Jump to content

joel hoffman

  • Posts

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Profile Information

  • Gender
  • Interests
    Following God, Family, Sailing, Motorcycling, Hunting, Volleyball; Acquisition, Negotiating, Source Selections, Contract Administration, Construction, Design-Build Construction, mods, claims, TFD, TFC, project controls,

Recent Profile Visitors

The recent visitors block is disabled and is not being shown to other users.

  1. LeighHar, you mentioned FAR clause 52.244-4. Is this an A/E contract? Just curious. I have no disagreement with the previous responses.
  2. Biden has surpassed Obama’s preference for unionized construction projects. Trump left Obama’s EO alone. Before then, Clinton and Bush went back and forth on the issue.
  3. Clarification - “…promoting union labor initiatives.”
  4. Ok, I overlooked the category of the original post under “Schedules, GWACs, MACs and ID/IQs”. I didn’t realize that this would be set-aside task order for an 8(a) firm under an ID/IQ or a new ID/IQ. Are there existing schedules that provide for both A/E design services and construction by the same firm that isn’t design-build? I still believe that the initial purpose of the task will be for an A/E effort, since construction might or might not be awarded. I believe that both A/E design and Construction would have to be within the scope of the ID/IQ. Can you please elaborate on what type of task order contract you are planning to use?
  5. If you are somehow allowed to award a sole source or competitive set-aside A/E contract, the selected firm cannot subcontract more than 50 percent of the amount paid by the Government for A/E contract performance to subcontractors that are not similarly situated entities (FAR 52.219-14 Limitations on Subcontracting). Any design work that a similarly situated subcontractor entity further subcontracts will count towards the prime contractor's 50 percent subcontract amount that cannot be exceeded. For the separately awarded construction option, I think that the A/E prime contractor would have to comply with the 75% or 85% limitation on subcontracting to similarly situated firms. Since the Limitations on Subcontracting clause has been bastardized to allow almost any method to achieve self-Performance, I suppose that you might be able to award a prime A/E contract to a 8(a) Joint Venture of a design firm and a construction firm. There might be 8(a) construction companies with their own qualified A/E design staffs or 8(a) A/E firms that perform D-B construction. I don’t know. The main challenge is that the primary purpose of the contract is to design the project. Construction of the project, as an option, might never be awarded. For such a small project, subcontracting and/or joint venturing and layering of subs would seem to eat up the budget. And would a consortium of firms be interested in small shares of a small project? Small A/E firms might be unable to obtain performance and payment bonds on their own. Bonding companies require some capitalization or other security, since it isn’t insurance. A surety will generally go back to the bonded contractor to cover any losses.
  6. If you are awarding a contract to design a project with an option to construct it, it isn’t a “design-build contract” . It is an A/E contract. A design build contract is an integrated contract upon award with the firm intent to construct a project. There isn’t any legislative authority to award a design-build contract to design a project with an option to construct it. You must follow the Brooks Act procedures to select the A/E to design the project.
  7. Not sure of the reason you are asking here rather than ask the KO. If the answer is yes do the report, you will be reimbursed, right?
  8. dsmith, I no longer teach the class. The class uses the CSI Format. Our Army Chem-Demil Systems Contracts, using the UCF were under a Service Contract Umbrella. The PCO was in Rock Island, IL. Their organizational name changed so much, I don’t remember what they were called. Some systems contracts were a combination of FFP construction and CPFF services. Others were CPFF for both. Others were single award ID/IQ task order contracts with CPFF design tasks and CPAF construction and operations, etc. tasks. Mixed bag, based upon the maturity and type of De-Mil Process designs and the types of Chemical Weapons and the chemical weapons agents being destroyed. Mustard, Sarin, and VX. Whoever designed those weapons never designed them to be de-militarized. MAD scientists!!!!
  9. True, true (first statement) Regarding second statement, the title of this thread is Distinction Between Sections C and H in UCF. The original poster made reference to construction contracts. My initial reply explained some differences between Sections C and H for construction or design-build. But it could be applied to services, too. Then someone mentioned that he thought that construction, design-build construction and A/E contracts would rarely use the UCF. The USACE uses the UCF for its A/E contracts. Other than for DOT/State Highway department work, USACE probably awards more government A/E contracts than most other agencies. As for construction, numerous agencies use the UCF. Many of my non-DoD students in my D-B class over a period of 20 years confirmed that. In fact, my last program before retiring involved six huge Systems Contracts to build (1/2 of them were design-build) , systemize, pilot test and operate, full operations and de-construct Chemical Weapons Demilitarization Plants around the US. The contracts were in the UCF format. Construction alone was many hundreds of millions of dollars. I personally don’t like the UCF for construction and especially for D-B, which involves non-traditional roles and responsibilities for both government and design-builder. The FAR clause for Order of Precedence doesn’t make sense for design-build contracts in either CSI or UCF. I think the UCF fits services and supply contracts better than construction or D-B. But the fact is that it is also being used for construction and D-B.
  10. You can purchase a used fourth edition for under $100 or a used 3rd edition for under $50. Here is a link to used textbooks 4th edition. https://www.gettextbooks.com/isbn/9780808034094/
  11. Carl, I wasn’t debating the order of precedence. My initial post was in response the the OP’s question concerning what goes in Section H vs. Section C - or in essence, what is Section H for? By the way, there are over 200 pages in EP-1-7. What page were you referring to? For an A-E contract, there are numerous mandatory references applicable and there will be an attached specific Project Development Booklet or similar name, as well as the approved congressional authorized MCP (Air Force) or MCA (Army) scope and PA (I have forgotten the DD Form number). Also any site plans and geotechnical or other test reports, previously performed. .
  12. Unfortunately, there are many organizations using the UCF for construction and D-B contracts. It definitely appears so to me as a member here over the years. From reading his past posts over the years, even Vern isn’t completely familiar with the CSI format for construction contracts. When using the UCF, the order of precedence clause at 52.215-8 is mandatory. “FAR 15.209 …(h) The contracting officer shall insert the clause at 52.215-8, Order of Precedence - Uniform Contract Format, in solicitations and contracts using the format at 15.204.” And USACE A/E contracts use the UCF.
  13. In particular, since many or most contract clauses are included by many organizations by reference, I wonder if many people actually read or know them. Those who have to administer contracts after award usually aren’t the same personnel as the solicitation writers. Especially fun (NOT) to try to determine and find the specific dated version of a clause that was applicable at the time of the solicitation and award, if updated since, or even discern whether or not they are the same version… I believe that, if you don’t want to clutter up a solicitation, you should include the clauses as an attachment or at least have a link to a document containing the applicable edition of the clauses.
  14. …and the section H requirements are meant to take precedence over the proposal or section C as Vern mentioned above.
  15. Section I contains requirements that generally apply to contracts. Section H would or could contain requirements specific to an installation or agency for its contracts, as applicable for that type contract(e.g., construction contracts, work on an airfield, work in restricted or security areas, State or other environmental requirements). Normally expected adverse weather for each month also comes to mind, for a specific installation or location. Other similar requirements, specific to types of contracts, an organization or location come to mind. Another example would be some of the unique, non-traditional general roles and responsibilities of the parties for design-build contracts that were never incotrporated into the FAR. Why write or re-write general type of project or other location specific requirements in Section C each time??
  • Create New...