Federal Contracting Myths

Don -

What is a PWAC?

Thanks!

Don -

What is a PWAC?

Thanks!

Person without a clue (acronym coined by Vern).

Wifconners,

I'm looking for examples of common myths/misunderstandings in Federal contracting. I'm particularly interested in beliefs that Federal contracting folks seem to cling to, even though they have no basis in law or regulation. Or, the rules have long changed, but some folks seem to have not received the message. For example, here are some I've observed:

1. Changes within 10-15% of the contract price are within scope.

2. In an IDIQ contract with options, each option year must have its own minimum.

3. Offerors with no record of past performance must be rated neutral.

4. Price analysis is always required.

5. You can't tell an offeror that his price is too high or too low during discussions.

6. An unsuccessful offeror's name cannot be disclosed during a debriefing.

7. Contingencies are unallowable costs.

I get most of these from my students, who pick them up at their offices. Some myths/misunderstandings transcend agency lines.

Think of things that are said by PWACs who think they know something about contracting.

Thank you and have fun.

During a source selection, anything that you say to one offeror you must say to all other offerors.

You can tell an offeror what's wrong with its proposal, but you can't tell the offeror how to fix it.

You can tell an offeror that its price is too high, but you can't tell the offeror by how much.

Only a contracting officer can obligate the government.

When these are all compiled would someone please do a "myth busting" post debunking these beliefs? I am going to work on the ones that I thought were true.

I have seen many 1102s who believe that past performance and experience are the same thing

Just a comment . . .

Your proposition implies an all-or-nothing viewpoint for the statements in question. IMHO, there can be different shades of gray in situations where these guidelines are being applied in real world situations.

"Klaatu, put your helmet on; you're not the one who's indestructible! "

Just a comment . . .

Your proposition implies an all-or-nothing viewpoint for the statements in question. IMHO, there can be different shades of gray in situations where these guidelines are being applied in real world situations.

"Klaatu, you're not the one who's indestructible! "

Gort,

For example?

Barada Nikto.

When these are all compiled would someone please do a "myth busting" post debunking these beliefs? I am going to work on the ones that I thought were true.

Yes, I plan to.

Yes, I plan to.

Technical people can't see price proposals

"PWAC"'s made my day!

Vern,

I've heard you talk about the myth you mentioned before in person. Instead of having to wait for Don's report of myths and facts, it would be very helpful to understand what you mean exactly. Would you please explain why this is a myth please?

To go further, since you are imparting your wisdom by providing this myth, are you pointing this out so current federal contracting officers will stop perpetuating this myth? If so, what are your recommendations for accomplishing this? Each time someone says this, are we to correct them politely and explain all the others who can actually obligate the Government?

BTW - your blogs are great. Has anyone from the president-elect's camp contacted you yet for OMB acq czar post yet? How about one of the other key agency CAO positions? Probably does not pay enough for you though, right? I am sure most of us on the wifcon forum would support your nomination to a key position of influence. At least then it would not just be website recommendations.

Cheers,

Matt

Gort,

For example?

Barada Nikto.

* Whether changes are within scope within those percentage parameters may turn out to be true in some cases, so I submit that phrasing of the conditional makes it a go-no go proposition based strictly on the percentages quoted.

* When is price analysis not required? Are we talking of broad agency announcements for basic research or other cases when only costs and fees are involved rather than price, such as A-E services?

In these instances, I would say there are gray areas.

"I wonder if I can find someone on craigslist to give me a cool tat so I can blend?"

-That, when conducting discussions, you must have the same number of rounds of questions for each offeror

-That you must/should incorporate an offeror's technical proposal into the contract

-That the CON/DAWIA sequence prepares you to be a Contracting Officer (sorry-had to put a little snark in there)

* Whether changes are within scope within those percentage parameters may turn out to be true in some cases, so I submit that phrasing of the conditional makes it a go-no go proposition based strictly on the percentages quoted.

* When is price analysis not required? Are we talking of broad agency announcements for basic research or other cases when only costs and fees are involved rather than price, such as A-E services?

In these instances, I would say there are gray areas.

"I wonder if I can find someone on craigslist to give me a cool tat so I can blend?"

Gort,

Of course, you could create fact-specific scenarios to make those statements true. However, many people believe some or most of these statements to be true as general propositions. They don't see the "shades of gray."

As you learn more about earthlings, you will understand.

Vern,

I've heard you talk about the myth you mentioned before in person. Instead of having to wait for Don's report of myths and facts, it would be very helpful to understand what you mean exactly. Would you please explain why this is a myth please?

To go further, since you are imparting your wisdom by providing this myth, are you pointing this out so current federal contracting officers will stop perpetuating this myth? If so, what are your recommendations for accomplishing this? Each time someone says this, are we to correct them politely and explain all the others who can actually obligate the Government?

BTW - your blogs are great. Has anyone from the president-elect's camp contacted you yet for OMB acq czar post yet? How about one of the other key agency CAO positions? Probably does not pay enough for you though, right? I am sure most of us on the wifcon forum would support your nomination to a key position of influence. At least then it would not just be website recommendations.

Cheers,

Matt

Matt:

Many officials can obligate the government besides contracting officers. When a personnel officer signs a form making a person an employee, he or she is obligating the government. FAR does not say that only contracting officers can obligate the government. It says that only contracting officers can sign contracts. See FAR 1.601. In saying that, it is referring to the procurement contracts described in 31 U.S.C. ? 6303. The government enters into other types of contracts, as well, for which contracting officers have no authority.

The Government is willing to pay 5% more to award to a business with a socio-economic category than it is a large business. Anything greater than 5% is not considered "fair and reasonable".

You have to have a "warrant" in order to be a contracting officer.

That PD2 or whatever automated system you are using will actually insert the correct clauses/provisions for your particular acquisition, and that there is no need to refer to the FAR matrix.

Expired contracts cannot be extended.

That PD2 or whatever automated system you are using will actually insert the correct clauses/provisions for your particular acquisition, and that there is no need to refer to the FAR matrix.

I always got annoyed when I asked why a clause was in a document and the reply was "I don't know. The system put it in"

Matt:

Many officials can obligate the government besides contracting officers. When a personnel officer signs a form making a person an employee, he or she is obligating the government. FAR does not say that only contracting officers can obligate the government. It says that only contracting officers can sign contracts. See FAR 1.601. In saying that, it is referring to the procurement contracts described in 31 U.S.C. ? 6303. The government enters into other types of contracts, as well, for which contracting officers have no authority.

Vern:

Got it - I guess I did misunderstand when I heard you say that during one of your talks. I read 1.601 and 1.602 again. Thank you.

Perhaps I should start a new thread concerning the second question I asked you. Or, if you want to email WE are interested to know. I think the only way to change the federal acquisition system is to get competent, passionate leaders who care about the subject, into the key positions, rather than political cronies. Yes We Can.

That 10% profit is fair and reasonable.

If a contractor doesn't ask for money when a change is made, it is not a change.

That contracting must always prepare the acquisition plan.

The way we have always done it is the right way to do it. Substitute just about anything for "it", including solicitations, contracts, DO's, etc.

I often have said that anyone who uses that logic is guilty of felony stupid, but perhaps that is a bit harsh.

Vern:

Got it - I guess I did misunderstand when I heard you say that during one of your talks. I read 1.601 and 1.602 again. Thank you.

Perhaps I should start a new thread concerning the second question I asked you. Or, if you want to email WE are interested to know. I think the only way to change the federal acquisition system is to get competent, passionate leaders who care about the subject, into the key positions, rather than political cronies. Yes We Can.

Matt,

What was the second question?

That 10% profit is fair and reasonable.

If a contractor doesn't ask for money when a change is made, it is not a change.

That contracting must always prepare the acquisition plan.

As the chief of a contracting office, I would insist that contracting always write the acquisition plan. He or she who writes the acquisition plan gets the first shot at steering the destiny of the acquisition. As a leader, I would want that power and influence. I wouldn't want to be just an implementer. Anybody can do that. I would want to be at the helm. I would want the power to say: This is that way that it ought to go. I'd be damned if I would cede that power and influence to anyone else.

When I was an intern, the interns in my program jumped at the chance to write the acquisition plan. It was considered to be a singular opportunity, especially on big procurements. You got to go to the meetings, to meet the bigwigs, to give presentations and be seen, to impress, and to lay the foundation for your professional future. Hell, I knew interns who wanted to write everything: the statement of work, the acquisition plan, the source selection plan, and the source selection decision document. I was one of them. We would put a block on the signature page: Prepared by: __________________________.

But don't listen to me. I only went from GS-05 to GM-15 in the minimum time allowed by law. Writing acquisition plans was one of the ways I did it.

To all you interns: Seize every opportunity to excel. That's how you get ahead. Turn that grungy acquisition plan into a masterpiece of acquisition planning. Show the bosses what you can do. BE the plan! Let everybody else cut and paste your work.

As the chief of a contracting office, I would insist that contracting always write the acquisition plan. He or she who writes the acquisition plan gets the first shot at steering the destiny of the acquisition. As a leader, I would want that power and influence. I wouldn't want to be just an implementer. Anybody can do that. I would want to be at the helm. I would want the power to say: This is that way that it ought to go. I'd be damned if I would cede that power and influence to anyone else.

When I was an intern, the interns in my program jumped at the chance to write the acquisition plan. It was considered to be a singular opportunity, especially on big procurements. You got to go to the meetings, to meet the bigwigs, to give presentations and be seen, to impress, and to lay the foundation for your professional future. Hell, I knew interns who wanted to write everything: the statement of work, the acquisition plan, the source selection plan, and the source selection decision document. I was one of them. We would put a block on the signature page: Prepared by: __________________________.

But don't listen to me. I only went from GS-05 to GM-15 in the minimum time allowed by law. Writing acquisition plans was one of the ways I did it.

To all you interns: Seize every opportunity to excel. That's how you get ahead. Turn that grungy acquisition plan into a masterpiece of acquisition planning. Show the bosses what you can do. BE the plan! Let everybody else cut and paste your work.

Vern:

The question is whether or not you have been contacted or have the ambition to really change things by taking a post at OMB or as a CAO at an agency. Your comment about acquisition plans sums it up - you have walked in the shoes of GS-14 and GS-15 acquisition executives and could probably bring some much needed backbone...and to really demand a seat at the table and LEAD. Typically the debate that I've seen over acq planning comes down to the Program Manager, who is responsible for the acquisition plan, simply dumping the already decided acquisition strategy to the contracting dept. for output in MS Word format. That means it has nothing to do with shaping the destiny of the acquisition anymore, but is simply a typing assignment instead. If the Chief is not doing as you did - insisting that contracts takes a leadership role in acquisition planning, then it really doesn't matter what 1102s think about "This is the way that it ought to go."

That being said, I do think there are still some people out there who are like you and want to write everything: the statement of work, the acquisition plan, the source selection plan, and the source selection decision document. Hell, I'm one of those guys still (mostly SOWs). It makes technical specialists very upset when an 1102 seeks the helm and influences the process though.

I have yet to see someone like you, in a position of power in Government, who could affect real change in the acquisition arena and also establish a framework that allows young 1102s to lay the foundation for a professional future. You are always talking about taking pride in doing real work; something you can be proud of. I think you would be successful at really shaking up the status quo.

Vern:

The question is whether or not you have been contacted or have the ambition to really change things by taking a post at OMB or as a CAO at an agency. Your comment about acquisition plans sums it up - you have walked in the shoes of GS-14 and GS-15 acquisition executives and could probably bring some much needed backbone...and to really demand a seat at the table and LEAD. Typically the debate that I've seen over acq planning comes down to the Program Manager, who is responsible for the acquisition plan, simply dumping the already decided acquisition strategy to the contracting dept. for output in MS Word format. That means it has nothing to do with shaping the destiny of the acquisition anymore, but is simply a typing assignment instead. If the Chief is not doing as you did - insisting that contracts takes a leadership role in acquisition planning, then it really doesn't matter what 1102s think about "This is the way that it ought to go."

That being said, I do think there are still some people out there who are like you and want to write everything: the statement of work, the acquisition plan, the source selection plan, and the source selection decision document. Hell, I'm one of those guys still (mostly SOWs). It makes technical specialists very upset when an 1102 seeks the helm and influences the process though.

I have yet to see someone like you, in a position of power in Government, who could affect real change in the acquisition arena and also establish a framework that allows young 1102s to lay the foundation for a professional future. You are always talking about taking pride in doing real work; something you can be proud of. I think you would be successful at really shaking up the status quo.

Matt:

I have not been contacted and I do not wish to be contacted. I am temperamentally unsuited for a job within the bureaucracy. I am, among several other personal faults, much too impatient. In any case, there are not that many positions of real power in contracting. Administrator of OFPP ordinarily is not a powerful job unless you have the full and active backing of a reform-minded president, like Steve Kelman had with Clinton-Gore. Mr. Obama has said nothing that would lead me to believe that he understands or cares about the kinds of personnel-related changes that are needed to fix acquisition, and I could not care less about pursuing legislative procedural reforms like FASA and Clinger-Cohen.

What we need more than anything right now are changes in personnel policy. We need to hire fewer 1102s and more 1105s and 1106s. We need to raise hiring and promotion standards for 1102s. We need to develop a centrally-controlled, demanding, and stringent contracting officer appointment system. We also need to overhaul the government's training institutions--FAI and DAU. Longer term, we need to overhaul the FAR, its promulgation procedures, and its supporting bureaucracy. And we need a contracting think tank.

Thanks for the kind thoughts. But I would be a disaster in a presidential appointee job, and I have no interest in a civil service job. Teaching and writing is what I do best, and I'm going to stick to those endeavors.

Vern

As the chief of a contracting office, I would insist that contracting always write the acquisition plan. He or she who writes the acquisition plan gets the first shot at steering the destiny of the acquisition. As a leader, I would want that power and influence. I wouldn't want to be just an implementer. Anybody can do that. I would want to be at the helm. I would want the power to say: This is that way that it ought to go. I'd be damned if I would cede that power and influence to anyone else.

When I was an intern, the interns in my program jumped at the chance to write the acquisition plan. It was considered to be a singular opportunity, especially on big procurements. You got to go to the meetings, to meet the bigwigs, to give presentations and be seen, to impress, and to lay the foundation for your professional future. Hell, I knew interns who wanted to write everything: the statement of work, the acquisition plan, the source selection plan, and the source selection decision document. I was one of them. We would put a block on the signature page: Prepared by: __________________________.

But don't listen to me. I only went from GS-05 to GM-15 in the minimum time allowed by law. Writing acquisition plans was one of the ways I did it.

To all you interns: Seize every opportunity to excel. That's how you get ahead. Turn that grungy acquisition plan into a masterpiece of acquisition planning. Show the bosses what you can do. BE the plan! Let everybody else cut and paste your work.

I could not agree with your more, Vern. I currently provide acquisition support to a major civilian agency and it is common practice here, in fact it is even expected, that the program office write the majority of the acquisition plan. I think it's a very strange practice. As my first supervisor told me, the acquisition plan tells the story of the procurement. Delegating the responsibility to write the acquisition plan to the program side, to me, is a complete abdication of one of the most significant pre-award duties of the contracting officer.

In my organization, the Program Office is responsible for writing the Advanced Acquisition Plan, but the Contracting Officer approves the document. I usually re-write at least a portion of the AAP's I receive, and the same goes for the Statements of Work, and just about anything else that comes in from the Program Office.

I take responsibility for the whole process once the request is submitted, and carry that through to contract award. Post award is more difficult as we do not even see the invoices anymore when they are submitted or processed. I would like to change that, but I am not having much success in my field office, let along the organization as a whole. Right now the Program Offices have way too much control over post-award adminstration, which may be a function of our office beinging centralized and not where the actual work is occuring.

The sad thing is most agencies have the program office write the acquisition plan. In some instances, it's because most the the 1102 workers aren't capable or experienced enough to do it by themselves. In other areas, agency policy says the acq plan is the program office's responsibility.

In fact, one of the largest agency (department) that has a history of poor contracting requires the program office to preapre the acp plan, the SOW/SOO, the evlauation/SSP, and market research report before the package even gets looked at by the CO. How can they ever get better if the most responsible person (the CO) isn't actively involved in the planning?

Matt:

I have not been contacted and I do not wish to be contacted. I am temperamentally unsuited for a job within the bureaucracy. I am, among several other personal faults, much too impatient. In any case, there are not that many positions of real power in contracting. Administrator of OFPP ordinarily is not a powerful job unless you have the full and active backing of a reform-minded president, like Steve Kelman had with Clinton-Gore. Mr. Obama has said nothing that would lead me to believe that he understands or cares about the kinds of personnel-related changes that are needed to fix acquisition, and I could not care less about pursuing legislative procedural reforms like FASA and Clinger-Cohen.

What we need more than anything right now are changes in personnel policy. We need to hire fewer 1102s and more 1105s and 1106s. We need to raise hiring and promotion standards for 1102s. We need to develop a centrally-controlled, demanding, and stringent contracting officer appointment system. We also need to overhaul the government's training institutions--FAI and DAU. Longer term, we need to overhaul the FAR, its promulgation procedures, and its supporting bureaucracy. And we need a contracting think tank.

Thanks for the kind thoughts. But I would be a disaster in a presidential appointee job, and I have no interest in a civil service job. Teaching and writing is what I do best, and I'm going to stick to those endeavors.

Vern

Vern,

I appreciate your candid response...and totally understand your position. Hopefully there are some leaders like you who can work towards putting together the things you mentioned. Especially the think tank and personnel policy initiatives!! Wishing you all the best in the new year with your current endeavors.

Back to the original questions, many 1102 believe you can extend a delivery date without consideration

Stanretired,

I think that you can extend the delivery date without obtaining consideration, too. Here's something I wrote in another thread:

Lastly, a contracting officer is not necessarily required to obtain new consideration if he/she establishes a new delivery schedule. See Administration of Government Contracts, Fourth Edition, p. 965, quoting Free-Flow Packaging Corp., GSBCA 3992, 75-1 BCA P 11,332:

"It is a well-established principle in Government contract law that while the Default clause gives the Government the absolute right to terminate the contract upon failure of the contractor to make timely delivery of the procurement item, the clause permits the Contracting Officer to exercise his right to use discretion in deciding whether to immediately terminate the contract, or any part thereof, or, among other things, to allow the contractor to continue performance under a new delivery schedule. No new consideration is necessary to support what the Default clause already permits the Contracting Officer to do."

[italics added].

Don, I am happy to learn something new

Stanretired,

I think that you can extend the delivery date without obtaining consideration, too. Here's something I wrote in another thread:

Lastly, a contracting officer is not necessarily required to obtain new consideration if he/she establishes a new delivery schedule. See Administration of Government Contracts, Fourth Edition, p. 965, quoting Free-Flow Packaging Corp., GSBCA 3992, 75-1 BCA P 11,332:

"It is a well-established principle in Government contract law that while the Default clause gives the Government the absolute right to terminate the contract upon failure of the contractor to make timely delivery of the procurement item, the clause permits the Contracting Officer to exercise his right to use discretion in deciding whether to immediately terminate the contract, or any part thereof, or, among other things, to allow the contractor to continue performance under a new delivery schedule. No new consideration is necessary to support what the Default clause already permits the Contracting Officer to do."

[italics added].

We need to sort this out. Cibinic, Nash, and Nagle were simply acknowledging that if the contractor refuses to give consideration for a time extension, the CO "apparently" can unilaterally establish a new delivery schedule. But that does not mean that the CO should pay the stipulated price for the late supplies or services. The CO should refuse to pay full price if the delay in delivery or performance is significant or if the government has suffered damages, and he or she should put the contractor on notice of the intention.

Vern,

I read stanretired's post as implying that a CO could not (as in the CO does not have the authority) extend a delivery date without obtaining new consideration. I was simply pointing out that a CO does have that authority.

I agree with you as far as what a CO should do.

Expired contracts cannot be extended.

Hugh or anyone else. I do not understand how expired contracts can be extended without creating a new contract and without considering competition. Please explain.

Best,

A contractor must have a DCAA certified accounting system as a prerequisite to receiving a cost reimbursement contract.

A contractor must have a DCAA certified accounting system as a prerequisite to receiving a cost reimbursement contract.

Retreadfed, while what you typed is true, FAR 16.301-3 is crystal clear in requiring that, "The contractor?s accounting system is adequate for determining costs applicable to the contract."

I have worked at agencies (civilian) where cost contracts were awarded without any effort to ascertain whether or not an adequate accounting system exists (I would not have been surprised if those CO's did not even know that this requirement exists). In fact, every single contract type other than firm-fixed-price requires that the contracting officer consider the adequacy of a contractor's accounting system prior to awarding the contract (see FAR 16.104 (h)).

Retreadfed, while what you typed is true, FAR 16.301-3 is crystal clear in requiring that, "The contractor?s accounting system is adequate for determining costs applicable to the contract."

I have worked at agencies (civilian) where cost contracts were awarded without any effort to ascertain whether or not an adequate accounting system exists (I would not have been surprised if those CO's did not even know that this requirement exists). In fact, every single contract type other than firm-fixed-price requires that the contracting officer consider the adequacy of a contractor's accounting system prior to awarding the contract (see FAR 16.104 (h)).

Civ, I presume Don's point in starting this discussion was to demonstrate the many points of ignorance (not stupidity) that exist in the procurement world. While not a "myth," you have identified another. I might add that what is an adequate accounting system can vary with the contract type involved and that one size does not fit all in this regard. For example, what is adequate for a T&M contract for commercial items would be quite different from an accounting system for a contractor performing a cost reimbursement contract subject to the CAS.

10% profit and 15% overhead for negotiated construction contracts is standard

3. Offerors with no record of past performance must be rated neutral.

Is the myth buster for this that you can simply not rate them at all on past performance i.e. past performance is a non-factor for them? This one confused me a bit.

I note that the OFFP site states (http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/procurement/contract_perf/best_practice_re_past_perf.html):

"FASA also states that an offeror for which there is no information on past contract performance or with respect to which information on past contract performance is not available, may not be evaluated favorably or unfavorably on the factor of past contract performance."

For example, if you were point scoring and past performance was worth 10 points out of a total 110. Offeror A may get 89 out of 110 and Offeror B, who has no past performance information available, may get 89 out of a total of 100. Assuming price is equal, award would then go to offeror B?

dgm,

Prior to the FAR Rewrite in 1997, FAR 15.608(a)(2)(iii) contained the following statement:

"Firms lacking relevant past performance history shall receive a neutral evaluation for past performance."

The FAR Council decided to change this wording in the FAR Rewrite based on some confusion as to what a neutral evaluation actually meant. Here's an excerpt from the Federal Register (62 FR 51224-01):

"(f) Neutral past performance evaluations. We considered alternatives relating to two aspects of neutral past performance ratings--

(1) Definition of neutral past performance evaluations. The proposed rules provided a definition of neutral past performance evaluations. Public comments recommended that we revise the definition and provide detailed instructions on how to apply neutral past performance ratings in any source selection. 41 U.S.C. 405(j)(2) requires offerors without a previous performance history, to be given a rating that neither rewards nor penalizes the offeror. We did not adopt the public comment recommendations, opting instead to revise the final rule to reflect the statutory language, so that the facts of the instant acquisition would be used in determining what rating scheme is appropriate. This alternative provides for flexible compliance to satisfy requirements of the statute."

How about the myth that companies must offer their best/most-favored customer price to the Government?

Don,

In reference to your post (#46) above. As a newbie I never read the "must be rated neutral" part of FAR 15.608. I thought the "neutral rating" resulted from 15.305(2)(iv).

"In the case of an offeror without a record of relevant past performance....the offeror may not be evaluated favorably or unfavorably on past performance."

To me neutral is the rating that is neither favorable nor unfavorable.

Don,

In reference to your post (#46) above. As a newbie I never read the "must be rated neutral" part of FAR 15.608. I thought the "neutral rating" resulted from 15.305(2)(iv).

"In the case of an offeror without a record of relevant past performance....the offeror may not be evaluated favorably or unfavorably on past performance."

To me neutral is the rating that is neither favorable nor unfavorable.

bremen:

Don was referring to an earlier version of FAR Part 15. Part 15 was rewritten in September 1997. The earlier version had used the "neutral" language.

What about the myth that if you enter a five year ID/IQ contract as a small business than you keep that status until after the contract is over. Most people don?t realize the Clause 52.219-28 where you have to update your status if it changes, possibly disrupting the new interpretation of the ?rule of two?, if at least two of your contractors have Small Business status. We are in this situation now?

Any new info on policy decisions for the rule of two?

Steve

Hugh or anyone else. I do not understand how expired contracts can be extended without creating a new contract and without considering competition. Please explain.

Best,

Hugh and Charles,

I also do not understand the stated myth. If a contract (issued by an agency subject to FAR) has expired how can it be legally extended without being treated as new procurement? How is extending a contract post expiration authorized by contract and within the general scope of a contract? Do you have examples or case law?

Here's a discussion thread from the wifcon archives that treats the subject of late option exercise:

wifcon.com/arc/forum35.htm

Having moved into a new position and office I gradually inherited, as successor CO, a growing constellation of on-going contracts. Much to my concern, there was no common electronic, structured contract filing system, that I could quickly and easily access. Instead, I would get notified of my status as the new CO prior to receiving, in many cases, the contract folders by Fedex days or weeks later. As as result, I could not quickly see for myself the terms and conditions of the actions I was inheriting. Upon the folders arrival, I would then dive into them and see just what the heck I had taken over.

One of these instances, was a multiple award IDIQ, for fairly complex services. I saw that they were awarded with a base year and two option years. Okay fine, except, I could not find any documentation what so ever that the previous CO (COs') had exercised the first option year! After a thorough examination I concluded it indeed was not. In fact the base year had ended 9 months prior and they were merrily awarding task/delivery orders since. Naturally, a "a very urgent and vital need for our mission." of course, what isn't?

I weighed my course of action with much consideration.

In case you missed it, I've started analyzing myth-information in my blog.

Verbatim quote I have received from a CO:

"RFQ's and/or RFP's are interchangeable words within the procurement field."

Another myth is that the technical evaluators can't see the cost proposal. Although some agencies practice this, it's not a FAR requirement.

A contract (Base + Options) cannot exceed 5 years.

This is a great thread. I will add some myths as I hear them, the ones I would have added are already listed.

In case you missed it, I've started analyzing myth-information in my blog.

Is that a recent pic of you?

A contract (Base + Options) cannot exceed 5 years.

Ours does, in the end it will go 6 years 1 month, we are special I guess....

Is that a recent pic of you?

It's a couple of years old. I look pretty much the same except I have a beard now.

Another myth is that the technical evaluators can't see the cost proposal. Although some agencies practice this, it's not a FAR requirement.

Years ago I was at a huge procurement conference and a speaker asked the audience by a show of hands how many people thought this was against laws or regulations. Almost everyone raised their hands. He then asked people to cite the laws or regulations. Only a couple people could quote specific internal policies but it was obvious the majority believed it was wrong but never questioned why.

Another one is GSA Schedule contract prices are too high and you must accept them unless the order value exceeds the MOT.

Another one is GSA Schedule contract prices are too high and you must accept them unless the order value exceeds the MOT.

Years ago I was with a group that met with GSA concerning GSA Advantage! I must confess I was taken aback by the GSA representative's very positive response when I noted that I always solicited and got better spot pricing from GSA vendors than the pricing listed in Advantage!. GSA could do itself a favor by publicizing this more.

Procurement personnel could do themselves the equal favor of being knowledgable of procurement policies and regulations that by my experience are easily found and easy to mark for reference in the future......

From this information website regarding ordering instructions for GSA schedules titled "Price Reductions" found here - http://www.gsa.gov/Portal/gsa/ep/contentVi...contentId=10779

"Ordering activities are advised to seek further price reductions when requirements warrant. Price reductions allow ordering activities to take advantage of the flexible and dynamic pricing in the commercial marketplace."

Interns are capable of journeyman 1102 work when they complete their internships.