Jump to content

C Culham

Members
  • Posts

    2,929
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by C Culham

  1. A little different twist but I think I am saying the same thing as previous responses. Yes you do a price or cost evaluation for a procurement using Simplified Acquisition Procedures that are under the Simplified Acquisition Threshold for the purpose of determining prcie reasonablness. That evaluation is a comparative evaluation to other costs or prices received from other quoters or offerors per the reference you have cited. The exception is if you have stated something otherwise in the solicitation ( see FAR 13.106-2(a)(2).
  2. Would not the ACO along with the CPSR Audit team help you make this decision? Reference FAR 44.3? I pose the question in part not only based on Don's response along with a two fold thought. One - you say T&M for TO's and Two - sole source TOs where I suspect an ACO would want to see what's going on.
  3. I have read the article a couple of times to digest it fully. Thanks to Vern for sharing and Bob for posting.
  4. With the clarification a thought occurred to me that I believe would be beneficial with regard to Beginners Forum. Especially noted as in some cases questions are posed by other than a procurement official, say a contracting officers representative or another individual wondering why procurment did not do such and such. The thought. Once the RA's (Requesting Activiity) requisition goes to the acquisition office it makes good business sense that the RA's efforts do not stop there. The RA should be initmate with the resulting solicitation, evaluation and award no matter how simple to sophisticated the procurment is. A shared effort in my view by both the RA and procurment office. The basic example - here is what was requested by you (RA) and here is what we (procurement office) are doing to get it for you (RA). As boring as it may seem a read of the Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) 1.102-1 through 5 is the reference. It could be a concept that is known and practiced and this one just missed the mark for some reason, but offered as a thought all the same. Yes, Happy New Year!
  5. Consistent with FAR 15.503(b)(2))? Reference FAR 13.106-3(d). My point being if RFP then FAR part 15 is a must to some degree.
  6. We do not disagree but avoided is how do you craft a RFP under FAR part 13? Using a simple example do you place any language in the RFP regarding debriefing and if so where do you grab it from?
  7. Subtle and a long standing topic of discussion. I have always wondered what one would put in a RFP conducted under FAR part 13 if not some salient stuff that either was from or mimics FAR part 15 stuff. FAR part 2.101 "Offer means a response to a solicitation that, if accepted, would bind the offeror to perform the resultant contract. Responses to invitations for bids (sealed bidding) are offers called "bids" or "sealed bids"; responses to requests for proposals (negotiation) are offers called "proposals"; however, responses to requests for quotations (simplified acquisition) are "quotations," not offers. For unsolicited proposals, see subpart 15.6." https://www.wifcon.com/arc/forum54.htm#:~:text=Although the normal procedure is,soliciting offers instead of quotes.
  8. Who knows without further details but it would seem FAR 8.405-6 (b) might be the best bet. (a)(1)(C) looks viable too based on the known facts. Doubt is ever in existence in Fedeal contracting - it just depends.
  9. At first i was like "Really!" and then in thinking about it I could see where I could have been confused with regard to the post and what the "real" question was. That being said the real question that I guess was never really answered of you is - "What warranty clause from FAR subpart 46.7 is in the awarded contract?" If the answer is none then I would sugggest strongly that the warranty for the work is then limited to "implied warranties of merchantability and fitness". Reference - FAR 46.706(b)(1)(iii). To unravel some confusion your stated attempt at providing a quote from 52.246-4(e) by my read (without seeing the whole contract) speaks to inspecition of any warranty work. In other words if warranty work has to be done then (e) applies to that warranty work whether you have an express warranty in the contract or if there is none then it would apply to implied warranty work as applicable. I hope these thoughts help you figure it out.
  10. I am going to make your life difficult since this in not the Beginners Forum. Can't it be a FAR part 12 procurment using FAR part 15 for evaluation and award? I agree with ji, forget about systems. And for me think about your approach instead much like Joel has advised. And bluntly make it a commercial sevice. Think about and apply FAR 12.404, evaluate offerors in part on their stated express warranty. And as final offering is here my quick one minute market research to make it so.... https://sam.gov/opp/d2b0841f04874b34af1c911e80c38ba8/view Good luck!
  11. Thank you for coming back! If I were the CO I would have required a new procurement. My only decision point would be whether I would use FAR 8.405-6 or FAR 13.106-1(b). Done, no legal, no hand wringing a fix for a RA screw up. The light bulb went on for the RA. So sad too bad, as I would conclude the scope was radios with no intention stated in a requisition and the ensuing order that accessories "might" be needed. It was just buying radios. The basic rule (emphasis added) - "Evidence of a material difference is found by reviewing the circumstances attending the procurement that originally was conducted, examining any changes in the type of work, performance period, or costs between the contract as awarded and as modified, and considering whether the original solicitation adequately advised offerors of the potential for the type of work contemplated by the modification." Reference - Chase Supply, Inc. B-411528.2, B-411529.2: Dec 7, 2015 (pdf) found at the following link with many other decisions regarding scope. https://www.wifcon.com/pd6_001.htm The inclusion of a 52.243-1 is a red herring. GSA FSS contracts typically contain a changes statement pursuant to FAR Clause 52.212-4 which I will go out on a limb and say was in the GSA FSS that was used. Moving from one changes clause to another does not signify anything other that on one hand the change needs to be by agreement of both parties or a unilateral right of the government. Adding 52.243-1 also seems inconsistent with both GSA FSS and a otherwise commercial product buy. To fix the bad planning and requisitioning on the RA's part a new procurment is the fix and I would suggest a candid and truthful statement to the file would have adequately covered the matter. Done, no legal no hand wringing and no trying to appease the RA for their error. Yes, my response was not complete with regard to this matter. Taking the easy way out by providing this reference to a thread I recalled. It might help you do further research and thinking about "closed".
  12. Of interest in attempting to answer your question is whether this acquisition will be conducted pursuant to FAR past 12 (Acquisition of Commercial Products or Services) As noted by others whether a FAR past 12 procurement or otherwise I beleive one could deliniate whether a warranty would apply only to the work or not. I know of no such regulation and have researched to see if I could find such a regulation and did not.
  13. Really late to the party but by read of the following guide I beleive your question is best answered by the agency with who the OTA is with. https://www.acq.osd.mil/asda/dpc/cp/policy/docs/guidebook/TAB A1 - DoD OT Guide JUL 2023_final.pdf
  14. Remember the OP did state "let's say". Or in other words facts could help but they aren't forthcoming. Thread should be closed.
  15. I have mulled over the OP's situation and the responses. I do not disagree with the advice provided but it would seem that an appropriate reference is lacking. The OP can satisfy his/her dilemma by either doing a modification to the GSA order, or by doing a new GSA order if the batteries are in fact on GSA. For either the modification or new order it would seem that the OP should consider FAR 8.405-6 when moving forward with the modification or new order. I note this as it would seem that based on the basic principles of competition as required by FAR 8.4 that either the modification or a new order would be considered limiting sources.
  16. But if a RFP does not FAR part 15.2 provide the guidance not FAR part 13? And are there not salient differences between a RFQ and RFP?
  17. I too make typo's but this did put a smile on my face!!!🙂
  18. Thanks Joel....In truth there is a lot to unpack in the OP's two posts. I did a vague first post as an attempt to get the OP to research more. Unknown details count. I say this as peeling the onion leads to lots of places that include or might include FAR 35.016, FAR 6.102(d)(2), 42.703, FAR 15.4 and even into 2 CFR 200 along with agency policy and the solicitation itself to address the OP's situation regarding the indirect rate.
  19. I fear that without additional information the assumptions as quoted above are not being leveled with regulation. Plesse read 42.703-1.
  20. Yes. But you need to clarify your situation and your post. You say "FFP" and "competition" so the question back to you is why are you doing cost analysis? Further "no cost rate certificate"? Does this mean you made a determination not to put 52.242-4 into the solicitation? If you did not why doesn't FAR 42.703-2(c) apply? Is the need at a value where certifed cost or pricing data is not needed? And I might add what did the solicitation say about supporting indirect rates if anything? Hopefully the questions will lead you to a answer on your own.
  21. Splitting is splitting. But I am having trouble relating your questions to FAR part 6 and reference to JOFOC. Having looked at each of the exceptions what thresholds are applicable? Or stated another way FAR part 6 as applicable to acquisitions above the Simplified Acquisition Threshold do not have additional dollar thresholds.
  22. Now I will admit that I have not thought this through completely. Yet this thought came to mind in reading current posts. The parent IDIQ purchases nothing but the Task Orders do. Now I have to go sit down, think about your concerns and my comments but I still think this..the demand for specifics in pricing the NTE seems out of sync.
  23. Got it. Yep well aware of all. Yet your exceprt leaves out important discussion within the FAR that suggests strongly that a FFP procurment is conducted when there is adequate competition to help determine price reasonableness. The questions raised by others might give way to a response by the OP that price analysis alone is not appropriate (no competition). If competitive in truth I believe the quote by Vern that I posted is most important as I view the scenerio as stated to be one where the agency is demanding something that is as stated - "stupid." The alternative - Let the OP use any methodolgy he/she wants to propose the NTE "price". Let the CO use any methodology he/she wants to determine "price" reasonableness. In this instant situation the CO in my view is being lazy and he/she could do exactly what is being demanded of the contractor via a independent government cost estimate. Reference - FAR 31.102.
×
×
  • Create New...