Search the Community
Showing results for tags 'development'.
Good day to everyone, I am hoping you all could help correct me and point me to additional material to read/review. First, I have MCI, so my memory and my ability to recall information is lacking compared to most. But I try my best, and it surely takes me many more hours than the average bear. Mostly on the weekends and evenings. Anyway, I’ve been in the 1102 career field for almost 20 years (I wasn't always this bad, but over time my recall ability has decreased significantly), and I have never been on this side of the fence. I directly support a 3-Star and he has not been pleased with the results they’re receiving from some of their contracts. I’ve been tasked to basically lead/develop and create the entire contracting requirements package. I have no other support…such as a technical requirement owner I could bounce ideas off of. What I’ve been struggling with is the idea of what type of effort this should be. What I mean by that is, the old effort has a lot of fixed price LOE on it. The boss thinks he wants a performance-based services acquisition. I have no earthly idea how in the world I will develop this requirement, focusing on “outcomes” for auditing services. Because we’re basically paying companies to conduct audits. FFP, LOE; paying for hours. How can I successfully and clearly measure a service to audit something? How does the USG verify the work? Based on the number of issues they discover? The number of issues they don’t discover? The old effort FFP LOE, paying for hours, is flawed in the sense that there really aren’t any measurable deliverables. If the contractor shows up for 40 hours a week, they’re getting paid. That is the root cause, we have nothing to hold the contractor too. I suggested some kind of report that the COR could review to verify the audit progress has occurred. The "COR" is an 0-6 and has no desire to do any of that, so he said, no. I know I am missing the ball here. I’ve read a few things on this website, and one example for PBSA was cleaning the floor. Even then, isn’t the end result somewhat debatable? Couldn’t a person debate what a “clean floor” looks like? I know that is silly, and I am not being a wise butt here, but normally everything has to be so clearly defined when you issue a solicitation. For many reasons, contractors propose based on the solicitation, and they don't want to lose money in an FFP environment. I am really struggling with this tasker. I’ve never had to write the PWS before, I was never a requirement owner. I've always had an IPT where different sections were drafted by SMEs related to each specific section. How can I successfully measure a “performance objective” for an auditing service? If there were incentives tied to this, I could relate it to perhaps time, so the quicker the audit is completed the higher the incentive. The problem with that is speed could increase the chance or mistakes, which we don’t want. Because of the power this individual has, the contracting shop will basically award anything, and I mean anything that comes their way. It’s not really their fault, it’s just a matter of the 1-Star SCO (Term changed now but Senior Contracting Officer) “losing” to the 3-Star every time. It’s a very uphill and very political battle, that the SCO will lose every time. This has created an environment where the contract requirements package has basically been a bag of crap that Contracts then has to award. Which then causes the 3 Star to be upset when the contractor isn't performing to his liking. And the circle continues. I hope I can help change this evil circle. The dollar amounts aren’t significantly high, so these normally go under the radar of other type of contractual oversight. I just want to do the best job I can within my abilities. I am just really struggling with the idea of PBSA for my type of service, auditing. I’ve read the DOD PBSA December 2000 countless times, and I still can’t get it to click. I don’t know what a measurable “outcome” could even possibly be… the contractor completes the audit? Okay, but how can we even truly verify they completed the audit? Can anyone suggest a decent contract as an example? Perhaps I can pull it from EDA? I appreciate your time, knowledge, and support.
The following scenario pertains to a major system that is in the final stages of a "smart" shutdown and its related primary development contract. The original large sole source contract was awarded 3 years ago. A critical system component is a piece of software that the contractor asserted as exclusively developed with IR&D funding and having Restricted Rights. At the time, the Government made the business decision to accept the software with these rights. Since then, the program has been placed under Smart Shutdown and the contractor and PM have had some conversations on purchasing the sofware with Unlimited Rights (for future spin-off systems use). The cost to the Government for these improved rights is about 10% of what had been roughly quoted back at the time of original contract award. The projected "purchase" price of these increased rights is about 2/10th's of a percent of the overall contract amount. Bottom Line Question: Can these rights be increased through the use of an in-scope contract modification? Would this supplemental agreement be within the scope of the original contract? Additional Key Factor: We are running out of time on this shutdown system (we are in fact on borrowed time). I am being told that I will "probably" need to do this as an out-of-scope mod, thus will require a J&A, etc... all time killers. Are they correct? What is the point??? This change will not change the function of the system (in it's remaining days), the dollar magnitude is negligible, this is the only time anything like this was done under this contract (so no cumulative impact), and it does nothing to increase the complexity of the contract. Lastly, whatever the rights were at original contract award- there would have been no impact on competition as this was sole sourced.