Jump to content
The Wifcon Forums and Blogs

All Activity

This stream auto-updates     

  1. Today
  2. @FrankJon What prompted my interest in your post is that while we all (or most of us) know what indefinite-delivery contracts are and how they're supposed to work, that's not always how they're being used. GSA FSS contracts are a perfect example of what I'm talking about. The concept behind those contracts is that they specify deliverables and allow the government to order various quantities of units of those deliverables from time to time and at fixed prices to be delivered to various locations on order. Those contracts and the standard FAR clauses that have been developed for them---52.216-18, -19, and -22---reflect those arrangements. The concept does not reflect the idea of orders that can combine quantities of units into unique units called tasks or an ordering process in which the government seeks quotes for unit price reductions and task prices or seeks to add clauses that are not in the contract. That raises questions about the enforceability of the Ordering clause, FAR 52.216-18: Emphasis added. Or the Indefinite Quantity clause, FAR 52.216-22: Emphasis added. What is "indefinite" in the IDIQ concept is quantity and delivery, not specifications and other terms. Of course, the standard clauses can be supplemented in ways that do not deviate from FAR. While what you have said: is true if the government simply orders a quantity of specified units that are to be delivered to specified places, I doubt very much that it holds true when the government asks for quotes that include price reductions and specifies tasks that are not described in the base contract. I do not think that GSA FSS contracts are IDIQ contracts in the schoolhouse sense of that term that is taught to most contract specialists when they are, in fact, used in other ways. I think usage may render the ordering clause unenforceable. Then again, COs who engage in government contracting often show little regard for contracts. I don't know if my theory has been tested in court, but I think it's unlikely to be tested very often, since GSA FSS contractors seem willing to put up with almost anything in order to get some work, any work, from somebody. But I find the disparity between the expectations built into the standard clauses, on the one hand, and actual practice, on the other, to be very interesting.
  3. Yesterday
  4. No and yes, because, as I said and many posters here agree, the terms have changed. If you'll refer back to Pepe's post, his rationale is based on the legal definition of a quote, not the change in terms. I am cautioning others - especially FSS contract holders - about applying that rationale within the MAS Program environment. (I'm not nitpicking, if that's your concern. Pepe's statements are legally correct and his ultimate advice is sound. But I am pointing out an often overlooked peculiarity of FSS contracting.)
  5. What if an agency processes an FSS order like a purchase order, by requesting quotes based on agency-specified terms, but then issues a "task order" or "delivery order" with different terms than those originally specified? Do you think a board or court would react as if the agency had issued a valid task or delivery order? Or do you think the agency's conduct might affect the board or court's decision?
  6. No, I am saying that the rationale I quoted is not applicable to this situation. I have no qualms with the advice offered by Pepe and others, but the reason is because the Government introduced new terms (LBF never said they were "inconsistent" with the FSS contract). If an FSS contractor views an order as an offer, and on that basis rejects the order, it risks violating its FSS contract terms.
  7. What are you saying? Are you saying that a GSA FSS contractor must accept an order that is inconsistent with the terms of its GSA FSS contract?
  8. One clarification for the benefit of LBF and others: GSA requires its FSS contractors to accept Executive Agency orders under most circumstances (source: https://www.gsa.gov/acquisition/purchasing-programs/gsa-schedules/gsa-schedules-frequently-asked-questions, Is a GSA Schedule contractor required to accept any order placed against its Schedule contract?). Thus, even though the correct nomenclature when using the MAS Program is "quote," and quotes are not offers under the law, FSS contractors should be mindful that an agency's order must usually be accepted.
  9. Thanks Neil. It was competitive on GSA schedule. We spoke with CO and they will not remove the clause. Thus, we are not accepting the offer. I appreciate all the feedback. Have a nice weekend.
  10. Can a CO add a FAR clause to a GSA schedule task order award that was not in the RFQ, nor part of the GSA schedule contract itself? If not, what recourse does the apparent successful vendor have if it believes the addition of the clause adds substantial costs? (bolded language added) Was this a competitive situation? If so, adding a requirement (that adds or subtracts value) to an award that was not included in the government solicitation for the award, could be challenged as unfair to the other bidders.
  11. Koprince Law LLC

    SmallGovCon Week in Review: May 21 – 25, 2018

    Memorial Day is almost here, which means the unofficial start of summer. I hope everyone enjoys the long weekend while remembering all the men and women who gave their lives in service to our country. In this week’s edition of the SmallGovCon Week in Review, two Topeka men were named in a scheme to fraudulently obtain government contracts set aside for minority and disabled military veteran contractors, contractors argue that a Pentagon proposal to curb bid protests would deny fair access of companies seeking relief from potentially unjustified awards, and much more (including some special pre-holiday snarky commentary by yours truly). Procurement fraud allegations from right here in Kansas: two Topeka businessmen are named in $352 million dollar fraud scheme. [KSNT] A contractors’ group is urging the Senate to reject a DoD proposal to curb bid protests. [Government Executive] (And see my article about how DoD bid protests are already exceedingly uncommon). The SBA has announced that the government met its 23% small business goal in FY 2017. [PR Newswire] (That’s good news, of course, but the SBA’s spin omits the fact that the government missed its WOSB and HUBZone goals once again). The Army is recompeting $600 million follow-on contract to provide information technology services worldwide. [Bloomberg Government] Simplified buying has increased over the years and this year agencies are on track for a record-breaking fiscal year. [GovConChannel] The DOE has issued a revised Small Business First policy to foster dynamic business environment for the small business community. [U.S. Department of Energy] (And given that DOE missed all four of its socioeconomic goals in FY 2017, a renewed focus on small business seems wise). As agencies approach the year-end surge, they’ll look for ways to spend their remaining IT funds quickly, and SEWP is set up to do just that. [Bloomberg Government] Two men who took part in a bid-rigging and bribery scheme involving $54 millions in contracts at Fort Gordon received the maximum prison terms of five years Wednesday despite the recommendation from the U.S. Attorney’s office for a reduction in their sentences. [The Augusta Chronicle] View the full article
  12. Joel - I did not say the blog did but in my view helps the OP understand what adding a clause means. Vern has answered the question.
  13. Here's a story about a kind of low-grade artificial intelligence at work: http://www.newsweek.com/publix-summa-cum-laude-sheet-cake-938451
  14. Yes, but it would not be contractually enforceable unless the contractor acceded to it, either expressly or by performing without objection. If you commence performance you will likely waive any right to a price adjustment. If you don't want to perform without a price adjustment, then don't commence performance. As others have pointed out, call the contracting officer and express your concerns before you commence performance, and see what you can work out between you.
  15. The blog discusses using agencies adding or modifying Schedule contract terms and conditions. I didn’t see where it discussed the timing or the effect of timing on the process...
  16. Carl, the apparent problem here is that the contracting officer is adding the clause or clauses after receiving quotes. In my opinion, government needs to put its cards on the table Before requesting quotes, not afterward, whenever possible. If they can’t do that, then the government shouldn’t be surprised that modifying the conditions and terms may affect the price or other considerations.Some other considerations might be the amount of time that it will take to provide the product or service.
  17. Here is a blog that may also help....https://interact.gsa.gov/wiki/adding-provisionsclauses-rfqs
  18. Try this I think it will answer your question......https://www.opm.gov/policy-data-oversight/classification-qualifications/general-schedule-qualification-standards/1100/questions-and-answers-concerning-revised-1102-qualification-standard/
  19. LBF, I think that Pepe is correct and that a phone call is a good starting point. I’d seek to understand why the additional clause is necessary. Then, you might advise what the impact is. So, they might not award to you or they might amend the RFQ and seek revised quotes. Either way, if you will lose money by accepting the additional terms, it may be better to be able to revise your quote, if allowed to, and take your chances on being the eventual selectee than to lose money on the deal.
  20. AI can’t vote or run for office...it’s part way to felon status right out of the box...
  21. If the overlap in time is for the same work, then the answer is no. There is no law or regulation to that effect, but it should not take much in the way of brains for a CO to see that such an overlap would make no sense. Why do what would not make sense?
  22. Guardian, if you're going to lecture someone about usage and then cite statute in support, do your homework. Title 41 was recodified seven years ago. See FAR 1.110 and 6.302-1(a)(2)(ii)(B). 41 USC 253(d)(1)(b) is now 41 USC § 3304(b)(2). The old section was repealed as part of the new positive law codification. You have a lot of nerve asking me for citations. Candid admission? I haven't made any admission, candid or otherwise. What I did was call you out because you said: You then followed that statement with a lot of malarky. Your "larger point" is pointless. The OP did not misapply the term. His usage is not contrary to any official definition or established term of art, and you cannot prove differently. The GAO definition that Carl quoted has no official standing. The quote was just an expression of GAO's view of what it thought that the term should have meant in the DOD context discussed in the GAO report. DOD concurred, but that definition was never inserted into statute or the FAR. Since that report, GAO has used the term "follow-on contract" in exactly 200 protest decisions. In several, GAO has referred to the idea of a "competitive follow-on." See e.g., Worldwide Language Resources, Inc., B-299315.7, 2010 CPD ¶ 208: So GAO's own usage has not been consistent with its 1986 proposed definition. I know what I think the term ought to mean based on my own experience with usage. But I would not say that someone who uses it differently is necessarily using it wrongly. My view is as I put it in the thread to which Carl provided a link: "However, you can never be quite sure about what a person means when they use the term 'follow-on contract' or 'logical follow-on', so it's always a good idea to ask for clarification."
  23. Hm, ok thanks for the info, I'll check it out. Also in terms of the 24 credit hours would you happened to know when it says "management and organization" can I take classes just listed as management?
  24. GAO/NSIAD-86-59 from April 1986, PROCUREMENT The Use of Unpriced Options and Other Practices Needs Revision Page 26, Footnote 1. ‘“Follow-on contract” means a new, noncompetitive procurement placed with an incumbent contractor, either by a separate new contract or by a supplemental agreement, to continue or augment a specific military program, where such placement was necessitated by prior procurement decisions. An example is a contract award for production of a major weapon system to the contractor that developed the system when award to any other source would result in substantial duplication of cost to the government that is not expected to be recovered through competition. http://www.gao.gov/assets/150/144237.pdf I love WIFCON - and thank you JWomack!
  25. Last week
  26. The link you provided was to the 1994 code and a 2000 supplement. We're in 2018. Try again. Okay, so what is the meaning of that term of art? What are the numbers for FY 2016? You are not correct. I don't have any definite understanding of what the term means in actual usage. I suppose that different practitioners would define the term differently. I have made no affirmative statement about the meaning of follow-on contract. I am not aware of any overarching official definition of the term, and if the term is a rises to the status of a term of art we wouldn't cite a statute or a regulation. We would refer to instances of usage.
  1. Load more activity
×