Jump to content
The Wifcon Forums and Blogs

All Activity

This stream auto-updates     

  1. Yesterday
  2. No-Cost Settlement and Unsatisfactory CPARS?

    I don't think there is necessarily a relationship between a no-cost settlement and CPARS ratings. I agree that a no-cost settlement is much better than a T4D. If the government T4D'd you, do you think it would be justified? If so, the settlement sounds like a very nice alternative. If you strongly disagree with your CPARS ratings, you can request a contracting officer final decision and then appeal it. However, if you think a T4D might be justified, I would have a hard time seeing how you could, at the same time, think you should have a good CPARS rating.
  3. Hi There, Looking for some general advice - we are a prime with a contract with an US Government agency. Due to reasons I won't get into here, the KO is proposing a no-cost settlement which releases us from the contract obligation for no-cost, instead of Termination for Default. The sticky point is that the CPARS review being submitted includes Unsatisfactory rating for Quality/Schedule/Management, which we disagree. My understanding is that Termination for Default would also carry the same CPARS ratings, but in addition a potential cost component for the re-compete (e.g. 2.5% of the value of the contract), therefore a no-cost settlement seems like a great win-win but the CPARS ratings concerns us. I would expect a no-cost settlement to be a not-at-fault mutual termination and neutral CPARS ratings. Being this is an 8(a) contract through the SBA, I wanted to ask if the above resonates with your experience while I await response from our counsel/SBA rep. Thanks.
  4. U. S. Civil War Discussion Forum

    CO1559: Don't use the citations that Vern provided. Both are abridged versions of some part of the Official Records. They can only provide a hint of what to know. On the Civil War site, I have provided citations to the complete: War of the Rebellion, Official Records of the Union and Confederate Armies. (We all call them OR of the Armies or OR of the Navies.) In truth, you must search through the Official Records . . . of the Navies too to check if there was any participation from them. These 2 government publications are about 200 volumes of details. That's about 200,000 pages for a start. Go to my Civil War site and click Some Basic Documents. The first link provided is to the Official Records of the Army. Click it. You will see a bunch of links marked Serial. (The Offical Records require some practice to use them. I use the hard copies. They are much better than the digital copies.) You see the Serials. Click Serial 10 . Then look at the links at the bottom of that page. Click page 0093. That will get you to a list of 229 reports. Most of the reports are written by lower ranking officers or by the surviving officers-in-charge of the mangled regiments. Those are the most interesting and most revealing. Some are written by low ranking Generals too. Those reports stretch from page 93 to page 627. The OR groups Corinth with Shiloh, for good reason. You will learn why that is done, if you read the OR. Those are the reports. Likewise, Serial 11 covers the Correspondence. Start from the beginning. That is about another 700 pages--maybe a few hundred are pertinent. After nearly 1,000 pages of text, you will have a good feel for Shiloh. Maybe Grant's slaughter of his troops at Cold Harbor was worse. I don't know. Google "trees at Shiloh." There was so much gunfire at Shiloh that the trees were getting killed too. I probably need to give a primer on how to use those volumes. By the way, check the Atlas for the Shiloh map too. It should be on the first link I provided marked simply Atlas.
  5. Types of orders

    There is tremendous variation/sloppiness in the use of acquisition terminology period. I learned a valuable lesson on "linguistic precision" as a 2Lt when my first PAR and SSDD were reviewed by my boss. The documents came back with more red ink than I had ever seen on any of my college papers due almost entirely to using various words inappropriately. For example, I used the words "price," "cost," and others interchangeably to try and improve the documents' flow and readability; however, the result was a set of documents rife with inaccuracies that made even less sense due to my monologophobia. My recommendation: call out and correct linguistic imprecision whenever you can. Hopefully it will make a lasting impression on the individual(s) and the entire workforce will gradually be better off for it.
  6. Types of orders

    The word "calls" is used in FAR 4.1603(a)(3)(vi) and (viii) and also in FAR 4.606(a)(1)(iii). Generally, I think of the issuance of an order under an indefinite-delivery vehicle (as that term is defined in FAR 4.606(a)(1)(ii)) as being done by a contracting officer or purchasing agent on paper (OF Form 347 or DD Form 1155) with a funds citation, and I think of the issuance of a call under a Blanket Purchase Agreement (BPA) as a verbal purchase made by a person authorized (such as by FAR 13.303-3(a)(4)) with a single monthly invoice and payment for all purchases made during a month. However, I admit there is tremendous variation (even sloppiness) in the use of "call" and "order" among contracting practitioners. "Call order" is new for me.
  7. Types of orders

    A recently released RFQ calls for "call orders." I can see nothing in the RFQ that would distinguish a call order from a delivery order. Still, I am familiar with calls as sold in the securities markets, and am wondering if in the eye of the government writer call order has a special meaning somehow derived from that market. Has anybody seen the term call order used before, or suspect why the writer chose that term? From FAR part 2, “Delivery order” means an order for supplies placed against an established contract or with Government sources. “Task order” means an order for services placed against an established contract or with Government sources.
  8. U. S. Civil War Discussion Forum

    See also Shotgun's Home of the American Civil War for links to the official records of several battles. http://www.civilwarhome.com/records.html
  9. U. S. Civil War Discussion Forum

    Thank you Vern.
  10. U. S. Civil War Discussion Forum

    Official reports of Battle of Shiloh (Pittsburg Landing), 6-7 April 1862 by Halleck, Grant, Buell, Sherman, Beauregard, and Bragg http://www.aotc.net/shiloh-rep.htm
  11. U. S. Civil War Discussion Forum

    Thanks Bob. I'll see if I can figure out how to add the image. I have not read the reports of Shiloh in the official records. Are they accessible? I would like to read them. Thinking about all this jogged my 58 year old memory; I also visited Fort Donelson. Grant was part of that battle and then came down to Shiloh. I visited these places when I was in Memphis with DCAA (DCAI). Jewel is my given name but I have been called Jeff all my life (middle name Jefferson). My dad (born 1909) told me it stood for Jefferson Davis, and he said the Short's came out of Kentucky and settled in St. Joe, Missouri and Illinois. I knew about the Missouri Ruffians for years, but didn't know that the St. Joe area was a hot bed of pro slavery and pro confederacy until I recently read a bio of Jesse James, for which there is a connection to that gun (no provenance, and I would never sell it anyway). Lincoln heritage hikes and celebrations were a big part of my life growing up as a boy scout.
  12. What's the biggest DOD contract?

    Wow, I didn't see that coming! But as a former user of SeaPort-e, it makes total sense. I was discussing with a colleague the value of the data that SeaPort captures, if the government was ever able to aggregate it properly.
  13. Don, thanks for the education. I was recalling the DIVAD case -- admittedly an outlier -- where the contractor had a FFP "best efforts" contract. That turned out to be a cost-type contract by another name. H2H
  14. The following is from a Bureau of National Affairs (BNA) email update dated today: Our biggest practitioner challenge is the acquisition of services, not systems. We know what we ought to be doing when we buy systems (F-35, USS Ford, various IT systems), we just can't make ourselves do it. But we don't know much about services requirements analysis, specification, cost estimation, and quality assurance. Who knows what we really wanted, and what we've really gotten, from support services contracts? Buying major systems can be fun, but there's little new under the sun besides the systems themselves. If you're looking for a challenge, start thinking about how we buy, and how we ought to buy, support services.
  15. U. S. Civil War Discussion Forum

    It's beautiful. If you want, you can add that image to the Civil War site. I just have to make a "Gallery" section named Weapons of War and you can add the image to it. If you need help, just let me know. If that doesn't work, you can add the above in a discussion. Have you read the reports in the Official Records . . . . covering Shiloh? I walked Antietam. I registered you and added discussion categories for Union and Confederate Weaponry and a Gallery section for Weaponry of War.
  16. Last week
  17. U. S. Civil War Discussion Forum

    I have an interest in this subject. I grew up in Springfield Illinois; I've walked the Shiloh battleground twice (compass hike, lots of hidden memorials), and I've visited Gettysburg Manassas, and Antietam. I have several books on the subject. I have an authentic 1851 colt navy (could be an Army of course, I've not got it checked out yet, but it has all the serial numbers in the right places; it is complete with the engraving of the Texas naval battle). My great Uncle came across it in St. Joe, Missouri in 1940 and he gave it to my dad; and it was recently passed on to me by my mother who passed in November. My dad took the family to St. Joe a couple of times a year; then I left for military at 18 and never lived in Springfield again.
  18. Parts received after Task Order PoP end date

    Completion contracts don't necessarily require actual completion--they could just require a contractor's best efforts to achieve completion. The terms "completion" and "level-of-effort" are used to describe how the contract describes the scope of work. There's a good discussion of the distinction in the FAR as it relates to CPFF contracts at FAR 16.306( d ): In a cost-reimbursement contract, either form obligates the contractor to provide its "best efforts". This obligation is stated in either the Limitation of Funds or Limitation of Cost clause. See FAR 52.232-20( a ): Make sense?
  19. HSBaily: Can you provide additional details regarding DCAA's basis for questioning these costs?
  20. Parts received after Task Order PoP end date

    You appear to have said that the parts were ordered to support work on a task order but were not used. So, they apparently weren't needed to support work on the task order. Is that correct? You used the term "task order", which usually signifies that the order is for services, whereas the term "delivery order", is associated with products. Is that the context here? Can the parts be returned for a credit? Well, anyway, please clarify per H2H's request . Thanks.
  21. Well, not really, Don. Best effort contracts permit the contractor to abandon work without delivery, once the funding has been spent, whereas completion contracts require actual completion. At least, that's the lesson I took away from the DIVAD case. Am I mistaken? That said, I'll grant you that a LOE contract would absolutely be subject to a strict period of performance cost limitation. Given that we are discussing "parts" I assumed this was for a product not a service. We'll see what the OP says. Another question for the OP: How did you deliver a product without all the necessary parts?
  22. Parts received after Task Order PoP end date

    You meant "level-of-effort" not "best effort", right?
  23. What is the contract type? What is being acquired? Is this a "best effort" or "completion" task order?
  24. Parts were ordered to support work on a task order. The parts had a long lead time and arrived several weeks after the task order PoP ended. DCAA is denying the payment of the invoice as the parts were not received within the task order PoP. We have always operated (not that it makes it right...), without question, that as long as the PO was cut prior to the task order PoP end date we were OK with the costs counting for that task order. Now we have DCAA denying two invoices. Anyone else have experience with this issue?
  25. UCA - Required Contract Clauses

    The order references the BOA -- it states "Pursuant to the terms and conditions of the Basic Ordering Agreement (BOA) XXXX, this order is being awarded for ...." Is there really a BOA? Yes. Is this a DPAS rated order? Yes.
  26. UCA - Required Contract Clauses

    The order (DD Form 1155) that references the BOA should incorporate by reference the provisions of the BOA -- see FAR 16.703(d)(2)(ii). I'm just wondering... Is there really a BOA? Is this a DPAS rated order that the contractor must accept?
  27. UCA - Required Contract Clauses

    Thanks all. The sequence of events went like this: Me: I want to see the contract, especially Sections H and I, to see what it says. Client: Here's the contract (Form 1155). There is no Section H or Section I. Me: ?? Client: That's what we received. Me: WIFCON help me. WIFCON: Read the BOA Me: Thank you.
  1. Load more activity