Retreadfed

Members
  • Content count

    1,238
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

0 Neutral

About Retreadfed

  • Rank
    Platinum Member
  • Birthday

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Not Telling

Recent Profile Visitors

15,682 profile views
  1. gf, you mentioned an unexercised option. Has the period in which you were required to give notice of your intent to exercise the option expired? If so, have you given notice? Similarly, has the period in which the option was to be exercised passed?
  2. Anon, how does this process comply with the requirement to "include cost or price to the Federal Government as an evaluation factor that must be considered in the evaluation of proposals"?
  3. Vern, what impact, if any, does FAR 1.602-1(b) have on the issue of whether a contracting officer needs to comply with SBA rules as well as the FAR when awarding contracts? Bob, to answer your question concerning "only," go back to the statutory bases for the various sections in FAR Subpart 6.2. FAR 6.203 is derived directly from CICA. For example, 10 U.S.C. 2304(b)(2) states in part "The head of an agency may provide for the procurement of property or services covered by this section using competitive procedures, but excluding concerns other than small business concerns in furtherance of sections 9 and 15 of the Small Business Act." Section 15 of the SB Act is 15 U.S.C. 644 which states government wide contracting goals and requires the establishment of agency specific contracting goals for specific categories of small businesses. Under 644, agencies are to establish plans to meet those contracting goals. Nothing in 644, limits contracting to meet those goals to either one category or all categories of eligible small business concerns. The way I read the statute, it permits mixing and matching of categories. Because 6.203 is derived from 644, it also must permit mixing and matching. If we look at FAR 6.204-207, each of those sections is based upon a specific section of the SB Act that permits set asides limited to the specific small business category. None of those other sections of the SB Act are mentioned in CICA. Moreover, each of the sections in 6.203-207 is merely a tool available to agencies to assist them in meeting the objectives of 644.Thus, because we have different FAR sections that are based on different statutes, but are intended to facilitate a common goal, i.e., the goal of 644, I see no conflict between them and nothing that would prohibit the approach Vern has advised.
  4. After reading 10 U.S.C. 2304 and 15 U.S.C. 644, I think Vern is on solid ground in what he has recommended.
  5. Don asked, can I limit competition to small business concerns located in California? Yes, if the nature of the acquisition requires a specific geographic location. For example, if the requirement is for catering of meals to fire fighters combating forest and wild fires in California, the agency may be able to justify a small business set aside restricted to small businesses that have a business presence in California.
  6. Don, see, FAR 6.200 (This subpart prescribes policy and procedures for providing for full and open competition after excluding one or more sources.)
  7. ji, there is a nuance to competitive small business set asides that you have missed. Under CICA, such competition is considered full and open competition. Thus, the so called "exceptions" you have identified are not exceptions to full and open competition, but are a form of full and open competition.
  8. MV, wouldn't the government want the contractor to continue working if the government knew more funds would be added? Remember under an incrementally funded contract, the parties enter into the contract with the expectation that the contractor will do a specific amount of work for the government. However, the government does not provide funds to cover all the work, but the parties anticipate that the government will add additional funds to cover the anticipated work as the contract progresses.
  9. Thanks, Bob and Vern.
  10. Once again, the ASBCA website seems to be unavailable. For the last few days I get an error 403 message saying the website is not accepting requests. Is anyone else having a similar problem?
  11. What cost or price information will be used to evaluate offers?
  12. It may not be back. I just tried to access it and could not get in. In addition, for several days, I have not been able to access the DCAA website and today I tried going to the DPAP and DoD IG websites and could not get in to them either.
  13. Vern, DCAA requires most of what you have identified to be included in interim vouchers under cost reimbursement contracts. However, many times the contracting officer or COR do not see these vouchers because DCAA is responsible for reviewing them so they are submitted to DCAA not the CO.
  14. Vern, you and I are on the same page in regard to FFP and T&M contracts. Don, what does "contract surveillance" as used in the notice mean to you? To me, that has a broad meaning. In any event, the audit need not necessarily be performed to determine compliance with the LOS clause. When DCAA conducts an audit and issues a report on its findings, it frequently includes in the audit report what is known as a Statement of Condition. This is used to impart information to readers of the audit report that was discovered in the conduct of the audit which may require further action by DCAA, the recipient of the report or the contractor. Thus, for example, if in the conduct of an audit the DCAA auditor were to discover that the contractor was not paying its employees in accordance with a wage determination attached to the contract, this fact could be reported in a Statement of Condition or separately transmitted to the contracting officer. One thing we have not discussed in this thread is the impact of the doctrine of implied certification concerning any requests for payment made by a contractor who is not in compliance with the LOS clause. Under this doctrine, when a contractor submits a request for payment under a government contract, the contractor gives an implied certification that it has complied with all material terms of the contract. If the contractor has not complied with all material terms of the contract, it is exposing itself to False Claims Act liability. In this regard, auditors are required to include steps in their audit program that are designed to provide reasonable assurance that the matter being audited is free from fraud. Because of these requirements, I see no reason why DCAA or other Federal contract auditors could not include steps in their audit programs to check on compliance with specific contract clauses when conducting an audit of incurred costs on covered contracts and report on those findings to the contracting officer.
  15. Note that the test is whether release of the rates would be likely to cause substantial competitive harm to the contractor. Therefore, there is not a flat prohibition against the release of such data. For example, if the data is stale or the company is no longer in existence, the data probably is releasable.