Jump to content
The Wifcon Forums and Blogs

joel hoffman

  • Posts

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by joel hoffman

  1. As for your services assistance to the Greek government example, the Greeks might not care how you contract for the assistance. However, if it were for construction, I’ll bet they would care.
  2. I would think US Agencies providing military OR non-military services to foreign countries would have some type of country to country or program agreements. If not or if the recipient country doesn’t care who you contract with, then your question is still open. Edit- add: But if they do care, the Part 19 programs are restricted to or favor US Small Businesses, correct? I’m sure that would go over like a lead balloon…
  3. Tzarina, you mentioned the Foreign Assistance Act earlier. Are you specifically asking about non-military agency programs (e.g., USAID, Dept of Commerce, etc.)? I don’t know what country to country agreements apply to such foreign programs. Are you aware of any that would be applicable to your contracts (e.g., USAID)? I’d think that there would be… Thanks!
  4. It was meant to be a tongue in cheek comment. “Let’s report on what we did to improve competition, reduce award times, save money, achieve mission requirements… or…if that didn’t work…what the heck …what we did to achieve the small business goals.”
  5. SEC. 4. PROCUREMENT INNOVATION LAB REPORT. (a) REPORT.—The Under Secretary shall publish an annual report on a website of the Department on Procurement Innovation Lab projects that have used innovative techniques within the Department to accomplish— (1) improving or encouraging better competition; (2) reducing time to award; (3) cost savings; (4) better mission outcomes; or (5) meeting the goals for contracts awarded to small business concerns under section 15(g) of the Small Business Act (15 U.S.C. 644(g)).” Is it [(1)-(4)] or (5)? (1)-(3) and [(4) or (5)]?
  6. This, from the article that Vern provide the link to, is an immediate “Bingo!” For me. “…V. AN EXPANSION OF SMALL BUSINESS SET- ASIDE REQUIREMENTS TO EXTRATERRITORIAL PROCUREMENTS NOT ONLY CONFLICTS WITH THE FAR, BUT ALSO WITH OTHER U.S. STATUTES AND INTERNATIONAL AGREEMENTS ..................................................... 179 A. U.S. Statutes and Treaties Should Control Over the Regulatory Interpretation of the Small Business Act ........................................... 179 B. A Worldwide Application of Small Business Set-Asides Will Conflict with Statutes and Agreements Governing the Presence of U.S. Armed Forces in Other Countries ......................................... 180 C. Applying Small Business Set-Asides to Overseas Procurements Will Also Conflict with the Letter and Spirit of Valid, Enforceable International Executive Agreements................... 184 1. The FAR Exempts From Certain U.S. Laws and Policies [of] Countries with which the United States Has Entered into Executive Agreements ................... 185” EDIT: For example, the 1965 USACE “Engineer Assistance Agreement” (EAA) and subsequent Memoranda Of Agreement (MOA’s) with the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia, various Status of Forces Agreements (SOFAs) and Various Foreign Military Sales (FMS) Agreements and other agreements that covered work in Central Latin America and South America come to mind.
  7. If the information I mentioned is already part of the proposal, then I don’t see a need to ask for anything else after submission of proposals. https://www.acquisition.gov/far/52.222-46
  8. I’m assuming that indirect costs and support are performed by in-house company personnel who support multiple contracts (hence “indirect”) and who are not contractors. Is that correct? Are the personnel accepting, packing and shipping materials directly charged to the contract?
  9. Neil, what is this DoD FAR Supplement in reference to concerning this thread? Tzarina is asking about application of Part 19 to, for example, a technical assistance contract to the Government of Greece, performed in Greece or for services performed in Egypt. For DoD, see 225.7201 Policy: “10 U.S.C. 2410g requires offerors and contractors to notify DoD of any intention to perform any part of a DoD contract outside the United States and Canada that— (a) Exceeds $750,000 in value; and (b) Could be performed inside the United States or Canada. Parent topic: SUBPART 225.72 —REPORTING CONTRACT PERFORMANCE OUTSIDE THE UNITED STATES”
  10. Since price is the most important individual factor, there “might be” a reason for asking for some higher level of price breakdown and/or other than certified cost or pricing data, if the prices vary significantly or all seem to be higher than expected, etc. Because price is the most important factor (of equal importance with the two non price factors), it would seem to me to be a bit inconsistent to evaluate professional employee compensation on pass/fail basis without knowing what constitutes “passing”. If professional employee compensation is to be identified in the proposal, any questions might relate to labor burdens and benefits, etc. I have reserved the right in the solicitation to ask for some price breakdown info or other than certified cost or pricing data after initial proposal evaluation, if necessary.
  11. @Itinerant CO started a thread in the Beginner’s Forum in February 2021, asking if the government could require union only contractors. As part of that discussion, I mentioned the use of Project Labor Agreements for construction contracts and the back and forth political policies regarding favoring of unions as Presidents issued Executive Orders either requiring, encouraging or prohibiting mandatory PLA’s. As of February 4, 2022, Biden has now “trumped” Obama’s EO concerning PLA’s.* https://www.whitehouse.gov/briefing-room/presidential-actions/2022/02/04/executive-order-on-use-of-project-labor-agreements-for-federal-construction-projects/ “Section 1, Policy … (c) Accordingly, it is the policy of the Federal Government for agencies to use project labor agreements in connection with large-scale construction projects to promote economy and efficiency in Federal procurement.” The new EO will generally make the use of a PLA mandatory on large scale construction projects, which will essentially only allow contractors with agreements with organized labor. “Sec. 10. Revocation of Prior Orders, Rules, and Regulations. [Obama’s] Executive Order 13502 of February 6, 2009 (Use of Project Labor Agreements for Federal Construction Projects), is revoked as of the effective date of the final regulations issued by the FAR Council under section 8(a) of this order.” Obama’s order encouraged the use of PLA’s (making it discretionary) . Trump didn’t revise or reverse that EO. Section 7 of the new Order also doesn’t preclude agencies from requiring PLA’s on other construction projects. FAR subpart 22.5 will have to be updated to implement this new EO. I don’t know the EO designation number. It wasn’t stated. *See link on the WIFCON Home Page under Rules and Tools for February 7 2022.
  12. I agree. I don’t understand why TNT is reluctant to provide a clear explanation and the full context of the agreement and the associated prime contract action involved after several of us have repeatedly asked. For what purpose did you agree on a price and it get submitted to the government? Thanks in advance .
  13. Service Contract Act only applies to services performed in the US and specified territories (see definition of United States at FAR 22.1001).
  14. But - what If the solicitation and contract don’t require the contractor to purchase materials, inspect them, pack them for shipment to the worksite, and load them on an aircraft or vessel in the United States? What if this can be done within the local country or any other country and the award isn’t restricted to only US contractors? In other words, if place of performance isn’t restricted during the soliciting stage, then does Part 19 apply? I wouldn’t think so. There are a whole lot of host countries who would not appreciate restricting award of a contract to US based contractors. In fact DoD has Host Nation Agreements with many countries that host US Forces.
  15. Yes and it would seem stupid to me to apply set asides and subcontracting goals and plans for such a contract.
  16. The 2 year old Certificate would not apply to a future solicitation or contract. The OP indicated that it wasn’t part of any proposal to the government and “are likely to be tied to a future prime contract”. We don’t even know whether the prime contract itself is an ID/IQ or only the supply subcontract. We don’t know who agreed with, what it was for or why there is an ID/IQ or price agreement for out year parts acquisitions.
  17. Who knows for sure? Anyway, the certificate is meaningless now.
  18. Who knows? See my edited post above. Anyway, the certificate is meaningless now.
  19. Edited: A thought occurred to me. TNT’s company might have an ID/IQ contract with a supplier that isn’t under or pursuant to any government contract(?) But it would be strange if a private contract was formulated pursuant to FAR format and clauses. TNT never did clarify some questions that respondents asked: 1. “Who” (Supplier, TNT’s company, Government?) agreed to the prices? 2. Was it was pursuant to a federal contract or task order? 3. Why, if negotiated pursuant to an existing contract or task order, was it was negotiated but never ordered? Never added to the prime contract. (Basically, why was it negotiated in the first place?) 4. What type of pricing (cost, FFP, etc,) is such a federal contract priced at? This is another case of an ambiguous scenario, with the OP adding some detail from time to time, which has resulted in much speculation, guessing, pontification, etc., etc.
  20. My understanding from TNT’s somewhat cryptic explanations is that somebody (prime and sub?) agreed on a price for out-year parts but apparently no line items for the parts were incorporated into the prime contract. It is unclear whether the government had agreed on the prices but that would seem moot if the prices weren’t incorporated as line items or optional line items. TNT didn’t say that the certificate of current cost or pricing was submitted to the government at the time. TNT indicated that the parts might be added to this contract at some future point or might be purchased under a separate, future contract or task order(s).
  21. You seem to have said what I said, though I was intentionally softer on the government side (than I wanted to be). Boeing and it’s backers have played the game like a well tuned fiddle.
  22. Appears like you really just need to be able to have input into the qualifications of replacements. People are going to move on. Voila, the approach that we take seems viable and relatively simple, assuming that you are evaluating specific key personnel during the selection process.
  23. Yes, Boeings LPTA lowball strategy to lock in the USAF for the follow on Tanker production orders may look brilliant. That may be a combination of the Boeing strategy, short sighted “limitations “ of the DoD and USAF and concerted political pressures. However, Boeing’s “less than stellar” (putting it mildly) cost, schedule, and quality performance might eventually come back on them. Of course, the same political pressures and relationships with DOD and USAF might stifle competition for a possible“Y” contract.
  • Create New...