I'd say overhead does include G&A. Few things to consider for providing significant value. I'm sure others will give you more ideas too. - If all the prime is doing is entering subcontractor costs into their accounting system and then sending you an invoice, they're not adding significant value. - Is the prime performing project management tasks associated with the work of the sub?
  21. Take a look at the appropriate GSA schedule as well as things like ImageWorld2, ECS III and NASA SEWP. Ordering procedures vary by vehicle but first you should do a little more research on what vehicles exist that cover the services you are looking for. Many companies will also list all their contract vehicles on their websites so if you know a few vendors, you could start with their websites and compile a list of possible contract vehicles that way.
  22. So the plan is part of your D&F to support having a T&M order with a POP over 3 years? Totally agree with Vern - great plan that will require careful execution.
  23. Was at an acquisition forum and spoke to 2 different lawyers from GAO because I do assisted acquisitions at GSA and my clients are DoD. Both said they thought you would follow the rules based on the money. In my case I'm obligating GSA funds, using those funds to pay the contractor invoices then I turn around and bill DoD. One guy said Civilian agency rules would apply; the other said DoD rules would apply. Our legal said this week that there may be bigger issue. As read nows 41 USC Sec. 253j says ----- ( e ) Protests (1) A protest is not authorized in connection with the issuance or proposed issuance of a task or delivery order except for - (A) a protest on the ground that the order increases the scope, period, or maximum value of the contract under which the order is issued; or ( B ) a protest of an order valued in excess of $10,000,000. (2) Notwithstanding section 3556 of title 31, the Comptroller General of the United States shall have exclusive jurisdiction of a protest authorized under paragraph (1)( B ). (3) This subsection shall be in effect for three years, beginning on the date that is 120 days after January 28, 2008. ------ Seems there is also debate if ANY protest would be allowed because ( e)(3) says subsection shall be in effect, which could be read to mean the entire para (e) and not just ( e )(1)( B ). Next couple of weeks could be really, really interesting
  24. Good Morning - If you are not aware as of this morning, S.498, which extends the sunset date on the protestability of task orders (placed by civilian agencies) over $10M placed under an IDIQ contract is currently held up in the Senate. Although the sunset date was changed in the DFARS with the 2011 NDAA, civilian agencies were not addressed. The disparity was addressed by both H.R.899 and S.498 but because these were introduced separately, they had to go to CBO for a cost estimate. CBO estimates that such costs would total a few million dollars over the 2011-2016 period so the bill is being "held at desk" per the THOMAS web site this morning. So as of 8am, the ability to protest task orders simply because they are over $10M will expire at midnight tonight for civilian agencies. Guess we get to wait and see what happens next.
  25. Hard to tell from your question if this already happened or is being considered as a course of action. If already done - Any sign of a technical evaluation or source selection plan? Basis of award should be documented in the award decision document. Don't think the technical eval team should switch from the originally planned evaluation scheme to an Acceptable/Not Acceptable basis just because only one proposal was received.
  • Create New...