WelcomeUser Guide
ToSPrivacyCanary
DonateBugsLicense

©2025 Poal.co

173

(post is archived)

[+] [deleted] 2 pts
[–] 1 pt (edited )

Typical to see this response.

gov: we need a solution to a defined problem;

contractor: we will sell you exactly that for 12M with no guarantee that it's a viable solution post Period of Performance (POP), and to if it's not, it's a contract mod with more millions in MIPRs lest you choose to not exercise Option Year (OY) and be stuck with shitty product - and we specified in out Request for Proposals (RFP) bid that all data created is proprietary;

gov: stuck, huh? DEAL

fast-forward - POPs up, OY exercised but new solutions (or upgrades) are required.

Contractor: sorry, not sorry, it's not in the contract. BUT, we can sell you a new solution of another 12M or mod the contract for another 18M and we can fix it over the next 2 years (almost ensuring lock-in)...

point is - it's the same song and dance every contractor and the gov still eats it up. see it all the time, cost+ is a nightmare because the contract may define the product in deliverables - Contract Data Requirements List (CDRLs) and bolstered by a (Performance Work Statement (PWS) whereby a Basis of Estimates (BoE) is provided and is ALWAYS inflated (that's the nature of the contractor - to make money). Fuck that. Firm, Fixed Price (FFP) for work you want done when it's defined how you want it done. Cost-reimbursable for any thing else. Cost+ is dependent on 'good work' which is hardly ever the case - it's analogous to tipping your server before service begins under the assumption they will provide you with top-notch care.

ref FARs 2.101; 2.104; and 15.404

[–] 2 pts

Show me on the doll where the first article touched you.

[–] 1 pt

hahaha

thanks for listening, doc!

[–] 2 pts

I only laugh because I feel your pain. Federal contracts are maddening.