Jump to content
The Wifcon Forums and Blogs

C Culham

Members
  • Content count

    960
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by C Culham

  1. C Culham

    At what price are options performed?

    Did not see mention of the the CFR, has 29 CFR 4 been read in whole with regard to the question?
  2. In the case of SBSA SBA rules could be construed as determining the what "competition" is. In this case FAR 19.502-2 is the read. In the end it probably does not change what the agency has done but there appears to be some real questions as to the response received. Acknowledging that in the case of what I will call a "pure RFQ" the agency need only have a reasonable basis to cancel the solicitation yet mentioning "responsiveness" by the CO just makes me wonder. Likewise, as an RFQ, what happened to to age old idea of "negotiation". I am with Vern and his last post on this one!
  3. Leo1102 - From the MCARS Acquisition Supplement again suggesting organization level not warrant level. 33.103 (NMCARS) Protests to the agency (a) All agency-level protests received by Marine Corps contracting offices shall be subject to review and resolution by the Contracting Officer. ( When an interested party requests an independent review of its protest at a level above the Contracting Officer, the Contracting Officer must submit the protest and the applicable documents described in FAR 33.104(3)(ii)-(iv) to the CCO for resolution. © Protests received at field contracting offices that are not designated as regional offices shall be reviewed and resolved by the CCO overseeing that office. (d) Where a CCO is the Contracting Officer and the protester seeks review one level above the Contracting Officer, the matter will be forwarded to LB for resolution.
  4. It is considered to be chain of command, organizational level, etc. Some agencies either define it as such or imply it in their internal agency policy. REF: Do a Google "What is the definition of Level Above the Contracting Officer."
  5. Not that I disagree with what has been posted to date but does not the question also revolve around what NAICS code the prime decides to assign to the new subcontract under the new task order? In other words it has not been clarified if the sub certified to the NAICS code assigned to the prime contract or to the NAICS code assigned to the subcontract. Primes by my read must assign a NAICS code to a subcontract need to which the sub then certifies status and there are cases where the NAICS code assigned to a subcontract would be different than that assigned to the prime for the purposes of certifying SB status. REF: FAR 2.101 - “Small business subcontractor” means a concern, including affiliates, that for subcontracts valued at— (1) $10,000 or less, does not have more than 500 employees; and (2) More than $10,000, does not have employees or average annual receipts exceeding the size standard in 13 CFR Part 121 (see 19.102) for the product or service it is providing on the subcontract.
  6. Jon – The view you have expressed is one that I have experienced that many agencies have applied. I have been out of the office setting for a number of years but from my view I believe such a policy has been invented based on misplaced control issues implemented by agencies, and possibly the result of GAO or IG audits of card programs, and are no doubt based on issues of fiscal management, but not wise purchasing. For the years of implementation of the purchase card where I was on board I had argued that the view of agencies that you have expressed is in direct conflict with the ideal of a card. Its intent for use is to be more than “simplified”. More importantly I find nothing in the FAR that demands that a card cannot be used for recurring purchases. In noting this I acknowledge the issue of split purchases but this is a different matter and to apply it to the matter in this thread plainly baffles me. I worked in the old stubby pencil days and no one ever complained when a person would come to the imprest fund cashier month in and month out to get toll money. Further no one ever complained the same purchase order, for less than $3000, was written to the same vendor month in and month out to by toll tickets. Yet along comes the card and the misplaced now find that its constant use to make the purchase of a toll (in any form) demands a tool other than the card. Doing so should be more than simple and the card is it. I am sure glad that the minds that have created this overkill are not the same that manage my personal purchase card as I would hate to imagine the bureaucratic turmoil I would be in if I had to set up a BPA or IDIQ contract at my local grocery store
  7. Thanks Vern. My post was not intended to answer the question( and I agree it does not) you have clarified but rather to see if the case I provided was what h2h was referring to. I believe the answer to the question as you have clarified is No. My reference is the whole of 29 CFR 4 which provides for successor contractor obligations only if there is a CBA. If, absent a CBA, a specific contract's terms and conditions provide otherwise then that is a matter of the contract. I will say I have never seen such a contract as all that I have seen simply include SCA and its regulations.
  8. h2h - Was this the one? http://www.asbca.mil/Decisions/2012/56592_013012_WEB.pdf
  9. C Culham

    Price Preference

    I do not know if I count as seasoned but I do have to say that I am thoroughly confused by the scenario that has been put forth and in the end firmly question the approach as it seems that to satisfy mom and apple pie that the answer after all the churn on this thread should be - DO A SMALL BUSINESS SET ASIDE(ref: FAR 19.502-2)! Why? gmdubya post #3 where it is stated "I'm looking at situations that haven't uncovered any (maybe one is out there, but wasn't found) or only 1 Small Business." Then gmdubya post #29 where it is stated - "Because of the conversation I relaized GSA might not be a viable option. If I'm procuring on GSA chances are I'm going to be able to set-aside, 80% of the contractors on GSA are Small." For this reason I am lead to the conclusion that gmdubya's reasoning to pose the question was based on a faulty premise that went out the door with post #29. As to the idea of preference if in fact it was found that through specific market research that could determine a reasonable expectation that offers will not be obtained from at least two responsible small business concerns and award would not be made at fair market prices the idea of a preference is still not reachable based on “the best interests of the Government”.
  10. C Culham

    Price Preference

    I am surprised that reference to FAR 1.102(d) has not tiptoed into this discussion.
  11. C Culham

    Wifcon has a new blogger -- Sterling

    A basis for understanding one's own government as noted by the bloger. Also exposure to something different to gain insight, just as one might gain insight from reading fiction, and to better understand a competitor.
  12. C Culham

    Wifcon has a new blogger -- Sterling

    Such a class could be beneficial especially for the more experienced contract professional. Could be as well for a intensive training program like DHS's Acquisition Professional Intern Program or Navy's Acquisition Intern Program. I do wonder as the premise of the class is that there are best practices that could be utilized in a political structure completly different than China. But I guess if it is felt that such best practices do exist, providing a view of what they are for consideration and use within the US Federal strucure should be considered.
  13. FederalConractor - No. 1 - Your interpretation is correct by my read. No. 2 - Your interpretation is correct by my read but I would be cautious in applying the decisions to a different situation where the facts may vary. I would suggest that a request to SBA for release is still the prudent step to follow. No. 3 - Per my response to No 2, I believe the answer is Yes. See 13 CFR 124.504(d) for the needs. There could also be agency specific supplement to the FAR or other internal policy that requires some of the effort you note as well. Best to check to make sure whether such direction does or does not exist internal to the specific agency. If you have not read the following Wifcon thread which is close to the same questions you have raised you may want to. http://www.wifcon.com/discussion/index.php?/topic/716-removal-of-acquisition-from-the-8a-program/
  14. I find the initial question interesting when the added facts are brought to light. While I would not argue the application of FAR clause 52.233-3 adamantly I do wonder if one could not just extend the performance period without any FAR reference and do it either unilaterally or bilaterally. A BPA against a FSS is not by definition of the FAR or the terms and conditions of a FSS an “Order”, either delivery or task so it raises the question of whether 52.233-3 is in the BPA. This appears supported by clause I-FSS-646 Blanket Purchase Agreements found in most FSS contracts which states in part “( Orders placed under such agreements shall be issued in accordance with all applicable regulations and the terms and conditions of the contract;” or in other words the terms and conditions of the FSS only apply when a “Order” is issued against the BPA. I find no applicable clause reference that says clauses and/or terms and conditions are applicable against the BPA. My conclusion does not account for any language that the BPA might have in it such as "all clauses of the FSS contract are incorporated into this BPA" which would change my view and then suggest that 52.233.3 would specifically apply. So again I just raise the thought that you might be able to simply extend the performance period without a need for a specific clause saying you can.
  15. Have you read your agencies supplement to the FAR? Some supplements do place sideboards on incremental funding and might even mention construction specifically. You will most likely find the discussion, if any, in the agency supplement to FAR 32.7.
  16. C Culham

    DCMA Guidebook

    Jimmie - You may want to take a look at FAR Part 44.3 and DFAR Part 244.3, inclusive of DFAR Clause 252.244.7001, as well. Each lays out some pretty concise criteria for a adequate purchasing system. I am sure DCMA puts their own spin on this criteria for their protocol but having reviewed all it is my view that DCMA's guide up to this point has been built off of the FAR/DFAR. It is interesting to me that most folks in a discussion of a CPSR always defer to the guide with out reference to the guiding principles of the FAR/DFAR as well. Note here that I use FAR/DFAR as my primary reference because in my research of FAR supplements the DFAR has the most comprehensive supplement. A few other agencies do, if they have any supplement coverage at all, but the DFAR is the most detailed with regards to needs for DoD.
  17. Possibly missing from this discussion is reference to FAR 16.505 and specifically 16.505(a)(7). As provided in this thread already the ordering clause actually contained in the contract would apply but in answer to a general question of "what is a task order" the definitioni of FAR 2.101 read with FAR 16.505(a)(7) may help in clearing up what a task order is. "16.505(a)(7) Orders placed under indefinite-delivery contracts must contain the following information: (i) Date of order. (ii) Contract number and order number. (iii) For supplies and services, contract item number and description, quantity, and unit price or estimated cost or fee. (iv) Delivery or performance schedule. (v) Place of delivery or performance (including consignee). (vi) Any packaging, packing, and shipping instructions. (vii) Accounting and appropriation data. (viii) Method of payment and payment office, if not specified in the contract (see 32.1110(e))."
  18. "We find from review of the record that VA received two past performance surveys for Sterling (although the agency only evaluated one of these surveys)" The above quote from the paragraph you have provided indicates to me that the contractor did submit past performance info ( 1 survey), and the VA evaluated it. It just wasn't the info that Sterling intended to provide (4 surveys). Does not seem in conflict with the FAR citation you have provided by my read. If no surveys had reached the VA and the VA still evaluated the firm as "marginal" that would be a different matter in my view.
  19. C Culham

    52.215-6, Place of Performance, and SAM

    Based on this from FAR 15.209(f) (see below) I might ask the CO to remove the particular provision from the reps and certs. (f) The contracting officer shall insert the provision at 52.215-6, Place of Performance, in solicitations unless the place of performance is specified by the Government.
  20. Some thoughts to consider - 15.400 Scope of subpart. This subpart prescribes the cost and price negotiation policies and procedures for pricing negotiated prime contracts (including subcontracts) and contract modifications, including modifications to contracts awarded by sealed bidding. 42.301 General. When a contract is assigned for administration under Subpart 42.2, the contract administration office (CAO) shall perform contract administration functions in accordance with 48 CFR Chapter 1, the contract terms, and, unless otherwise agreed to in an interagency agreement (see 42.002), the applicable regulations of the servicing agency. 42.302 Contract administration functions. (a) The contracting officer normally delegates the following contract administration functions to a CAO. The contracting officer may retain any of these functions, except those in paragraphs (a)(5), (a)(9), (a)(11) and (a)(12) of this section, unless the cognizant Federal agency (see 2.101) has designated the contracting officer to perform these functions. ..... (4) Review and evaluate contractors’ proposals under Subpart 15.4 and, when negotiation will be accomplished by the contracting officer, furnish comments and recommendations to that officer. The whole of 44.202-2 Considerations with regard to Consent. The CO may not be that far (pardon the pun) off in requesting the information but possibly providing a consent request that addresses the considerations the CO is responsible for might just help bridge the gap for the CO's understanding as to why fee and indirect is not available to provide.
  21. In the FAR to CFR comparison it is interesting to note the leap from "additional costs" as used in the CFR to "equitable adjustment" as used in the FAR. Makes one wonder if it is based on case law or simply the Council subscribing to a fairness standard where the CO failed to include the determination.
  22. I understand the following reference is a blog and therefore reliance on it could be questioned but I thought I would provide the reference all the same..... http://interact.gsa.gov/blog/gsa-schedules-and-idiq-orders
  23. sunset - You might find the following artilce from the August 2012 NCMA's CM Magazine a good read with regard to 1099 contractors. The Oxymoron of the "1099 Employee" Exploring the use of so-called "1099 employees" on U.S. government set-aside contracts, and some practical guidance relative to this complicated area of law. By: Tom Reid and Cathy Etheredge
  24. C Culham

    Past performance not evaluated

    There may be flaws in the solicitation but it appears that the answer to the question of why no past performance relates to “simplified acquisition” and FAR Part 13 (13.106-2((1)) and not FAR Part 15. Noting this based on references in previous posts in the thread to Part 15 and/or terminology used in Part 15. Dare I say it is refershing to see where a contracting person took to heart "simplified"! As for the use of “X"’s I am not too quick to judge based on a look at FBO and the solicitations that do use. Could be a system thing that they are working around to get services to folks?
×