C Culham
Members-
Posts
2,929 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Blogs
Events
Store
Breaking News
Everything posted by C Culham
-
Justification for Consideration
C Culham replied to Seeking2Award's topic in Contract Administration
Deleted seems the OP has found a way forward. -
Other than commercial product or service.
-
Justification for Consideration
C Culham replied to Seeking2Award's topic in Contract Administration
Have read through this thread? -
Missed Size Protest Window Due to Missing Information
C Culham replied to Salus's topic in Contract Award Process
My read of the regulation suggests a CO may question the representation at anytime so Joel's suggestion to contact the CO might work. Truly a egregious representation. Maybe the agency OIG? Maybe your congressional representatives? -
Someone Read the Section 809 Panel Report
C Culham replied to WifWaf's topic in Proposed Law & Regulations; Legal Decisions
I apologize I just saw this. My thought is this... Leaving the decision to the CO is trouble some. Many COs and the contract writing systems they use have trouble getting the right clause in a contract. Imagine having to review a statue to determine application. Examples. Does not this wording make SCA applicable - 41 U.S.C. chapter 6702. ". .applies to any contract or bid specification for a contract, whether negotiated or advertised, that..." Likewise The American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009, by my recollection (did not research) had a requirement that any project private or public that used its fund must use USA steel. -
Interesting view when you consider that the DoD OTA guidance states this on page 10. Seems management has not adequately defined the "who" for a successful OTA effort. ""AOs need not be Contracting Officers, unless required by the Component’s appointment process. Each Component is responsible for determining the Defense Acquisition University (DAU) and/or Component provided courses AOs are required to complete. DAU has offerings online as well as virtually led by instructors on OTs for members of the Government team. BEST PRACTICE: As the Standard Form 1402– Certificate of Appointment cites the FAR as the authority for a warrant, it is best practice to either edit this certificate for AO warrants or create a custom letter type document." I guess by "Component" they mean as defined by 2 CFR 1125.937 and if so think of the confusion! But who knows?
-
Rest and Relaxation
C Culham replied to DOECPA's topic in Contract Pricing Including CAS & Allowable Costs
I believe no one can answer your question without seeing the task order AND the parent contract under which it has been issued. My suggestion is that you get the parent contract read it completely. I suspect doing so will answer your questions. -
Quick read article with link to DoDs OTA Guidance. https://federalnewsnetwork.com/contracting/2024/02/dod-dispelling-lingering-myths-about-otas/?readmore=1
-
Well as the thread has departed from the original post I might as well respond to @Don Mansfield lastest comment on business class travel. I find it interesting that the lead sentence of the regualtion (Title 41 CFR 301-10.103) regarding other than coach applies a "prudent person" standard yet the following paragraphs to the sentence do not support such a standard. Afterall I as a prudent person in doing personal business do consider comfort on any flight I take. Comfort is not allowed in bureaucratic terms it seems. "301-10.103 When may I use other than coach class accommodations? You are required to exercise the same care in incurring expenses that a prudent person would exercise if traveling on personal business when making official travel arrangements. ..."
-
@joel hoffman @here_2_help I had this additional thought. It probably has no nexus to travel, and I do not want to open another can of worms, so I will offer my thought as quickly and concisely as possible. Application of Service Contract Act. Again no conncection to travel but it is interesting to me that those that calibrate equipment can be exempted from SCA. FAR 52.222-51. Same basis of thought as expressed by here-2-help or just some labor thing that has made its way into the USDOL regulation, I did not research so who knows. Yet extending the line of thinking to travel if business travel is a market or catalog thing could not the ideal of 52.222-51 help justify as to why, if I was still a CO, a contractor's travel policies, especially if a stipulated catalog price or a confirmed market price , help support the business travel. Dumb comparison or not it would not stop me from putting this conclusion in a fair and reasonable price determination and then leave it to higher up legal or court of opinion to decide it it was dumb or not.
-
I am not sure if you agree, or any one else for that matter but here is my view. The notwithstanding language also relates to the discussion in FAR part 12 with regard to "tailoring" or in otherwords the indirectly referenced. Specifically FAR 12.302(c) and the tailoring of a clause that could be done or should not be done. ( I hope I am making sense!)
-
POSTSCRIPT III: OUR COMPETITIVE SYSTEM by Vernon J. Edwards
C Culham replied to bob7947's topic in Recommended Reading
The discussion in this thread began with an article that provided observations and conclusions regarding use of acquisition processes for a commercial product and services. I already raised wonder about market research which in truth appears to be unknown. The thread then morphed to debate over training regarding commercial acquisition. Your revisit to market research as a premise on your part is but one element that could be an added observation and/or conclusion. In truth I see it as further support that training helps breed excellence not the single factor that creates the excellence of a commercial acquisition. -
POSTSCRIPT III: OUR COMPETITIVE SYSTEM by Vernon J. Edwards
C Culham replied to bob7947's topic in Recommended Reading
Wouldn't it be post judge? You are changing the landscape. I never argued perfection. I would argue training would support tailoring, use of UCF, etc. No procurement is perfect. Training leads to excellence. -
POSTSCRIPT III: OUR COMPETITIVE SYSTEM by Vernon J. Edwards
C Culham replied to bob7947's topic in Recommended Reading
Well I will upack just a little for you. Commercial Item yet use of the Uniform Contract Format. I think FAR 12.303 has a "shall" in it. SF-26? And both 52.215-1 and 52.212-1 in the solicitation the latter not tailored. I stopped there...... Agreed as my case is made and I will leave it at that. -
Negotiate with a Sub?
C Culham replied to FLContracts's topic in Subcontracts & Subcontract Management
Not mentioned in your post is FAR subpart 44.2 and its applicability to the procurement. If applicable have you considered the guiding principles in the subpart? -
POSTSCRIPT III: OUR COMPETITIVE SYSTEM by Vernon J. Edwards
C Culham replied to bob7947's topic in Recommended Reading
Are you therefore saying they are adequate with regard to commercial product or service? If yes my view differs and is supported by the lack of a specific training regarding FAR part 12. To reinforce, yours and FormerFed's position seems to suggest everything is fine and dandy and those that have been trained are not applying professional study, intiative, experience, etc. But it has not by specific examples offered and as such leads to my conclusion regarding training Remember my comment and continued comments are aimed at the "Team" not just the 1102 yet inclusive of the 1102, along with the 1105, 1101. -
Using your limited facts does this FAR reference apply as the facts of the procurement are peeled away? FAR 31.102. Think price analysis. I will take a swing. If what I will call no exception of FAR 31.102 applies to the specific instance (no cost analysis) and noting that the "Payments" paragraph of 52.212-4 inclusive of the Alt 1 can not be tailored here is my view. By a literal read the travel as a Other Direct Cost shall be paid to the contractor at "actual cost" paragraph (i)(1)(ii)(B) and paragraph and (i)(1)(ii)(D)(1). I see nothing that says such cost shall be in accord with FAR part 31, the JTR's etc. My view is limited to the FAR and does not consider what an agency might supplement the FAR with. Conclusion - The applicatioin of FAR part 31 contract cost principles depends on the facts of a fixed price commercial service instant procurement.
-
POSTSCRIPT III: OUR COMPETITIVE SYSTEM by Vernon J. Edwards
C Culham replied to bob7947's topic in Recommended Reading
Interesting that in a different discussion thread in Forum about the MITRE "Contract Protest Diagnostic Tool" sustained protests regarding "customary commercial practices" for FAR part 12 acquisitions is a identified risk area. The other side of the "avoid" coin! -
POSTSCRIPT III: OUR COMPETITIVE SYSTEM by Vernon J. Edwards
C Culham replied to bob7947's topic in Recommended Reading
Probably neither here nor there yet offered in support of Vern's comments. Not that he needs my support it is just my way of saying I agree!!!!!!!! After reading todays additions to this thread I pulled up SAM.gov and the very first combined synposis/solicitation of a commercial product/service I encountered. A professed simplified acquisition that I concluded was not in excess of the SAT (guess on my part but wording of the solicitation made it seem so). With intent FAR 52.212-1 was tailored to change "offer" to "quote" but FAR 52.212-4 was included by reference only no tailoring. Source selection process was stated as "low price technically acceptable" where a techinical proposal and a separate price proposal were requested. I left SAM.gov imagining what I would find if I kept looking. -
FAR 13.106-2 and actions of the parties in terms of discussions
C Culham replied to Sam101's topic in For Beginners Only
By my read... Not a clarification because it could/would remove the offeror from the competition completely. A little different than asking did you mean to dot this "i" where the offeror would not be removed if it was not dotted. Material revision -
FAR 13.106-2 and actions of the parties in terms of discussions
C Culham replied to Sam101's topic in For Beginners Only
I guess by my read of this thread it has landed on a comment made in the Forum discussion thread referenced in the opening post. It depends. I did some research and landed on this decision, it might recomplicate the thread or help I will leave that to each. I do find the decision of interest in that it does put "material revision" on the table as applicable to both quotes and proposals and that allowing a material revision is discussion. https://www.gao.gov/products/b-401726%2Cb-401726.2