Jump to content
The Wifcon Forums and Blogs

All Activity

This stream auto-updates     

  1. Past hour
  2. FAR 52.212-5

    1. FAR clause 52.212-5 is IBR in 48 CFR Part 52. 2. You would follow the procedures in FAR 52.104(d) to cite the fill-ins. You would cite 52.212-5; then you would state "The following clauses are incorporated by reference." If you needed to cite FAR 52.203-13, Contractor Code of Business Ethics and Conduct, you would just cite where it is in 52.212-5: (b)(2), 52.203--13... You would do the same for all the remaining clauses you need to cite in 52.212-5.
  3. Today
  4. FAR 52.212-5

    Where did you hear that Hill AFB's FARSite will no longer be updated?
  5. Multiple Award Schedule

    Would anybody happen to recall or know, how to determine which clauses in a MAS contract flow down to the order level? Thank You!
  6. NAICS code appeals can be powerful, and while they’re infrequent, they often succeed. But NAICS code appeals are subject to a strict, 10-day deadline–and that deadline isn’t extended by deliberations with the Contracting Officer. In a recent NAICS code appeal decision, the SBA Office of Hearings and Appeals reiterated that the 10-day deadline isn’t affected by discussions with the procuring agency. OHA’s decision in NAICS Appeal of AMEL Technologies, Inc., SBA No. NAICS-5892 (2018) involved a NAVFAC solicitation for construction management services. NAVFAC issued the solicitation as a small business set-aside and assigned NAICS Code 236220 (Commercial and Institutional Building Construction), with an associated $36.5 million size standard. The solicitation was issued on January 25, 2018. AMEL Technologies, Inc. believed that the correct NAICS code was 541330 (Engineering Services), which ordinarily carries a $15 million size standard. AMEL apparently initiated discussions with the Contracting Officer shortly after the solicitation was issued, asking the Contracting Officer to change the NAICS code to 541330. The Contracting Officer didn’t respond to the request until March 1, 2018. The Contracting Officer didn’t address the merits of AMEL’s request, but simply stated that she considered the matter closed because AMEL had not filed a formal NAICS code appeal with OHA. AMEL subsequently filed a NAICS code appeal on March 6. OHA wrote that “nder applicable regulations, a NAICS code appeal must be filed within 10 calendar days after issuance of the solicitation, or within 10 calendar days of an amendment affecting the NAICS code or size standard.” OHA “has no discretion to extend, or waive, the deadline for filing an appeal.” OHA continued, “deliberations with a procuring agency which do not result in any change to the solicitation, do not extend the [NAICS] appeal deadline.” Therefore, “the fact that [AMEL] requested that the CO reconsider the NAICS code does not alter [AMEL’s] deadline for bringing a NAICS code appeal at OHA.” AMEL “filed this appeal 40 calendar days after issuance of the RFP.” Thus, “[t]he instant appeal is untimely and must be dismissed.” OHA dismissed AMEL’s NAICS code appeal. When an agency assigns an apparently erroneous NAICS code, it’s not a bad idea to approach the Contracting Officer about a change, as AMEL did. Doing so can avoid unnecessary administrative litigation. Additionally, giving the Contracting Officer the chance to reconsider before filing a NAICS code appeal may be beneficial from a “relationship standpoint.” However, as the AMEL Technologies case demonstrates, informal discussions about NAICS codes don’t extend the strict NAICS code appeal deadline–the 10-day clock keeps ticking. View the full article
  7. Problem of the Day

    Really? So, assuming the date "payment would otherwise be due" is later than the date the CO received the claim, the CO would be compliant with the Disputes statute if they paid interest starting on the date "payment would otherwise be do"? Yes or no is sufficient--you don't need to explain. Also, just so I'm clear on your position--you believe, as a general proposition, that compliance with the regulation implementing a statute ensures compliance with the statute. Do I have that right? Again, yes or no is sufficient--you don't need to explain.
  8. Problem of the Day

    I see the issue, and my answer to Don's question about compliance and your second question would be my favorite answer, it depends. This topic is of particular interest to me as I was involved in the Albericci-Eby (hopefully I have spelled it correctly have all these years) appeal to the Fed. Cir.
  9. Yesterday
  10. Problem of the Day

    Why do I have to explain? Don brought it up! I knew this would happen if I answered his question. Okay, Retread has quoted the statute. Now, here's FAR 33.208: See the issue? If a CO complies with that, has she complied with the statute?
  11. Problem of the Day

    Vern, can you expand upon your answer and give an explanation. For everyone's benefit here is what the statute says about when interest begins to accrue Interest on an amount found due a contractor on a claim shall be paid to the contractor for the period beginning with the date the contracting officer receives the contractor’s claim, pursuant to section 7103(a) of this title, until the date of payment of the claim.
  12. FAR 52.212-5

    I would follow the procedures at FAR 52.104(b) and/or 52.104(d). I would then include either one or both of FAR 52.252-1 and FAR 52.252-2 depending on if I'm incorporating provisions and/or clauses.
  13. FAR 52.212-5

    In line with this conversation I have another question. If you look at www.acquisition.gov and review the matrix it shows that 52.212-5 incorporate by reference (IBR) yes. If you look at http://farsite.hill.af.mil/vmfara.htm matrix it states NO for IBR for 52.212-5. We are being told that the farsite will no longer be updated and to follow www.acquisition.gov . I agree with ContractingPeoplesHatred that provisions and clauses should be incorporated to the maximum practical extent. How would you incorporate 52.212-5 by reference?
  14. How can we speed up the source selection process?

    Perhaps you did. I didn't say that you broke any rules.
  15. Problem of the Day

    @Don Mansfield Okay, I'll answer your question. Yes.
  16. How can we speed up the source selection process?

    @Vern Edwards Perhaps I read too far into your post last night.
  17. A pair of large contracts for administrative services with the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) are great but two pairs are better. In a recent case, National Government Services, a company holding multiple contracts with CMS, protested when agency rules prevented them from competing for several more. Ultimately, the agency was able to successfully defend the limitations written into their solicitation, and the case provides a template for other agencies that may find themselves in similar circumstances. Read the full article at Petrillo & Powell's Patterns of Procurement.
  18. Problem of the Day

    Vern, Your argument was premised on the notion that being compliant with a regulation that implements the statute would make you compliant with the statute. I provided a counterexample--I didn't change the topic.
  19. How can we speed up the source selection process?

    @Gordon Shumway What rule did you break?
  20. Degrees and experience

    LOL!! This is by far the best troll post of the year.
  21. A CIO-SP3 SB contract holder could not protest the award of a task order to a competitor because the order was valued at less than $10 million. In a recent bid protest decision, the GAO confirmed that civilian task order awards–including those under CIO-SP3 SB–generally cannot be protested unless the value of the order exceeds $10 million. The GAO’s decision in AMAR Health IT, LLC, B-414384.3 (Mar. 13, 2018) involved a task order RFQ issued by the Department of Health and Human Services. HHS issued the RFQ as part of the CIO-SP3 SB Government-Wide Acquisition Contract. After evaluating quotations, HHS initially awarded the task order to AMAR Health IT, LLC at a price of nearly $14 million. Zolon Tech Inc., an unsuccessful competitor, ultimately filed two GAO bid protests challenging the award to AMAR. In response to the second protest, the HHS conducted discussions and evaluated final quotations. The HHS then awarded the task order to Zolon at a price of approximately $6.3 million. AMAR attempted to file a GAO bid protest challenging the award to Zolon. The GAO wrote that “[p]rotests filed with our Office in connection with the issuance or proposed issuance of a task or delivery order under a civilian agency IDIQ contract are not authorized except where the order is valued over $10 million, or where the protester can show that the order increases the scope, period, or maximum value of the contract under which the order is issued.” For purposes of determining the value of an order, the awardee’s price “is controlling since the terms of the order define the scope and terms of the contractual commitment between the contractor and the government.” The GAO rejected AMAR’s creative efforts to encourage the GAO to take jurisdiction. “Here,” the GAO wrote, “because the order at issue is valued at less than $10 million, we lack jurisdiction to consider the protester’s challenge.” The GAO dismissed the protest. It’s easy to understand AMAR’s frustration with the circumstances here. AMAR would have won the order itself but for two GAO protests from Zolon. Then, when AMAR attempted to return the favor, it was unable to do so because Zolon’s price was below the $10 million threshold. Because the awardee’s price governs, when AMAR was the awardee, the order was protestable; when Zolon was the awardee, it wasn’t. The AMAR Health IT case highlights the difficulty of attempting to protest a task order under CIO-SP3 or another multiple-award contract. Except in unusual circumstances, the GAO lacks jurisdiction to consider the award of a task order under a civilian multiple-award contract where the value of the order is less than $10 million. View the full article
  22. Degrees and experience

    This is a Contract Award Process question how exactly?
  23. How can we speed up the source selection process?

    @Vern Edwards My apologies, I didn't mean to break the rules. I was interested in hearing more about FrankJon's position... wasn't trying to critique.
  24. Formality and boilerplate in federal contracts

    Vern: Great question--to explore concerning which clauses came first/influenced which. A really quick answer before a meeting. I'm not just interested in the UCF where it's required--I'm also interested in it (maybe primarily interested in it) as an organizational learning tool or heuristic used in association with techniques of modularity in contract drafting. Like in my agency--we used the UCF a lot even when it wasn't required--particularly in construction. Whether that was good practice or not--I don't know, and that may be part of my overall research question. There's a lot I WANT to say right now about form and formalism (required and not required) in association with the FAR but a lot of it is too free form and I'm still in the dumpster-dive process of learning about important things related to my question(s). Thank you again.
  25. Formality and boilerplate in federal contracts

    Thoughta about construction clauses. They were mainly developed by the military, which was doing construction contracting before most civilian agencies were created. Especially at the outset of the two world wars--camp construction. The FAR construction clauses are very similar to the ones used in the private sector, and I'm not sure which came first. Did the military model their clauses on the commercial sector or vice versa? The good news is that there is a massive amount of info about construction clauses, and a large amount of litigation of construction contracts, so reviews of court and board decisions might show how the clauses changed over time. You might want to focus on differences between AGC boilerplate and FAR boilerplate. However, the UCF does not apply to construction contracts. So I don't know how your interest in construction clauses meshes with your interest in the UCF.
  26. Degrees and experience

    Sure. Absolutely. Just don't try to ever pass those pieces of paper off as the real thing. For example, Oracle defines its certification, and Oracle is a big company with lots of legal resources. You might find Oracle taking an interest in another company that tried to redefine an Oracle certification as simply being a piece of paper without any substance behind it. Have fun! Everybody should get a participation ribbon.
  27. Can a company grant degrees and certificates? If I need my employees to be Certified Oracle Experts, can I have my HR department issue them certificates certifying them as Certified Oracle Experts? Ditto for degrees. Can I have my HR department issue a certificate in the corporate name awarding a Masters degree? The degree certificate would be modeled after one from one of the big universities.
  1. Load more activity