Jump to content

IDIQ awards & POP


Recommended Posts

I have a question where I thought there was a simple answer, and there still may be. I was talking through what I wanted to do with a peer and now I’m not sure on the answer. I know what I can get away with, but looking at the right answer.

I want to award 8-10 IDIQ’s. A solicitation was advertised LPTA and we received 7 proposals, 4 of which were acceptable; however the capacity of 4 contractors most likely would not fulfil our 5 year planned requirements, so I want to negotiate with 3 of the unacceptable offerors and try to give the offerors a chance to cure the deficiencies.  I want to award at least one IDIQ now so work can start on a TO and then negotiate with the contractors that had deficiencies in their IDIQ proposals, award those IDIQ’s later, and have different POP among the IDIQ awardees.  

So Question, can you have a MATOC with multiple IDIQ contract awardees with different POP’s?

How, if anything, would that affect the fair opportunity requirement?

is that still considered a MATOC? 

Do you have different POP for an agency MATOC’s or do you modify the IDIQ’s to have the same POP after negotiations?

What am I not thinking about? Am I making this too hard?

I have an idea what I’m gonna do, but thought I’d ask hoping for non-hostile input.

* I’m not spelling out acronyms. Interpret acronyms as used in common practice.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Question: Why five years? 

Just now, dsmith101abn said:

I want to award 8-10 IDIQ’s. A solicitation was advertised LPTA and we received 7 proposals, 4 of which were acceptable; however the capacity of 4 contractors most likely would not fulfil our 5 year planned requirements...

What so magic about five years? Why not four and a half years, four years, or three years? Is there anything inherent in the requirement that makes five-year POPs necessary, or is it just lack of imagination? Just don't want to do a new procurement any time soon?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

from a project manager standpoint, over a certain $ threshold you have to go to a board, which is one day a month, usually towards the end of the month, and the approval comes a few weeks later, so it's schedule. PM's tend to think their projects are the most important thing in the world. 

Our office gets a periodical about contracting stuff, and i disagree with it.  what prompted my question was the below, and i don't agree with it. 

Nothing Magic about 5 Years, other then prices have changed dramatically over 5 years, and in this particular area, we dont want to limit the experience of other contractors. 

image.png.de0736be2434b2b72bd68c2acff5a6e2.pngimage.png.de0736be2434b2b72bd68c2acff5a6e2.png

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Correct. 

2 hours ago, Vern Edwards said:

So you want to make the PM happy by awarding four contracts now, with three more to follow after discussions and final proposal revisions. Right?

How long do you think discussions and final proposal revisions will take?

I guess a piece of information that would have helped, we're using seed projects to evaluate price, which were solicited with the IDIQs. so not necessarily for just the PM but for the project schedules. 

The evaluation criteria, i think, wasn't that complex or hard to understand. I think with discussions, revisions, reviews, 8-12 weeks, majority of which is internal Leadtime (a different discussion).

 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Four of seven proposers are already technically acceptable; three more could be made technically acceptable, which is the only requirement for award of a base contract. 

LPTA for award of seed task(s).

2-3 months for discussions , revisions, reviews??

Edit: Hard for me to comprehend taking that long.  

Edit: Since you are conducting price competition for “seed tasks”, would the revisions include revised pricing for any unawarded seed tasks?

Edit: Would all seven entities, including the one to four initial awardee(s) be included in the final revised competition?

EDIT: it would appear that, as a minimum,  a solicitation amendment would be necessary to make a partial award now and continue the competition for additional awards, and awards of any remaining seed tasks. 

Edit: Which brings up the question of whether this revised approach would be a cardinal change to the original competition, requiring re-opening the competition to allow other firms to compete?  

—————————————————-
You say you want to award 8-10 ID/IQ’s. But the current universe is seven proposals…

Edited by joel hoffman
Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, dsmith101abn said:

I have a question

You might be too late or there might be a possibility to amend your current solicitation to include wording that GSA uses to keep the Multiple Award Schedules solicitations open (standing) to add new contractors.  In your case you would limit the length of your standing solicitation until say you award 8-10 contractors.  I did limited research and found this quote in their Multiple Award Desk Reference Guide.   Not sure what they put in their solicitations to make this general statement a fact of their solicitations. 

"Awarding a GSA Schedule Contract Standing Solicitations and Offers Standing solicitations are posted on FBO (www.FBO.gov) and offers are accepted from prospective businesses at any time. Solicitations are continuously refreshed (amended) and updated as contract terms and conditions evolve. After the solicitations are updated, existing Schedule contracts are modified to ensure they contain the latest terms and conditions. All GSA Schedule solicitations may be accessed through www.gsaelibrary.gsa.gov."

The other thought I had, and again it may be too late, is to seek an individual deviation from FAR 16.505(b)(2) that is stopping your idea.

Overall GSA does it so it seems to me that it can be done even at the point your are now at.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

16 hours ago, dsmith101abn said:

So Question, can you have a MATOC with multiple IDIQ contract awardees with different POP’s?

I do not know of any law or regulation requiring that you award all MATOCs resulting from a single solicitation on the same date with the same period of performance. And see FAR 52.215-1(f)(5).

But, what you do must be consistent with the terms of the solicitation itself.

Off hand, I do not see why you cannot award four contracts now, without discussions, and three more later, after discussions and final proposal revisions. While negotiating with the three, I don't see why you cannot provide fair opportunities to the four.

But check what your solicitation says and the terms of the proposals.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thanks everyone. I'm not going to respond to all the what if's and questions, but I'll leave some final words just to close up the thread. 

17 hours ago, joel hoffman said:

2-3 months for discussions , revisions, reviews??

Edit: Hard for me to comprehend taking that long.  

18 hours ago, dsmith101abn said:

8-12 weeks, majority of which is internal Leadtime (a different discussion).

 

17 hours ago, joel hoffman said:

You say you want to award 8-10 ID/IQ’s. But the current universe is seven proposals…

yup, we didn't get enough proposals to make the number of awards we planned on. 

I appreciate you trying to flush out the thoughts and details, but in the end with leaving all the gaps in what i haven't explained, i don't think we're at a cardinal change.

14 hours ago, C Culham said:

The other thought I had, and again it may be too late, is to seek an individual deviation from FAR 16.505(b)(2) that is stopping your idea.

Overall GSA does it so it seems to me that it can be done even at the point your are now at.

I don't know how long deviations take in most of the Government, but for the few agencies I've worked for, it's not quick. the quicker option had we not planned on a deviation at the beginning would be to resolicited. 

GSA is the Tom Brady of federal agencies, GSA gets away with a lot of stuff. 

6 hours ago, Vern Edwards said:

I do not know of any law or regulation requiring that you award all MATOCs resulting from a single solicitation on the same date with the same period of performance. And see FAR 52.215-1(f)(5).

But, what you do must be consistent with the terms of the solicitation itself.

Off hand, I do not see why you cannot award four contracts now, without discussions, and three more later, after discussions and final proposal revisions. While negotiating with the three, I don't see why you cannot provide fair opportunities to the four.

But check what your solicitation says and the terms of the proposals.

This is the conclusion i gathered and i believe the solicitation allows for some awards now and more after discussions. 

I appreciate everyone's time and input. I have nothing further. Dsmith out. 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 2/28/2023 at 4:46 PM, Vern Edwards said:

Question: Why five years? 

What so magic about five years? Why not four and a half years, four years, or three years? Is there anything inherent in the requirement that makes five-year POPs necessary, or is it just lack of imagination? Just don't want to do a new procurement any time soon?

A source selection is a substantial investment of personnel resources of multiple disciplines over an extended period of time, depending on the dollar amount and type of acquisition. Some agencies require multi-level review or involvement of sub-divisions such as "Acquisition Centers of Excellence." Some source selections can take a better part of a year - or longer. In the event of a two-year IDIQ, you will essentially begin planning the next shortly after the first.

The lack of imagination is inevitably correlated to the lack of resources, namely personnel and time.

Besides, say you award a five year IDIQ. It's not a requirements contract. Nothing precludes you afaik from finding creative reasoning to establish another IDIQ prior to expiration for any number of reasons, provided a minimum guarantee has already been provided for.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 2/28/2023 at 9:43 PM, joel hoffman said:

Four of seven proposers are already technically acceptable; three more could be made technically acceptable, which is the only requirement for award of a base contract. 

LPTA for award of seed task(s).

2-3 months for discussions , revisions, reviews??

Edit: Hard for me to comprehend taking that long.  

Edit: Since you are conducting price competition for “seed tasks”, would the revisions include revised pricing for any unawarded seed tasks?

Edit: Would all seven entities, including the one to four initial awardee(s) be included in the final revised competition?

EDIT: it would appear that, as a minimum,  a solicitation amendment would be necessary to make a partial award now and continue the competition for additional awards, and awards of any remaining seed tasks. 

Edit: Which brings up the question of whether this revised approach would be a cardinal change to the original competition, requiring re-opening the competition to allow other firms to compete?  

—————————————————-
You say you want to award 8-10 ID/IQ’s. But the current universe is seven proposals…

I'm assuming the original solicitation included no mention of on-ramp procedures as well -- which could be/ could have been utilized to alleviate some of the concerns. Ideally these concerns would be handled during the source selection.

Probably multiple options. Could even consider going nuclear, amending the solicitation with the intent to award all qualifying offerors / drop eval of cost/price if you want to really wind up your JA depending on your agency and business size, but then you are additional lead time to the TO you're using for the seed/sample. Also doesn't change that you have unsat proposals, so discussions seem the best route.

https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2020/07/02/2020-12764/federal-acquisition-regulation-evaluation-factors-for-multiple-award-contracts

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, Self Employed said:

Some agencies require multi-level review or involvement of sub-divisions such as "Acquisition Centers of Excellence." Some source selections can take a better part of a year - or longer. In the event of a two-year IDIQ, you will essentially begin planning the next shortly after the first.

Is that the way it is where you work?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 3/3/2023 at 9:01 PM, Self Employed said:

A source selection is a substantial investment of personnel resources of multiple disciplines over an extended period of time, depending on the dollar amount and type of acquisition. Some agencies require multi-level review or involvement of sub-divisions such as "Acquisition Centers of Excellence." Some source selections can take a better part of a year - or longer. In the event of a two-year IDIQ, you will essentially begin planning the next shortly after the first.

@Self EmployedIn 1963 the Senate Committee on Government Operations heald hearings over the course of several months to investigate a very large military aircraft source selection decision. The aircraft was designated TFX, which stood for Tactical Fighter Experimental. It was the aircraft that would become the FB-111, the first operational variable wing aircraft, a fighter-bomber. The source selection decision was very controversial, because the Secretary of Defense (McNamara) rejected the recommendation of a board of four-star generals and admirals, who were not happy about it. So the Senate decided to investigate.

The source selection procedures were not as formal as they are now. The SOW was issued to prospective offerors in September 1961. The contract was awarded in November 1962, after four rounds of proposal revisions. Pretty fast by today's standards for a big procurement.

The very first witness at the hearings was John Stack, a very distinguished government aeronautical engineer who had helped develop the requirement. At one point a senator asked him when the aircraft would be ready for use. Here is what he said:

Quote

Senator CURTIS. What is the time element? When would these planes be in use ?

Mr. STACK . I think the first flight date is scheduled about 2 years from now. Is that correct? From my own view, we have lost so much time, sir, it should be flying today. I am speaking as an individual now .

Senator JACKSON. Why did they lose so much time?

Mr. STACK . I would say the interminable processes by which we make decisions in this country.

Senator MUNDT. Likes rules of the Senate, you mean ?

Mr. STACK. No, sir. We seem to have to get everybody into the act, and everybody has to be sure that it is not going to be a "gold brick” before anything is ventured.

He was speaking about the overall acquisition process, not just the source selection process.

Anyway, I thought you might get a kick out of that.

Sixty years ago. The more things change, the worse things get. We have had source selections within the last decade that have taken longer than World War II. The first operational FB-111 flew on December 21, 1964, less than two years after the source selection decision. Now think of the F-35.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Vern Edwards said:

@Self EmployedIn 1963 the Senate Committee on Government Operations heald hearings over the course of several months to investigate a very large military aircraft source selection decision. The aircraft was designated TFX, which stood for Tactical Fighter Experimental. It was the aircraft that would become the FB-111, the first operational variable wing aircraft, a fighter-bomber. The source selection decision was very controversial, because the Secretary of Defense (McNamara) rejected the recommendation of a board of four-star generals and admirals, who were not happy about it. So the Senate decided to investigate.

The source selection procedures were not as formal as they are now. The SOW was issued to prospective offerors in September 1961. The contract was awarded in November 1962, after four rounds of proposal revisions. Pretty fast by today's standards for a big procurement.

The very first witness at the hearings was John Stack, a very distinguished government aeronautical engineer who had helped develop the requirement. At one point a senator asked him when the aircraft would be ready for use. Here is what he said:

He was speaking about the overall acquisition process, not just the source selection process.

Anyway, I thought you might get a kick out of that.

Sixty years ago. The more things change, the worse things get. We have had source selections within the last decade that have taken longer than World War II. The first operational FB-111 flew on December 21, 1964, less than two years after the source selection decision. Now think of the F-35.

 

It is absolutely true. While I am hesitant to agree with Mr. Stack's particular statement in total without understanding his direct qualms (I have seen a fair share of technical evaluations and requirements from engineers,) acquisition processes are nuts. HHQ leadership only sees THEIR processes. They don't see the center level processes. They don't see the PEO processes (I have a policy letter that mandates an ESIS for ALL acquisitions - regardless of dollar value, services or supply (we are mostly supply, with no services greater than $7.5M). I have brought this up to policy representatives who have shrugged. I had to drag my program managers kicking and screaming that not all acquisitions require a written acquisition plan, and therefore do not necessarily require an ASP.) They sure as hell don't see divisional processes (for example, remnants of configuration control boards now being utilized to monitor configuration of commercial aircraft for countries who don't maintain a given configuration anyway,) that are non-value added but "have always been done this way." Let's process another RAD for an AFI exempt requirement.

I have caught offices writing a memo about which mod authority to use and spending THOUSANDS of self-inspection hours discussing how best to document the memo when the requirement stemmed from old AFMCFARS language that was moved from AFMCFARS MP to AFMCFARS PGI, to AFFARS PGI -- half a decade after it was moved to PGI -- and eventually to the dustbin of history. STILL BEING WRITTEN. It's INSANE.

They wave the flag and say they've innovated by reducing some peer review threshold or another -- but miss the forest of where the time sink occurs.

I was more optimistic under previous leadership, but current regime seems to be more recalcitrant. So much about acquisition culture has changed within the past ten years, and I blame a lot of the lag in shift towards streamlining on the rigid, inflexible practices of yore (that those in charge know/thrived in.)

So they'll say the processes are being diminished, while indirectly gumming it up in alternative ways or not noticing that the real meat is further down the line.

Yay we cut a peer review requirement threshold. Mission accomplished.

Never mind the 100+ non-required processes being dutifully performed every day for no reason at all.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

52 minutes ago, Self Employed said:

While I am hesitant to agree with Mr. Stack's particular statement in total without understanding his direct qualms...

His chief complaint seems to have been that the government spent too much time reviewing everything seeking to eliminate any chance of failure. He said that process delayed development. 

What is most interesting is that the system development process takes much, much longer today. But, of course, modern systems are much more complex. Software is often the big problem and source of delay.                                                                           

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 3/5/2023 at 9:20 AM, Vern Edwards said:

@Self EmployedIn 1963 the Senate Committee on Government Operations heald hearings over the course of several months to investigate a very large military aircraft source selection decision. The aircraft was designated TFX, which stood for Tactical Fighter Experimental. It was the aircraft that would become the FB-111, the first operational variable wing aircraft, a fighter-bomber. The source selection decision was very controversial, because the Secretary of Defense (McNamara) rejected the recommendation of a board of four-star generals and admirals, who were not happy about it. So the Senate decided to investigate.

The source selection procedures were not as formal as they are now. The SOW was issued to prospective offerors in September 1961. The contract was awarded in November 1962, after four rounds of proposal revisions. Pretty fast by today's standards for a big procurement.

The very first witness at the hearings was John Stack, a very distinguished government aeronautical engineer who had helped develop the requirement. At one point a senator asked him when the aircraft would be ready for use. Here is what he said:

He was speaking about the overall acquisition process, not just the source selection process.

Anyway, I thought you might get a kick out of that.

Sixty years ago. The more things change, the worse things get. We have had source selections within the last decade that have taken longer than World War II. The first operational FB-111 flew on December 21, 1964, less than two years after the source selection decision. Now think of the F-35.

The F-111 program was not a great success. I wouldn’t use it as an example of quick acquisition to operational readiness period.

Defense Secretary Robert MacNamara selected the General Dynamics F-111 on the basis of a “paper competition” with wind tunnel model tests and paper design studies where none of the competing contractors had built any substantive hardware. The top Air Force and Navy officials unanimously opposed the award and also prefered the Boeing Company.

McNamara and his Wiz Kids (from RAND Corporation) rammed through the concept of a multi-use and multi-service aircraft, with bomber and fighter bomber versions, including a Navy (F-111F) version. Oh, gee - like the F-35?  The result was a plane with many design compromises, resulting in many lowest common denominator systems with less than optimum or originally contemplated performance.

The Navy abandoned the F-111 F version as  unusable for Carrier Operations as the weight increased,  the design developed, the cost increased, required performance suffered, etc.  The F-14 Tomcat was later developed.

The F-111 was not a good Fighter and eventually was primarily relegated to bombing missions. 

I was an Air Force Academy Cadet during the development period and during the deployment of the F-111 to Viet Nam where soon several crashes occurred due to failures of the Terrain Following System for low level bombing missions and the swing wing boxes, resulting in grounding them all. I think that 10 crashes occurred due to technical failures or pilot errors during the F-111 deployment to Viet Nam. One plane was downed by enemy fire. The other ten were primarily aircraft failure cases due to design issues.

On a summer Class Trip stop at Wright-Patterson AFB in 1969, AF Systems Command showed us several F-111 systems under development.

Here are some good summaries of some aspects of the F-111 acquisition program at the time.

https://www.gao.gov/assets/094456.pdf
 

https://www.nytimes.com/1970/12/19/archives/senate-unit-calls-f111-a-fiscal-blunder-and-criticizes-mcnamara-and.htm

https://www.baltimoresun.com/news/bs-xpm-1993-09-29-1993272038-story.html

 

Edited by joel hoffman
Revised first paragraph to stress that it is a poor example of quick to first flight.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The F-111 design and development and initial production contracts were fixed price inventive, which wasn’t very successful either, as outlined in the above referenced GAO report.

It wasn’t suitable for a plane that was expected to do too much for too many types of missions with so little design development at the time of contract award. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

At the time of the Viet Nam War, including during the development of the F-111,  the top Air Force Leadership was still primarily from the Strategic Air Command - Bombers, Missiles and the Nuclear deterrent missions.

The USAF had to heavily rely upon Navy developed aircraft for the air to air combat fighter (McDonnell Douglas F-4) and close air support (the WWII Douglas A-1) missions during most of the Viet Nam Era.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Here is a more positive report describing eventual mission effectiveness of the F-111 by 1972, four years after the first,  premature deployment of pre-production F111-A models to SEA in 1968.

Note that the report mentions that “Strategic Air Command B-52s could have precisely hit targets in these conditions at the start of ROLLING THUNDER [in 1965] , but for political and military reasons, they could not be used over North Vietnam.”

https://www.globalsecurity.org/military/systems/aircraft/f-111-sea.htm

Edited by joel hoffman
Mentioned that the B-52 could have performed the mission, at the beginning of bombing operations in 1965.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

59 minutes ago, Vern Edwards said:

@joel hoffman Gosh, Self-employed and I were talking about cumbersome processes and I used a quote to show that the problem is not new. You give us four posts about the history of a military aircraft that was retired in 1996.

What's up with that?

You don't like the subject?

ADHD

 

On 3/5/2023 at 9:20 AM, Vern Edwards said:

The source selection procedures were not as formal as they are now. The SOW was issued to prospective offerors in September 1961. The contract was awarded in November 1962, after four rounds of proposal revisions. Pretty fast by today's standards for a big procurement.

 You appeared to commend or laud the speed and relative simplicity of the  F-111 source selection and early development process.

It wasn’t a great success. Both the Navy and the Air Force Military leadership objected to the award and award method that McNamara rammed through.

The plane wasn't suitable for the Navy and that part of the program was cancelled.

And six pre-production F111A aircraft were prematurely deployed to SEA in 1968, almost six years after the initial contract award. Three of the six crashed and four crewmen were killed. It wasn’t until 1972 that the F-11’1 returned to SEA to fulfill its assigned mission. I believe that eight more crashed then.

The F-111’s were used in the Libya raid in 1986. Their systems were still having problems and one crashed on the way to Libya.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

56 minutes ago, joel hoffman said:

 You appeared to commend or laud the speed and relative simplicity of the  F-111 source selection and early development process.

It wasn’t a great success. Both the Navy and the Air Force Military leadership objected to the award and award method that McNamara rammed through.

@joel hoffmanIs that what you are trying to prove with all your posts? That the TFX program was not successful?

Here is what I said:

On 3/5/2023 at 7:20 AM, Vern Edwards said:

The source selection procedures were not as formal as they are now. The SOW was issued to prospective offerors in September 1961. The contract was awarded in November 1962, after four rounds of proposal revisions. Pretty fast by today's standards for a big procurement.

That was all I said. The point of my post is that they complained about cumbersome processes even in the good old days. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 3/5/2023 at 9:20 AM, Vern Edwards said:

Sixty years ago. The more things change, the worse things get. We have had source selections within the last decade that have taken longer than World War II. The first operational FB-111 flew on December 21, 1964, less than two years after the source selection decision. Now think of the F-35.

I do agree about the 22 year old F-35 program. And it’s another example of a multi-service plane that fails to deliver required performance. With delays. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
×
  • Create New...