Jump to content
The Wifcon Forums and Blogs


  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Posts posted by Retreadfed

  1. Z, note that the procedures for issuing orders under a multiple award contract are to be set forth in the contract.  Thus, if you do not follow those procedures when issuing an order, you can be facing a claim under the Disputes clause.  Thus, even if the order does not qualify for being subject to a protest, that does not mean you are out of the woods.

    How does not allowing all 10 contractors submit proposals for the revised requirement meet the fair opportunity requirement of the FAR and statute?

  2. This is what FAR 15.303 has to say on this topic:

    The source selection authority shall—

    (1) Establish an evaluation team, tailored for the particular acquisition, that includes appropriate contracting, legal, logistics, technical, and other expertise to ensure a comprehensive evaluation of offers.

    To me, the key words from this excerpt are "tailored" and "appropriate."

  3. rfpro, there are too many variables involved in your question to provide a one size fits all answer.  The time keeping requirements for a company providing office furniture off a GSA schedule could be quite different from a contractor doing work on CAS covered cost reimbursement contracts.  From a contractual perspective, you have to analyze the terms of your contracts and determine if your timekeeping policies meet the requirements of those contracts.  If they do, you are good to go regardless of what another contractor's policies may be.  Remember, the FAR only requires a contractor to have an accounting system, which includes a timekeeping system,  that is adequate for the contract type being performed.  See, FAR 16-104(i).

  4. 3 hours ago, Matthew Fleharty said:

    I think very little (if any) of the disagreement on this forum dealt with "what is a fair and reasonable price?" - the objections came from "can you properly prove it IAW the FAR"

    This discussion has focused on techniques for determining if a price is fair and reasonable.  My question is if you cannot define what fair and reasonable is, how do you know that you have it regardless of the techniques you apply?  Is this something like Justice Stewart's explanation of pornography in that "I can't define it but I know it when I see it"?

  5. 13 hours ago, Vern Edwards said:

    Yes---a price the buyer is willing to pay and the seller is willing to accept.

    If that is what a fair and reasonable price is, what is all this arguing about?  It seems as if folks here are looking for a "magic formula" to tell them what price is fair and reasonable., i.e., what they would be willing and able to pay for what they are buying.  Also, nobody other than Vern has defined what it is that they are talking about.  Is there a common understanding of what this term means in the FAR or are folks here making up their own definition as they go along without sharing that information?

  6. 40 minutes ago, Vern Edwards said:

    When an evaluation assesses the extent that small businesses are specifically identified in proposals, the small businesses considered in the evaluation shall be listed in any subcontracting plan submitted pursuant to FAR 52.219-9

    This appears to require more than coordination between two "plans."  As you have mentioned, the DFARS does not require the submission of "utilization plans" only a statement of the extent to which small businesses will be utilized in performance of the contract.  However, Don asserts that some components are including these statements in resulting contracts.  As the quoted language indicates, if the contractor is required to provide a small business subcontracting plan, any small business concerns listed in the utilization statement "shall" be included in the subcontracting plan.  Thus, there is mandatory overlap between the two in this circumstance.  Further, I do not see anything in the DFARS that would prohibit a component from including the utilization statement in the subcontracting plan.  It only says that the two are to be submitted separately.  This inclusion may or may not be happening.  I have to admit that I do not have insight into how these requirements are being implemented in practice.   

  7. 38 minutes ago, Don Mansfield said:

    I think Carl is referring to the small business participation plan that a small business would have to submit in a full and open competition.

    That may be.  However, it is good for everyone to understand what the requirement is.  This discussion brings up a good point.  If a procurement is conducted using full and open competition and the winner is not a small business, and the "utilization plan" is included in the small business subcontracting plan, that large business only has to make a good faith effort to comply with the combined plan.  On the other hand, if a small business wins and does not have to submit a small business subcontracting plan, the "utilization plan" could be incorporated into the contract without the good faith requirement.  This seems potentially to place a heavier burden  on small businesses than large businesses.  To that extent, this would seem to have a significant impact on small business concerns.  If this has been happening, I am somewhat surprised that small businesses and the SBA have not been howling.

  8. 3 hours ago, C Culham said:

    As to small business and the requirement for a performance plan should they receive contract award  I ask what has been accomplished as the prime is already in the hands of a small business. 

    Carl, small businesses should not be required to submit a plan for a set aside procurement because the extent of small business utilization evaluation factor is only applicable to contracts that require the use of the clause at FAR 52.219-9.  Thus, the factor would only come into play in full and open competitions.

  9. 11 hours ago, anonymous 10 said:

    The question I'm struggling to answer is whether or not the contractor owns any of the intellectual property generated by the subcontractor during the term of the subcontract?

    Ownership of data is different from rights to use that same data.  Note that under the FAR and DFARS, the government does not own data generated by a contractor.  Instead, the government only gets specified rights in that data.  Unless the contract states otherwise, the contractor continues to own data.  As for ownership of data originated by a subcontractor, that is a matter between the prime and sub.  I have seen subcontracts where the prime requires its subs to transfer ownership of data to the prime and other subcontracts where the prime does not require such transfer of ownership.

  10. Notice that FAR Part 17 says it implements policies set forth in 10 U.S.C. 2306b.  However, multiyear service contracts are described in 10 U.S.C. 2306c.  Looking at what 2306c says multiyear service contracts can be used for have you inquired about DoD GOCO contracts, FFRDC contracts and DoE M&O contracts?  They seem to possibly fit what you are looking for.