Jump to content
The Wifcon Forums and Blogs

C Culham

  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

0 Neutral

1 Follower

About C Culham

  • Rank
    Contributing Member

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Not Telling

Recent Profile Visitors

14,543 profile views
  1. I was typing essentially the same response. I would really push back at the Area Office that issued the COC as the first step. Guessing here but I suspect some new influencer that really does not have a grasp on the COC process.
  2. I have never heard of a partial as well. I am confused by the FAR citation as no such section of the FAR exists. Reaching further into the proposition of a partial that you have expressed it seems the whole matter of SBA's issuance of a COC is in question. Just a reminder that if the agency has strong differences with SBA on the issuance of a COC the matter can be raised to higher levels. I am noting this because an SBA Area Office may be attempting to roll their own on how a COC is to or not to be issued. One might consider a challenge to see what the basis for a partial iss
  3. Beyond the specific scope of the base IDIQ and task order your question also reaches to issue of appropriations law and such things as availability of appropriations (use, bona fide needs rule, etc.). While the acquisition folks can have reservation about use of funds the project people are the responsible purse string holders for using money within the side boards of the appropriation (funds) they have been provided for specific mission goals. There may be more than a deep dive on the appropriations side than the view you are providing of simply rent versus own. To help in researching your
  4. Well from my chair such notification flies in the face of FAR 19.502-2 and other similar FAR citations with regard to SDVOSB, VOSB, and HUBZone set-aside determinations. For me it is a crazy way to do market research on which set-aside determinations are to be predicated. Especially when there are other tools available to make the set-aside determination upfront as required (it is the imperative of "shall" after all).
  5. The CO on behalf of the government can terminate a contract for convenience when it is in the best interest of the government. The bar for establishing a "bad faith" termination is high. Take for example this statement from the CBCA as found in https://cbca.gov/files/decisions/2016/SULLIVAN_05-17-16_5083__UNIVERSAL_HOME_HEALTH_AND_INDUSTRIAL_SUPPLIES_INC.pdf "Generally, the contracting officer may terminate a contract for convenience without cause whenever it is determined to be in the Government’s best interest. FAR 52.212-4(l) (“The Government reserves the right to termination this co
  6. This intrigues me. I might agree it is not set aside. So going to the OP's thoughts why would the limitations clause ever apply in a strict read of the FAR? Acknowledging that VA policy may state that it is to be included. Carrying the thought forward.... The FAR prescription says this emphasis added - "The contracting officer shall insert the clause at 52.219-14, Limitations on Subcontracting, in solicitations and contracts for supplies, services, and construction, if any portion of the requirement is to be set aside for small business and the contract amount is expected to exceed th
  7. Just a thought as the discussion on this continues. I suggest first step going forward is to review FAR subpart 4.10 regarding CLINS as the starting point with its read combined with the thoughts of this thread.
  8. I appreciate all the comments but this quote in the OP's original post makes me go Hmmmmmm with regard to GAO, protests, procedures, etc. etc. Seems the agency has created their own dilemma at the get go! Just saying!
  9. From the Service Contract Act Directory of Occupations...... 30360 PARALEGAL/LEGAL ASSISTANT (Occupational Base) The Paralegal/Legal Assistant performs a variety of legal assistance duties in an office providing legal assistance to attorneys or litigation teams. The Paralegal Assistant analyzes the legal impact of legislative developments and administrative and judicial decisions, opinions, determinations, and rulings, conducts research for the preparation of legal opinions on matters of interest; performs substantive legal analysis of requests for information under the provisions of vari
  10. You have gotten great advice on your questions but the above jumped out at me. I wondered what is the PM's relationship with their own company especially those, for lack of a better term, that control the purse strings. It would seem that if the PM's relationships are putting the company in a loss or loosing position someone would not like that. I know I would not if I owned the company and would appreciate someone inserting themselves in a professional manner to point out the situation for at least discussion and in the end an approach to deal with the matter going forward.
  11. I am confused just a little by this response, I agree with it, but confused as it does not provide clarity on the use of clauses noted by the OP. First -9 is not a clause for use in adding optional needs to a contract it is for the purpose of extending the term of a contract that has options. What is available as optional needs clauses are -7 for supplies and -8 for services. As noted by the prescription for either -7 or -8 is that wording must be "substantially the same" so the OP should choose the clause based on what the contract is for - supplies or services - and then re-
  12. I do not want to extend this discussion in eternity but on a basic level I could see where an agency determines that there should be a COR for an interagency agreement that is formed to do an "interagency acquisition". After all it is by FAR an acquisition document is it not otherwise the interagency acquisition by FAR could not take place. Additionally specific to FAR 2.101 and definition of acquisition it does include "and those technical and management functions directly related to the process of fulfilling agency needs by contract." The clincher of course being other agency policy or r
  13. Keeping in the realm of multiple award IDIQs there is the consideration of whether it would be GAO or the agency ombudsman which then reaches back to CO discretion that General notes.
  14. @Tzarina of Compliance this is not to disagree with anything posted in this thread but you mention IDIQ, Task Order, and RFTPO. I am always reminded when I see questions regarding IDIQs that the terms and conditions of the parent IDIQ rule with regard to "fair opportunity" process. You and the several have mentioned what the RFTPO says or does not say but I highly suggest that you review the parent IDIQ as well. It could in fact set the parameters of the key personnel evaluation and key personnel replacement and that is why the RFTPO simply asked for names. With this said I am guess
  15. A little research might help. By example..... "The USAID Agreement Officer (whether a warranted contracting officer or an Assistant Administrator), as the signatory for an interagency agreement, bears the legal responsibility for the agreement. Therefore, only an Agreement Officer may sign, modify, or terminate an interagency agreement on behalf of USAID. The Agreement Officer is also responsible for overall liaison and coordination with the Participating or Servicing Agency on interagency agreements that the Agreement Officer signs. After the Contracting Officer’s Representative (COR) i
  • Create New...