Jump to content
The Wifcon Forums and Blogs

C Culham

  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by C Culham

  1. I too am confused by your post noting that it is posted under the title "Small Business set-aside". At the expense being dinged by others for trying to answer even thought confused here are my thoughts - I get the feeling you are talking about copyright law here which can be very complicated especially noting that with regard to Federal contracts there are clauses that an agency may be required or can at option place in an awarded contract (see FAR Part 27). Here is another reference for you as well - https://www.copyright.gov/circs/circ09.pdf Now I am going to disappear but there may be others that have more experience than me that will respond. In the end however I suggest that your questions should be posed to legal counsel that is experienced in both copyright law and Federal contracting copyright matters.
  2. C Culham

    Consideration in exchange NCE?

    No intent to extend this thread I just remember this discussion from a long time back and thought it might help the OP. I have referred to it on occasion to help me.....
  3. C Culham

    Use of 52.217-9 to extend IDIQ Ordering Period

    @ji20874 While I did not include in my post I did consult FAR 1.102-4(e) prior to considering how I would respond. I think it covers this situation along with the other thoughts provided by Vern with regard to the fact that the DFARS does address the ordering period. Thinking about MAY-D's post your thoughts did give me pause to reconsider the questions and intended wording for the 52.217-9 clause. Based on your thoughts I came up with this.............. Option to Extend the Term of the Contract (Mar 2000) (a) This contract contains two specific Terms: 1) A Performance Term or period which is ten(10) years, and 2) an Order Placement Term or period which is five (5) years. The Government may extend the Order Placement Term of this contract by written notice to the Contractor within _____ [insert the period of time within which the Contracting Officer may exercise the option]; provided that the Government gives the Contractor a preliminary written notice of its intent to extend at least ___ days [60 days unless a different number of days is inserted] before the Order Placement Term expires. The preliminary notice does not commit the Government to an extension. (b) The total duration of this contract, including the exercise of any options under this clause, shall not exceed ten (10) years. (End of Clause)
  4. C Culham

    Use of 52.217-9 to extend IDIQ Ordering Period

    Well MAY-D received no response to questions posed and has not been back to reignite his/her post. Even in the apparent absence of interest I thought I would attempt a response. Hopefully in the view of others I am on the right track..... The question implies that MAY-D is using the UCF suggesting that the intended contract will also include FAR 52.215-8. As the intent is to use 52.217-9 in a format that is "substantially the same" as is provided in the FAR it seems that having the clause in section I is appropriate as the clause still is a clause that should not have precedence over a special contract requirement (Section H). Maybe not "cleaner" so to speak but doing so would be very beneficial to the need to comply with 17.207 which I believe would apply to evaluating the option to extending the ordering period AND the evaluation of the optional ordering period for the initial award of the IDIQ. In the end it could be done either as MAY-D is proposing (10 year contract, 5 year ordering period) or the 5 + 5. Yes I believe it does. As FAR 17.2 addresses any option that is conceived under its general principles then 17.207 would apply. Yes it will work. Again as expressed already the concerns with regard to missing something is the effort to evaluate the optional ordering period for initial contract award and the evaluation necessary to award the optional ordering period. I found this discussion thread in WIFCON that gives a little different twist to the idea that may be of benefit in thinking about the proposed approach of 10/5 + 5 that might be worth the read.
  5. Yes they would be different. A FAR 8 BPA is issued under the FAR 8 parent contract which in essence is an IDIQ contract therefore the rules about placing FAR 8 BPA calls are subject to the specific FAR 8 FSS contract. As such the specific clauses of the FAR 8 FSS contract apply. By example clause I-FSS-646 is in many if not all FAR 8 FSS contracts and addresses BPA use. You may want to refer to it. As already noted by several posts there are no such specific rules. Again the FAR 8, FAR 8 FSS contracts and their terms and conditions govern the who, what and how of FAR 8 BPAs. GSA provides the following website that answers most if not all the questions you might have, including those posed in this thread, regarding FAR 8 BPAs. https://www.gsa.gov/acquisition/purchasing-programs/gsa-schedules/schedules-flexibilities/blanket-purchase-agreements/bpa-frequently-asked-questions
  6. C Culham

    MIL-STD-130 Assistance

    Based on the above and the further discussion in this thread that support my original conclusion that the questions posed by the OP are a matter of contract performance/interpretation we still have left the OP with the approach of having to confirm what the OP should do with regard to marking by the contracting officer/agency. As the agency has not been the best in addressing OP's questions collaboratively I suggest a more direct approach. Something to the effect, again stated in formally in writing and addressed to the CO, that goes something like this - "Based drawing XX at note 4 I (we) have determined through further reference to MIL-STD-130 and your past correspondence to me (us) that the parts upon delivery will be marked as follows. (Then state how the parts will be marked) If this approach to marking is not acceptable please advise as to how marking is not in compliance with contract and will not meet the required standard and contract requirements. Absent a response, within XX days, it will be my (our) understanding that the intended marking are concluded by you (the contracting officer) to be compliant with MIL-STD-130 and will be acceptable performance under the contract." Any thoughts from those that have attempted to help the OP on using such an approach?
  7. C Culham

    MIL-STD-130 Assistance

    Don - I gather you are a contractor and your questions relate to performance and interpretation of the contract requirements. As such you should pose your question to the contracting officer if you are the prime contractor or if a subcontractor to the primes representative. I do suggest that you put your question in writing and request a written response. Hope this helps.
  8. To be able to answer this question you would have to indicate what agency you are talking about. As already mentioned in a previous post concession agreements are not typically covered by the FAR. You need to be more explicit about your situation before more help can be offered. Again who knows without more details and again federal contract requirements may not apply at all. I would be very careful about any ideas to solving your problems offered until you clarify your post as taking the route for instance suggested by Neil Roberts may in fact complicate your situation even more. By example take a look at Forest Service Manual (FSM) 2710 on the internet with regard to how one agency handles concessions.
  9. Maybe ask the Army directly.... M. John Smith SBIR/STTR Program Manager (866) 570-7247 Usarmy.apg.rdecom.mbx.sbir-program-managers-helpdesk@mail.mil Army
  10. C Culham

    Reprocurement After T4C

    No deviation? How so? Have you made that determination based on both FAR 1.401 (a) and (f)? Provision? Related to my comment above are you sure your provision at (a) ((1) does not impact and have bearing on the rights of the contractor being terminated whether T4C or T4D per the termination clauses that would be in their contract. The later is noted as your provision simply says terminated. Full comment made as government has responsibility to mitigate dollars and cents under any termination, partial or full.
  11. C Culham

    Subscription as a service

    Does FAR Part 37 and its definition of service contract help?
  12. C Culham

    We Cannot Explain Our Requirements

    General - Sounds like an opportunity for a Statement of Objectives approach. Has such an idea been considered?
  13. C Culham

    Reprocurement After T4C

    jjj - Have you considered FAR Subpart 1.4 in creating and inserting your provision in light of the comments already posted? Further is it really a provision or should it be a contract clause in consideration of the definitions of FAR Part 2? Leave it alone you are headed down a slippery slope.
  14. A question first. You indicate that 52.222-17 is in the solicitation but was the same clause in the preceding task order/contracts? Also you may find this GAO decision helpful. There are probably other decisions as well that others might refer you to. https://www.gao.gov/products/D13030#mt=e-report
  15. 123 - Did you find this thread when doing your research in WIFCON?
  16. Well here we go. An OP provides dribbling information and then we make conclusions based on the lack there of until it is dribbled out. Question - What if it is a Commercial Item acquisition and 52.212-4 has not been tailored, what then?
  17. And this is problematic to especially if options were evaluated ss part of the award decision.
  18. C Culham

    A Hiring Challenge

    Got it, thanks Vern. I think I wrote and still write for money. Published no, but still for money I think I can say. Likewise for educational recognition challenging 48 upper division credits at Portland State University for which I received the full 48. No font, no word limitation, etc. but still a success on the subject of acquisition. Make my view right or wrong or yours? Nope just how I see the world. Thanks for the brain exercise.
  19. C Culham

    A Hiring Challenge

    No. Addressing the subject I am fine with but the idea that it is a professional challenge escapes me when the requirement of 3000 words, etc. is attached to the challenge. Evaluation "3)" is a disconnect with such a requirement in my view. Let my ability in writing stand on its own especially if I could say it in 2000 words. I almost get the feeling that even though the position "includes no administrative or clerical tasks" throwing the 3000 words, etc. requirement in there is measuring on a clerical element. Accept as I need the job! Adequate with hopes it is recognized through interviews that I will bring other attributes to the position that make me the wanted candidate.
  20. C Culham

    Pre-Award Protest - Subcontractor CPARS

    Consider that subs might have an evaluation in the system if they performed in the past as a prime. Depends as the details would dictate. Considerations that quickly come to mind include what the solicitation, as amended, actually says about what is needed to evaluate past performance and how the information will be evaluated, does the COR have authority to speak on behalf of the CO, FAR 15.305(a)(2) and GAO case law. Sounds like you need to speak to an expert or legal counsel with regard to your concerns.
  21. Always believe you, but not always agree! Thanks for making the effort to give me the trail!
  22. There was a point I was going to take my thoughts off line and go do something else so sincerely an apology for belaboring but in 1962 it was $100,000 I think.... https://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/STATUTE-76/pdf/STATUTE-76-Pg528.pdf I will just sit back and read for a while and leave the too much specifics alone!
  23. Exactly and from top to bottom as in many cases bosses demand that the workforce make it so and prevent them using the innovation that the FAR allows!
  24. And TINA was $100,000.
  25. Might be better to start from the position of "WHY". I continue to do what some believe to be less than acceptable research on this subject and I now wonder if 22.1103 has more to do with price analysis than application of labor law. I say this on the basis of these random thoughts that I have yet been able to fully put together but I think they have bearing. CAS speaks a lot to "negotiated contracts". TINA and the requirement for certified cost or pricing data could, might, depending, or may apply to a TO. Eerily the threshold of 22.1103 tracks to some extent with the threshold for cost or pricing data. (Question - what was the threshold in 1983?) So back to "Why?" and keeping it simple. If my proposed TO award is going to be subject to certified cost or pricing data then I insert 52.222-46 and if not then I decide as a CO if I want to evaluate professional compensation otherwise and so state without using 52.222-46. Otherwise I do not mess with it other than what I might do in an effort to "Consider price or cost under each order as one of the factors in the selection decision." All said keeping in mind that an overruling decision on use of 52.222-46 for a TO on my part as a CO is if I had the provision in the solicitation for the parent IDIQ(s), what the pricing structure will be etc. Other random thoughts that probably do not really matter as this thread progresses but all the same I feel they are worth mentioning, besides they were in a draft I was working on until the last few posts appeared so what the heck. I would suggest that the wording be "reduce the salary/fee paid". Reasoning. FLSA provides that the positions mentioned are exempt for FLSA. FLSA and SCA work together and SCA provides that the positions listed as being exempted from FLSA as also exempt for SCA. Wording used for these positions discusses and emphasizes "salary or fee" and not wages in almost all cases. Not a method as well? The provision states that the government will - "evaluate the plan to assure that it reflects a sound management approach and understanding of the contract requirements. This evaluation will include an assessment of the offeror’s ability to provide uninterrupted high-quality work. The professional compensation proposed will be considered in terms of its impact upon recruiting and retention, its realism, and its consistency with a total plan for compensation." GAO decisions seem to conclude that this is a method that must be used when 52.222-46 is in the solicitation. Never! Haven't we already ruled out commercial item contracts? If yes by my read all FSS contracts are commercial item contracts so forget evaluating professional compensation on these bad boys all together! Keep it simple, right?