Jump to content
The Wifcon Forums and Blogs

C Culham

Members
  • Content count

    769
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by C Culham

  1. Mentor Protege

    There are various M-P programs. Might be helpful to add more detail to your question to generate responses.
  2. Try 29 CFR 4.170 and 4.171 for a possible answer to your question.
  3. Small Business Set-Aside

    I deleted the referenced post provided by Matthew . FAR 19.202-6 applies with regard to determining fair market price that is it.
  4. Small Business Set-Aside

    deleted
  5. Not a good clerk

    Regarding FPDS-NG I would agree on the accessibility as it does takes time to understand how to retrieve data. For general purposes I have found https://www.usaspending.gov/Pages/Default.aspx to be fairly handy for quick data retrieval. I have searched it by Department, agency, specific contract number, etc. and usually get sufficiently reliable data, or at least it looks that way. It also serves a purpose for all the interests I have from not only contracting but government assistance in general inclusive of information about farm programs, etc.
  6. natavas - I have a feeling you have looked at these before but if you have not you might want to consider a read of FAR part 10, short and easy read as the FAR goes, and FAR part 12 and as you do consider the preference placed on the Federal government, its prime contractors and subcontractors for buying commercial items. Couple the read of these two FAR parts with the following - http://www.wifcon.com/pd12_102.htm http://www.wifcon.com/pd12_101.htm Repeating what has already been said it would seem that the danger is in the eyes of the beholder as there may be some, on both the Federal and industry side that feel non-commercial items to be a better route than commercial items and vis a versa. No matter the approach those that do not adequately support their decision either way is where the danger lies and the above references will help demonstrate this.
  7. FFP Simplified Aquisition With Travel Award Options

    I know you procurement is not via GSA but you may find this internet discussion on a GSA site useful as you answer your own question on how to proceed. https://interact.gsa.gov/blog/how-do-i-add-travel-costs-services-task-order
  8. As noted an OGC response will be interesting to see. I picked up on a couple of important tidbits in the OP's posts so far that makes me wonder. OGC? Considering FAR subpart 3.104 unless OGC is the agency's ethics official why isn't the agency ethics official part and parcel to the referral as well? By my read of most agency regulations the ethics official is in the position to make determinations regarding employment and financial interests of Federal employees. By my read the referral/contact is prior to the exercise of the option. If this fact is correct it seems such contact could be construed to be prior to and during the conduct of an acquisition again drawing the matter into FAR subpart 3.104. In this case I understand it is an employee (program manager) seeking employment for a another who was a previous employee (presumed specialist) but the manager might just be construed as being an agent for the specialist.
  9. Signing actions above warrant authority?

    The above quotes should be a hint to the OP. Before accepting merely what the FAR says its agency supplements, and individual delegations must be considered as well. The FAR does allow the delegation as supported in this thread but experience will suggest that agencies could very well limit or otherwise prohibit the ability of the CO to delegate below their level. Just like the DFARS matter to DoD agency supplements matter to civilian agencies.
  10. Terminology

    Seeker - We can also leave it that your read is different than mine. But please reread that my confusion was the evolution of the thread that moved from using a RFQ for an in fact acquisition to a maybe acquisition. Even comment confuses because an RFQ is not an acquisition it is a method of market research. The RFI process is explicit via 52.215-3 regarding this.
  11. Terminology

    I honestly am confused by the evolution of the discussion of this thread as it seems to be more about invention than innovation as the suggested use of an RFQ as a market research process does not seem to add value to the processes of the FAR in a fine look. Rather it would add confusion. I agree that an RFQ could be used for market research for an anticipated acquisition. However doing so is a departure from the usual (convention) processes of the FAR and even gets to whether using an RFQ meets the stated conventions of the FAR for words and terms (FAR 1.108). Using RFQ as a term just as if you would use RFI as a term to identify an issuance of a document that may or may not lead to an in fact acquisition process of issuance of an RFP is semantics and lacks good clarity which requires the user to make stuff up. Why do that? By example the process of an RFI has some very specific commands in the FAR when used as a marketing tool (FAR 15.207 7 FAR 52.215-3). There are none for doing the same with an RFQ. Makes me wonder – 1)If one were to use an RFQ are they to handle the RFQ in the same manner as they would a RFI? 2) Would one need a deviation to adjust the 52.215-3 provision or is it a provision that allows adjustment in wording? Innovation is not do as you please, innovation is to take a process and improve upon it and the questions above suggest RFQ as a marketing tool is not an improvement it is simply a replacement that could in fact make more work rather than less. It also has been suggested via a reference to a noted publication with regard to contract formation that a RFQ could be used in a follow on sole source procurement. The same suggestion carries this statement “or by less formal communication.” The approach of less formal communication is what is usually done and makes one wonder what if there is any value adding the nomenclature of “ RFQ” to a document to get easily obtained information for a sole source procurement adds to the process? If so what value? So yes innovate but when you do think about whether the innovation adds value and even simplicity to the current process of Federal acquisition or is it simply a new spin (or even word) on doing the same old thing!
  12. Terminology

    Matthew - Understood!
  13. Terminology

    Matthew - Then your suggestion for use of the RFQ in this thread, by clarification, is as a market research tool rather than an in fact purchase tool, correct? I agree that for instance FAR part 10 (10.002) does not specifically exclude an RFQ from being a market research tool yet it seems counter to a full view of the guiding principles of the FAR which suggests strongly that an RFQ is a vehicle that starts a specific procurement process. Such things as applicable provisions and clauses, unique numbering system, filing requirements, complete processes of FAR part 12 and 13 that suggest RFQ's are evaluated for award and specified forms are these strong suggestions. Additionally while I personally could not find a GAO decision on point my read of decisions I could locate suggest strongly that RFQ's are not merely a market research process but an in fact procurement process. As is the case with discussions in WIFCON and as already brought up in this thread is what is the industry practice or view . A case has been made that in the commercial marketplace (where FAR is not applicable) that the RFQ could have a different meaning. That seems counter to what is actually true where an internet search of "Request for Quotation" in various formats inclusive of combining with the Uniform Commercial Code provides hits that suggest strongly that RFQ's are used in the commercial sector for matter of fact procurements based soley on pricing and not simply market research. Additionally seeking a definition of "Request for Quotation" through an internet search produces multiple hits with the following from the Business Dictionary being representative - "Document used in soliciting price and delivery quotations that meet minimum quality specifications for a specific quantity of specific goods and/or services. RFQ are usually not advertised publicly, and are used commonly for (1) standard, off-the-shelf items, (2) items built to known specifications, (3) items required in small quantities, or (4) items whose purchase price falls below sealed-bidding threshold. Suppliers respond to a RFQ with firm quotations, and generally the lowest-priced quotation is awarded the contract. See also invitation to bid (ITB), request for tenders, and request for proposals." Conclusion is that while the idea of use of an RFQ in the context of the Federal Acquisition Regulations as both a market research tool and an in fact procurement process is a possibility I say doing so is confusing at best considering both the guiding principles of the FAR and what is true in the commercial market place. Overall the idea on whole raises a further question for me that I will not spend time on and that question is - What came first the chicken or the egg from the standpoint has commercial practice been shaped by the FAR or does the FAR in some of the wisdom it has been promulgated from actually reflect what a RFQ has been used for in the commercial market place for tens of years, a documented process for an in fact procurement? I will leave it to others as to whether they will use a document titled "Request for Quotation" (RFQ) to gather only market research data but for me I do not suggest it.
  14. Terminology

    What about FAR 13.003 (c) and (g)?
  15. Supply vs Service

    Retreadfed - It is a category under that you can contract for with a "service contract". Like supplies or construction, are not defined contracts but categories of what you can contract for. More fun! So by my read the FAR refers to "service contract", "supply contract", and "construction contract" but only specifically defines "service contract". Don said this and it makes my head spin - It seems a departure from what Todd Davis actually posted which was that you simply determine if a labor law applies which FAR part 22 says at 22.00. Not sure but this might be better when talking specifically about the FAR - We can categorize services, supplies and construction for particular purposes but for services it is a "service contract" to which FAR part 22 applies. Sounds like a repeat of Vern I guess when you get down to it (also consider his blog here - The OP asked this - "Are we correct in our interpretation? Is this in fact a service since we are paying for labor associated with a repair for equipment? Further, anyone have other policy/guidance that provides a clear definition of a supply vs. a service? " Answers - Yes, see FAR part 37. Yes, again see FAR part 37. Yes again see FAR part 37 for the definition of "service contract" and FAR part 2 for a definition of supplies. The FAR needs definitions of "supply contract" and "construction contract" and let FAR 22 guidance remain as to what labor laws you put in any "contract" as the labor regulations implemented by FAR part 22 such as 29 CFR 4.111(a) seem clear - ".... the nomenclature, type, or particular form of contract used by procurement agencies is not determinative of coverage."
  16. Supply vs Service

    Even fun in this case. FAR part 2 does not define a service contract. FAR Part 22 defines a “Service contract” as “ any Government contract, or subcontract thereunder, the principal purpose of which is to furnish services in the United States through the use of service employees, except as exempted 41 U.S.C. chapter 67; Service Contract Labor Standards; see 22.1003-3 and 22.1003-4. See 22.1003-5 and 29 CFR 4.130 for a partial list of services covered by the Service Contract Labor Standards statute.” FAR part 37 defines “Service contract” as “a contract that directly engages the time and effort of a contractor whose primary purpose is to perform an identifiable task rather than to furnish an end item of supply. “ FAR Part 37.000 states - “This part includes, but is not limited to, contracts for services to which 41 U.S.C. chapter 67, Service Contract Labor Standards, applies (see subpart 22.10).” Conclusion the definition of FAR Part 22 is inclusive in the definition in FAR part 37. So does this mean that there is only one definition of “Service Contract” in the FAR?
  17. Terminology

    ICE-CO - This thread may be of interest with regard to your question.
  18. Thanks.....you are probably back to Vern's comments
  19. Just a thought....... FAR 16.207 - FFP Level of Effort are for under $150K contracts usually, of course can be higher if your agency policy allows. Question was it handled by simplified acquisition procedures? If the answer is yes then a J&A is not needed as you would be in the world of single source and not sole source. See FAR 13.106(1)(b).
  20. Possible help....... https://www.loc.gov/rr/frd/Military_Law/pdf/FLD_2013_Ch6.pdf FAR Part 17.5 and you may already be there if you have an agreement between the two agencies and as noted a simple delegation of the contract might work. Do not forget about GFP if in the contract as there may be some hoops with regard to it. Some agencies have specific authority with regard to delegations that might assist in the transfer. Here is one example - https://www.fs.fed.us/servicefirst/docs/authority-expansion-mou-iaa-10nov15.pdf Hope these help.
  21. MATOC Small Business Set-Asides

    Seeker and here - Are you saying that it is inconsistent with FAR and if you were an agency CO you would not reach out to the small business specialist within your agency and/or SBA to discuss the idea?
  22. MATOC Small Business Set-Asides

    I believe that the view expressed in this thread to implement the innovative idea of the OP has missed a very important step that must be taken before implementation. It was expressed in this thread that a CO should take the lead in pursing innovation (FAR 1.102-4(e)). There is no disagreement but within the same guiding principles it is expressed that an acquisition is to be the product of a “team”. With regard to the proposed approach the primary debate has been the appropriate application of the Small Business Act to the idea. Many have their opinions with regard to such application, inclusive of myself. In the context of the FAR the discussion has been made in a vacuum that is absent the obligation to the guiding principle that an acquisition should be made as a team approach that includes members of the team that are empowered to make decisions within the area of their responsibility (FAR 1.102(a)) and that team participants are to include all from the procurement communities (FAR 1.102(a)). FAR 19.201 provides that SBA is to assist agencies in accomplishing the intent of the Small Business Act and outlines the specific procedures that an agency is required to establish with regard to implementation of the act inclusive of recommendations regarding set aside programs. In the case of the proposed implementation of the innovative OP idea the suggested course has not included the clear demands of the guiding principles and FAR Part 19 that the appropriate agency officer or employee (team member) be consulted as to implementing the OP approach. The Small Business Act as implemented by FAR part 19 is clear that Small Business Administration in concert with the required agency Office of Small and Disadvantaged Business Utilization, or the extension thereof, within the agency’s organization must be part and parcel to the implementation of the OP’s idea as it is also clear the innovation proposed needs clear interpretation of the Small Business Act and its implementing regulations that are inclusive of not only FAR part 19 but that of 13 CFR Chapter 1. So yes go for it, but go for it with complete deference to guiding principles and requirements of the FAR. Doing so will make it a success!
  23. MATOC Small Business Set-Asides

    FAR 19.000 “This part implements the acquisition-related sections of the Small Business Act (15 U.S.C. 631, et seq.),” therefore one would think the associated regulations of 13 CFR 125 which were also codified on the basis of the Small Business Act would have some bearing on interpretation of the guidance offered in the FAR. I am not quite clear why 13 CFR 125 is dismissed so easily? This being said could the more appropriate approach be that you are doing the procurement under FAR 6.203 as a SB set aside and that you are “reserving” awards for the categories (subsets of small businesses) that the OP has identified? I question that you would do a competition as suggested by the OP and “set aside” for an 8(a). I reason in a full read of FAR subpart 19.805, with FAR 6.203, that a competitive reach to 8(a)s would be as a reservation as an award or awards for 8(a). A “set aside” is in conflict with the applicable thresholds that allow for competitive 8(a). To “reserve” might be a different matter, reference 19.502-4? Hope these thoughts help repair some additional chinks in the armor to allow the innovation to occur.
  24. MATOC Small Business Set-Asides

    I suspect further discussion should be deferred to another thread noting the WIFCON basic rule "to be easy" on Beginner original posts. I see the tip of the iceberg as to where this thread may get confusing.. I say this noting that while I get what ji and Don are trying to say I wonder how their positions balance with 13 CFR 125.2(e)(3) & (4)? Conclusion - my suggestion to the OP is to discuss their idea with the small business contact within his or her agency.
  25. Contract modification to stay under $150,000

    A couple of suggested reads to help. DLA's process for seeking quotes is fairly specific and has identified regulations and policy. By my read in certain cases DLA is specific that an award will not exceed $150,000 for a RFQ and provides the process to met this requirement.. Internet search of the DLA DIBBS process will provide detail. Likewise a read of the DLAD (DLA's FAR supplement) will provide additional information.
×