C Culham

Typo? In my research it does not seem like a "chance" but a fact that Cx is performed by members of the architectural and engineering professions (and individuals in their employ). Reference for example the American Society of Heating, Refrigeration and Air-Conditioning Engineers has a standard regarding Cx. https://www.ashrae.org/news/esociety/updated-commissioning-guideline#:~:text=ASHRAE Guideline 0-2019%2C The,and consistent approach to commissioning.

I added the emphasis. I am piling on but I do wonder why you need to innovate? Has your previous contractor in the past stopped working? Or, are you just trying to solve an internal matter on proper contract administration and action? I really suspect the latter. If true then solving in the manner you have suggested, as noted while I was typing this, isn't going to help. Obtaining Funding? Because of continuing resolutions, non-responsive program folks doing their thing, or ????? Work on solving that with innovation and communication. Suggestions, again while I was typing, have been offered. Your innovation needs to be with program and budget people not a drummed up contract process regarding options. Modification Timing - So trouble with getting the modification out, right? But what about the preliminary notice of 52.217-9 does that go out timely? If not do you realize the government has surrendered its unilateral right to exercise the option and the option should be exercised bilaterally. A bilateral modification properly negotiated and worded solves your late problem. Timely notice but untimely modification being sent? Well consider CO authority and the ability to send a communication to the contractor - "We sent you the preliminary notice, we have the money, I am exercising the option, you are authorized to continue to work, a formal modification will be sent to you soon."

My point was not that FLSA requires the government to pay the contractor, the contract dictates (or not in your situation) what the contractor will be reimbursed under the travel CLIN.. My point was that if the matter becomes one of negotiation, as has been suggested in this thread, the contractor may have a cost of paying employees for travel if FLSA applies.

Well heck I think that the OP is off in the right direction but just to add to the confusion that this thread created here you go found here -https://www.acq.osd.mil/dpap/policy/policyvault/USA003581-16-DPAP.pdf AJ = Cop = a cylindrical or conical mass of thread, yarn, or roving wound on a quill or tube Someone made up AJ? AJ is a reportable unit of measure as well in the FAS Sale Reporting System (SRS) of GSA. 🤷‍♂️🤷‍♂️🤷‍♂️

More detail is needed. By example.... What does the actual contract say, what are the services, etc? And then there are those rules that apply outside the contract so to speak. The contractor may have a legit cost under FLSA for certain employees when the contractor has to pay for travel time. https://www.dol.gov/sites/dolgov/files/WHD/legacy/files/whdfs22.pdf

You may want to visit with your FOIA office or representative. By experience there is probably a relation to FOIA Exemption 4 but as it goes details may count. Just a suggestion in case the requester presses for the information.

Could be....below is from the reference I already provided. I had this thought from the get go. What does the CO say about the situation? Per the OP we have one COR talking to another. It would seem the CO is the one that has the say. c. Administrative property typically does not meet the definition of GFP; however, the terms and conditions of the contract may dictate otherwise. Before establishing formal GFP records for administrative property when no previous accountable property record has been established, the responsible APO must determine, in coordination with the contracting officer or legal counsel, if the property can be designated as “incidental to place of performance” as defined in Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) Part 45.000(b)(5). When administrative property can be so designated, a formal GFP record is not required. If the property does not meet “incidental to place of performance” criteria, the responsible APO must establish a formal GFP record.

Alternative #1 - Oh what the heck tell your other COR not to worry, after all the leaders of Forum think it is a trivial matter and are hung up on ASPR and where to find it. No big deal that some contractor employees are running around with official government laptops which allow access to who knows what, just move along. Especially when the leaders give off the cuff responses without reference. Alternative #2 - Don't get hung up on typos everyone including me , make them in Forum. Do some due diligence as the property you are talking about is very important to the security of the United States and maybe talk to somebody at MICC. Or do some reading, it is advocated in Forum, and figure out that there is guidance and that guidance is found here - https://www.esd.whs.mil/Portals/54/Documents/DD/issuances/dodi/500064p.pdf. And most importantly the guidance provides this ( I added the emphasis) - a. Accountable property records will be established in an APSR for: (5) Property of any value provided to a contractor as government furnished property (GFP).

Good advice. @brian1970 I do like doing initial research on questions posed in Forum. I found this that might help you, not specifically, but to wrap your arms around the whole of TAA.

Yep but all the same...cherry picked quotes from a Department CLP memo....one I am familiar with but I am willing to bet there are others! It might be dated yet demonstrates a viewpoint that I do not think has changed. "...Monitoring progress and completion of continuous learning (CL) is a joint effort between an employee, their Supervisor, and the Bureau CL Manager (typically the ACM designated in the USDA agencies (ACMD))..." "...FAITAS will indicate when employees complete the required number of CLPs for maintaining certification. The employee must then submit a CL Achievement Request for their supervisor’s approval; once approved, the request will be reviewed for approval by the Bureau CL Manager (BCLM). The BCLM is the final approver for accepting CL events and their associated CL points (CLPs). CLPs will not be accepted for attending duplicative events (courses, seminars, conferences, etc.) within a four year period...."

Agreed but by experience the OFPP guidance is just that and agencies have adopted the government centric view even when the supervisor suggests strongly to approve the CLP's. One more nail in the coffin for OFPP effectiveness.

Would you be willing to accept 9.104-3(b) as a reference as well?

The quotes I have picked are not to dwell on each but to further an element that is missed in the discussion with regard personal commitment. Directing my comments towards the civilian side of the house I have always wondered why what I will call "life experiences" do not count for much. I agree that to an extent life experiences are noted such as being an avid and broad reader but if one looks at the FAI certification and what is noted as core competencies there is a whole world where they can be achieved. Yet when it comes to CLP's to support "continuous learning" the professional is solely directed to knowledge and assets with emphasis that are government centric. Some how personal commitment should be acknowledged and a persons outside interests acknowledged and given credit. Being a professional does not stop at the door of the Federal building. To quickly try to get to my point why isn't doing things like achieving a USCG Captains License, meeting qualifications standards and having experience in court mediation programs , participating substantially in civic activities such as serving on a planning commission, a city's budget committee, being an officer of the board and otherwise active with an NGO, acknowledged as ways to achieve competencies? If acknowledged officially maybe doing so is a measure of personal commitment as well?

Or maybe, based on most recent discussion the need for OFPP?

This makes me wonder......while not completely during my professional career yet during most of it I have found WIFCON to be of great use. I could be biased when I read the quote but made me wonder what the age is of those posting questions in Forum....the 7% or ?

So what does one of the CLINs for the contract look like? I am use to seeing them for food services to indicate meals, snacks, or something like the following.... ITEM NO SUPPLIES/SERVICES MAX QUANTITY UNIT UNIT PRICE MAX AMOUNT 0001 Breakfast FFP Breakfast as described at paragraph 5.14 of the Performance Work Statement.. 68,000 EA $___________ $______________

Have you visited here - https://gsaschedule.com/reporting-compliance/novation-change-of-name/

The how and implied why to evaluate a simplified acquisition (both non-commercial and commercial) is stated in the FAR. The very "Purpose" of which is to promote efficiency and minimize burden. "(T)two TEP's" for a "Quote" for mowing and sprinkler maintenance is not efficient and is burdensome on contractors and the agency and therefore questionable exercise of authority. Heck the very fact that there was a post regarding the hypothetical proves the point. If the OP wanted to simply ask if a CO can do anything they want when it comes to establishing TEP's that is whole different story, and yes that question has been answered and one which I do not disagree with and have stated same in this thread. The OP did not do that, their hypothetical subject for asking was a quote. You know where you did! At the above quote I did not utter a word. I did when you started with your subsequent posts and you know which ones. So to be clear I saw the Hear Hear post, read it, did not respond to it and appreciated it. The extreme was started by you after I responded, again respectfully, to your question.

It is not extreme. In this thread I have simply suggested that for a hypothetical whose very subject is a simple commercial item procurement that the CO should have two TEPs. They can but I disagree on the basis of the following and the rest of the guiding principles of the FAR which suggests doing so is not commensurate with the guiding principles and possibly not a permissible exercise of authority. "The Federal Acquisition System will- (1) Satisfy the customer in terms of cost, quality, and timeliness of the delivered product or service by, for example- (i) Maximizing the use of commercial products and commercial services; (ii) Using contractors who have a track record of successful past performance or who demonstrate a current superior ability to perform; and (iii) Promoting competition; (2) Minimize administrative operating costs; (3) Conduct business with integrity, fairness, and openness; and (4) Fulfill public policy objectives."

Darn it Vern you bait and bait and bait. Read the posts, read them! You do hedge your bets just like editing your most recent post. You see I screen shot what I see and that makes me react. You changed it and you know it but you still left it worded to bait me. Overall it is the third in a line of snide remarks made to others but aimed at me when all that I did was politely answer your question and then you started with the crap. Reading the posts will clearly show the trail. Your gamesmanship is backhanded and I just won't just sit by and let the stream at me. There are a million ways to contribute to the pool and I have done so!

Now, now I think you have forgotten history. I was swimming with whales, inclusive of you and many others, in the early years. Your migration was admittedly far reaching but that does not mean that the route I took was any less. You want to deem it so but in the end I was in the pod whether you acknowledge it or not. And by the way I think there are many in my pod that would acknowledge that appropriate credit to you was acknowledged in my migration. Too bad you feel a want to stomp on it being so every chance you get. Swim on!

Come on Vern, jump in the pool you will like it. After all you hedge your bets all the time. In truth every darn contracting question is " it depends". When the question hits adjudication neither you or I have the last word, the courts or equal do, and for them it even depends on facts not hypotheticals.

Or better market research, or sealed bidding, or no TEP......it just depends! Life goes on!

Difference of opinion. For clarity what I am saying is the TEP is not required by the FAR for a quote, or even a RFP ( team yes but not panel). Agency supplement or policy might require a panel but it is not required by the FAR. I do agree the CO can do anything they want including establishing a TEP for any procurement, even a micro-purchase. So what is too far? The very reason the Federal procurement process is in disarray is because the general rule of simplified procurements has been so distorted into being like FAR part 15 procurements. Won't count for much but the best interest of the Government is to keep it simple, the FAR echo's this strongly. I appreciate the view but as it goes I am settled in mine.

Yeah I know but I struggle as usual as you all are saying go for it because the CO says so but is the CO doing so a proper exercise of authority? I really question that it is. Could it not be that the strategy for two TEP's for a quote (commercial or not) is not in the best interests of the Government and using a TEP for a quote (commercial or not) is addressed in the FAR (regulation) as not required therefore doing so is not a permissible exercise of authority? Dumb hypothetical!