C Culham

Members
  • Content count

    691
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

0 Neutral

About C Culham

  • Rank
    Gold Member

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Not Telling

Recent Profile Visitors

9,602 profile views
  1. ji - Just wondering. Considering FAR 12.209 and FAR 31.000 does FAR part 31 have any bearing on the question posed? To add would what is customary in commercial practice have more bearing on whether the accept or not accept "pricing to include pricing for the effort spent in preparing the change proposal?" again in consideration of FAR 12.209?
  2. MAY-D – Not surprising that no one has responded. Maybe they are working on something but for myself I started to and it honestly got quite long. So here is the quick of it. There is much in missing information and your basic information suggests that you have not read FAR subpart 8.4 in a comprehensive manner. You say TO but in reality you would establish a FSS BPA(s) and would then “order” against the BPA just as if you were ordering against the FSS contract of the BPA holder. From there words such as “technical factors”, “evaluation factors”, “pitfalls of not evaluating the BPA at all”, and comment regarding drill down on “experience” while at the same time eliminating factors at all lead to a very confusing post that suggests you are confusing FAR part 15 with FAR subpart 8.4. My suggestion is to re-read the FAR along with the couple of links I have provided below and think about your questions and consider re-posting if you still have questions. Other missing information is what is the estimated value of the use of the BPA’s once established, in general do you work for DoD, and other information that would help in addressing your questions. My guess is someone may have done what you are talking about, you might even continue to do what you are talking about, with the question being - Why? https://www.gsa.gov/portal/contentost./199353 http://www.wifcon.com/anal/analcomproc.htm
  3. The question was this The answer is this.
  4. Please look here https://www.dhs.gov/publication/mentor-protégé-program https://www.sba.gov/navigation-structure/all-small-mentor-protege-program I suggest contacting DHS for specifics about their program. While SBA has established an "all" program DHS's appears to be an SBA approved program. While indicated in a previous post that JV efforts can be part of the program simple subcontracting by the mentor to the protege can also occur. My understanding is that there is not a limitation for mentor (who is a large business_ unless a specific solicitation/contract provides the limitation under a subcontracting plan or performance of work term and condition. Hope this helps on what the programs my allow but again the only authority is DHS for their specific program and the SBA for theirs.
  5. There are various M-P programs. Might be helpful to add more detail to your question to generate responses.
  6. Try 29 CFR 4.170 and 4.171 for a possible answer to your question.
  7. I deleted the referenced post provided by Matthew . FAR 19.202-6 applies with regard to determining fair market price that is it.
  8. deleted
  9. Regarding FPDS-NG I would agree on the accessibility as it does takes time to understand how to retrieve data. For general purposes I have found https://www.usaspending.gov/Pages/Default.aspx to be fairly handy for quick data retrieval. I have searched it by Department, agency, specific contract number, etc. and usually get sufficiently reliable data, or at least it looks that way. It also serves a purpose for all the interests I have from not only contracting but government assistance in general inclusive of information about farm programs, etc.
  10. natavas - I have a feeling you have looked at these before but if you have not you might want to consider a read of FAR part 10, short and easy read as the FAR goes, and FAR part 12 and as you do consider the preference placed on the Federal government, its prime contractors and subcontractors for buying commercial items. Couple the read of these two FAR parts with the following - http://www.wifcon.com/pd12_102.htm http://www.wifcon.com/pd12_101.htm Repeating what has already been said it would seem that the danger is in the eyes of the beholder as there may be some, on both the Federal and industry side that feel non-commercial items to be a better route than commercial items and vis a versa. No matter the approach those that do not adequately support their decision either way is where the danger lies and the above references will help demonstrate this.
  11. I know you procurement is not via GSA but you may find this internet discussion on a GSA site useful as you answer your own question on how to proceed. https://interact.gsa.gov/blog/how-do-i-add-travel-costs-services-task-order
  12. As noted an OGC response will be interesting to see. I picked up on a couple of important tidbits in the OP's posts so far that makes me wonder. OGC? Considering FAR subpart 3.104 unless OGC is the agency's ethics official why isn't the agency ethics official part and parcel to the referral as well? By my read of most agency regulations the ethics official is in the position to make determinations regarding employment and financial interests of Federal employees. By my read the referral/contact is prior to the exercise of the option. If this fact is correct it seems such contact could be construed to be prior to and during the conduct of an acquisition again drawing the matter into FAR subpart 3.104. In this case I understand it is an employee (program manager) seeking employment for a another who was a previous employee (presumed specialist) but the manager might just be construed as being an agent for the specialist.
  13. The above quotes should be a hint to the OP. Before accepting merely what the FAR says its agency supplements, and individual delegations must be considered as well. The FAR does allow the delegation as supported in this thread but experience will suggest that agencies could very well limit or otherwise prohibit the ability of the CO to delegate below their level. Just like the DFARS matter to DoD agency supplements matter to civilian agencies.
  14. Seeker - We can also leave it that your read is different than mine. But please reread that my confusion was the evolution of the thread that moved from using a RFQ for an in fact acquisition to a maybe acquisition. Even comment confuses because an RFQ is not an acquisition it is a method of market research. The RFI process is explicit via 52.215-3 regarding this.
  15. I honestly am confused by the evolution of the discussion of this thread as it seems to be more about invention than innovation as the suggested use of an RFQ as a market research process does not seem to add value to the processes of the FAR in a fine look. Rather it would add confusion. I agree that an RFQ could be used for market research for an anticipated acquisition. However doing so is a departure from the usual (convention) processes of the FAR and even gets to whether using an RFQ meets the stated conventions of the FAR for words and terms (FAR 1.108). Using RFQ as a term just as if you would use RFI as a term to identify an issuance of a document that may or may not lead to an in fact acquisition process of issuance of an RFP is semantics and lacks good clarity which requires the user to make stuff up. Why do that? By example the process of an RFI has some very specific commands in the FAR when used as a marketing tool (FAR 15.207 7 FAR 52.215-3). There are none for doing the same with an RFQ. Makes me wonder – 1)If one were to use an RFQ are they to handle the RFQ in the same manner as they would a RFI? 2) Would one need a deviation to adjust the 52.215-3 provision or is it a provision that allows adjustment in wording? Innovation is not do as you please, innovation is to take a process and improve upon it and the questions above suggest RFQ as a marketing tool is not an improvement it is simply a replacement that could in fact make more work rather than less. It also has been suggested via a reference to a noted publication with regard to contract formation that a RFQ could be used in a follow on sole source procurement. The same suggestion carries this statement “or by less formal communication.” The approach of less formal communication is what is usually done and makes one wonder what if there is any value adding the nomenclature of “ RFQ” to a document to get easily obtained information for a sole source procurement adds to the process? If so what value? So yes innovate but when you do think about whether the innovation adds value and even simplicity to the current process of Federal acquisition or is it simply a new spin (or even word) on doing the same old thing!