Jump to content
The Wifcon Forums and Blogs

C Culham

  • Content count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by C Culham

  1. I I do not know the details of the Governments contract, nor do I want to ask a bunch of questions that finally bleed out all the information about the OP's situation and the OP's contract. But I will say this....what if, again only a "what if", the contract is for the development of an exhibit/presentation for tradeshows and now the Government rather than providing GFP wants the contractor to provide because the Governments processes for buying the laptop are too darn complicated. Lets do the whole emphasis and add "AND TO WHICH THE GOVERNMENT HAS TITLE." And let me add emphasis that can only add the context and information needed by the OP to determine whether the request is legit - ASK THE CO!
  2. I agree that the situation as painted does sound fishy. Consider the following along with responses already received - Contractor Acquired Property is allowed within federal government contracting. FAR Part 45 addresses this broadly at FAR subpart 45.4 and agency FAR supplements give a little guidance as well. If the CAP is not already included in the contract, the contract could be modified to include it. Determination by a contractor that CAP is improper becomes a very detailed issue, it even takes an agency in some cases a lot of research to determine if it could include CAP in a contract (appropriation law, ADP equipment approvals and certifications, etc.). Want to explore how the request you have gotten could be framed by the government as something proper within the contract requirements do both an internet and WIFCON search on "Contractor Acquired Property". In the end if the inquiry was not made by the Contracting Officer, or an authorized representative of the Contracting Office (example - Contracting Officers Representative) your question might be better posed to one or both of the individuals filling these authorized positions for your contract.
  3. No HUD appears to have concluded through the regulatory process to have the GTR be the go to person for both administration of contracts FAR and grants and cooperative agreements. 24 CFR 115.100 “Government Technical Representative (GTR) means the HUD staff person who is responsible for the technical administration of the FHAP grant, the evaluation of performance under the FHAP grant, the acceptance of technical reports or projects, the approval of payments, and other such specific responsibilities as may be stipulated in the FHAP grant.” I wonder how HUD adequately demonstrated how the change of COR to GTR is necessary to implementing the FAR specific to the needs within HUD FAR 1.302 -- Limitations. Agency acquisition regulations shall be limited to -- (a) Those necessary to implement FAR policies and procedures within the agency; and (b) Additional policies, procedures, solicitation provisions, or contract clauses that supplement the FAR to satisfy the specific needs of the agency. In the end HUD seems to admit that their use of GTR is inconsistent with the FAR but what the heck! Reference - see the definition of COTR in this document ----- http://afgecouncil222.com/B/8fac-cotrart5.pdf
  4. Bob - I may not be following correctly but these thoughts occurred to me as I continue to read this thread. 1. The determination of "detrimental effect" might include research of implied authority as in did a certain title other than COR lead to an implied authority issue. 2. I do wonder if clarification of actual authority through statute, regulation and case law has refined the view expressed in the 1927 decision noted and in effect circles back to the ideal that wouldn't it be nice if everyone called a person with contractual authority (with whatever stated limits) simply a "Contracting Officer". Whether such ideal would prevent conflicts arising or related to a contract is the question and it seems it hasn't to date so probably never will.
  5. "Rough Fish" is the more desirable term. Yet a fish by any other name is still a fish.
  6. Bob Can't say that I have swallowed your logic hook, line and sinker, but you have lured me in. As in most cases CARP require no license to engage with would your new acronym also require a certification or could they just swim on their own? GAR was a throw back (catch and release) so I am concerned that CARP may be looked at the same.
  7. C Culham

    IDIQ VS. Requirements

    True but I have seen an approach where "one contractor" is awarded the requirement for this geographic area or other defined location (building?) and another "one contractor" is awarded the requirement for the other geographic area or location. In essence multiple requirements contracts potentially for the same service but that have a delineation that the contractor only gets the requirement based on specifics that separate the delivery location out from being the same requirement delivered somewhere else. More of pain, who knows but I have seen it done.
  8. Oh what a tangled web we weave and should be support to bob that while he and even the FAR attempted to standardize the term Contracting Officer Representative such an attempt within the Federal government will never happen. Good, bad, indifferent who knows but as this thread indicates its not what the title is, it is the authority formally vested in someone that would count in the end. As to USDA, based on experience the term GAR was/is used by the USDA-Forest Service in documents such as specifications published by the agency for road construction and the like. GAR was a catch all term for a inspector rather than a COR. By example a 2014 standard road specification for the Eldorado National Forest - https://www.fs.usda.gov/Internet/FSE_DOCUMENTS/fseprd556548.pdf . Other thoughts on GAR – USDOL Office of the Assistant Secretary for Administration and Management (OASAM), Procurement Related Department of Labor Management Series (dlms), Chapter 870 which is no longer in print. Government authorized representative (GAR) is the program manager designated by the contracting or grant officer to act as the contracting or grant officer's representative in overseeing technical performance and providing liaison between the contractor or recipient and the DOL. (In the various Agencies of the DOL, the GAR may also be called the "project officer", "contracting officer's representative (COR) ," "contracting officer's technical representative (COTR) ," or "Federal Representative (FR)."). And now the DOLAR at part 2902 - Contracting Officer's Technical Representative means the individual appointed by the contracting officer to represent the Department of Labor's programmatic interests on a Department of Labor contract, task order, or delivery order. This individual is responsible to the contracting officer for overseeing receipt and acceptance of goods/services by the Government, reporting on the contractor's performance, and approving/disapproving payment to the contractor. Authority is otherwise limited to giving technical direction to the contractor within the framework of the contract (see 2901.603-71). This position may go by other titles, such as: a technical point of contact (TPOC) or Contacting Officer's Representative (COR).
  9. C Culham

    Multiple CORs

    You may want to review your agency’s FAR supplement and other policy documents regarding COR assignment to refine your idea. Here is one example where multiple COR’s is discussed. http://farsite.hill.af.mil/reghtml/regs/far2afmcfars/af_afmc/affars/MP5301.602-2(d).htm
  10. bob - I am taking the easy route with little research other than that which I can lay my hands on quickly. See FAR part 2 which at some point included the definition of COR. I did not wade through all supplements but the DoD carried the definition forward in the DFARS at part 202. DHHS also carries the COR definition in HHSAR at part 302. Interestingly in the HUDAR at part 2402 HUD retained the GTR to mean the COR. As note I did not do the research to go back and see when this definition was added to the FAR. FAI then reinforced the title COR, at least for the civilian side with this 2011 memo on certification - https://www.fai.gov/drupal/pdfs/FAC-COR_20Sep2011.pdf Edit - I also just ran across this in doing some additional research, which is one DoD agency's take on the use of the COR term. From the "Army Sustainment Command Contracting Officers Representative (COR) Handbook" at page 11. "Personnel appointed by the Contracting Officer to assist in contract administration shall be identified as a Contracting Officer Representative (COR). No other title is authorized by ASC."
  11. C Culham

    Escalation Rates

    Thanks but still slightly confused. Are you saying that since it is commercial item that SCA does not apply or is it both commercial item for a service where SCA does not apply? Otherwise you might to take a look at this previous discussion thread....
  12. C Culham

    Escalation Rates

    So.... Solicitation for a FFP contract with option period(s), correct? Work is a service when labor rates and hours is the driving factor for pricing the work, correct? Service Contract Labor Standard wage determination in solicitation and resulting contract , correct? If all answers are yes then it would seem that contract clause 52.222-43 "shall" be in the solicitation/contract. I am confused why you would also add an escalation rate to the contract as it would seem that 52.222-43 is the allowed escalation clause per the FAR with regard to labor rates? Also confused as to why labor hours might escalate if a FFP contract. I could see where their proposal might indicate why their price is effected by their proposed approach for an option period if they feel their hours will escalate but again still confused why you propose a set escalation in hours? Isn't that left to the contractor under a FFP contract as to how they plan to approach the work?
  13. Another reference to consider is FAR subpart 49.109 if you have not considered it with regard to your situation.
  14. Not disagreeing with the response provided but I think there might be some other questions that need to be considered before moving to the proposed action. They are – So was a bid guarantee provided by the low bidder? Here it is noted that when a contractor secures a bid bond they have usually confirmed with the surety that the surety will in fact issue both the payment and performance bond upon award. How close to the SAT was the low bid and if close will the Government potentially require the contractor to provide increased bond protection should the contract price, as modified, go over the SAT? (Reference FAR 52.228-2) What alternative payment protection will you require? If payment bond consider this which I believe you can confirm with a bonding entity. The cost of payment bond is commensurate with a performance bond. Or in other words a bonding entity will not issue a payment bond solely without a performance bond. This is verified in part by the fact that if you look at the back of a performance bond the premium is shown, there is no such requirement for a payment bond. Who is proposing the idea, the Government or the contractor? In either case are you sure your hoped for result of a price reduction will really result? So the alternative might be if the contractor provided a bid bond, and intends (guarantees) and will provide both a performance and payment bond even with the price being below the SAT, then it may be actually more cost effective to just have them provide both bonds. The Government would have in hand a bond for the performance as well as payment protection and in the end the actual cost to the contractor as passed through to the Government would be no different and you save yourself a lot of paperwork madness.
  15. A thoughts to add to h2h's response that may or may not be important to consider. Noting the proposed approach is the Prime "being the Prime" allowing your firm to price and by appearance do the majority if not all the work be aware that if the project work for which you will be competing is a Small Business Set-aside then the FAR Clause 52.219-14, Subcontracting Limitation may be in the solicitation/resulting contract which would require the Prime to perform a certain level of the work with their own forces. For further reference if the work is a set aside see the Small Business Administrations Regulations regarding subcontracting limitations at 13 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) 125.6. It can be found here - https://www.ecfr.gov/cgi-bin/text-idx?SID=50ff66d5d1cc9357d5f4ce114fcc5c79&mc=true&node=pt13.1.125&rgn=div5#se13.1.125_16
  16. C Culham

    Joint ventures for task orders?

    I suggest seeking legal counsel on the idea whether you are on the Government or private sector side. The idea creates, as already noted, many considerations/complications with regard to the IDIQ and task order itself as well as internally to each entity. With regard to contract/task order processes the questions that quickly come to mind are - Is the JV a successor in interest (Reference FAR subpart 42.12)?; Does the JV need to become registered in SAM: Does the JV need its own TIN; How would award be handled through the electronic data systems now used by many agencies?; What happens with regard to the subcontracting plans that each of the members to the JV might already hold?; along with many other questions I suspect., etc.
  17. C Culham

    How to price option years?

    Unstated is whether your effort is with regard to a product or service. If services one item that I see folks miss is to give consideration to FAR 52.222-43 if in the solicitation (and resulting contract) and how it might effect a pricing strategy for the option periods of performance.
  18. Let’s start here. Have you read FAR part 32? To add context take a look at the DFARS supplement part 232that drills down further to incrementally funded contracts. Does your agency have a FAR supplement that does the same? Finally read the terms and conditions of the specific GSA FSS contract that the order will be placed against and if not addressed do you believe you can add further terms and conditions to the order to allow for the incremental funding. If this effort does not answer your questions, if not why not?
  19. Maybe PhilBail has this but another source document is the DCMA Guidebook for CPSR found here....http://www.dcma.mil/Portals/31/Documents/CPSR/CPSR_Guidebook_011817.pdf Appendix 12 of this document may be of help. To the latest question raised by PhilBail the pertinent question that needs to be supported as to whether the seeking of pricing in the example is a "competition" is whether the distributors provided pricing by "competing independently".
  20. C Culham

    Commercial SB Plans

    This suggests that the commercial plan is preferred by GSA............... https://vsc.gsa.gov/administration/subForPrime.cfm
  21. While the questions and thoughts regardng the OPs refereced terms and conditions might be good ones I am confused how the AGAR clause has entered into this thread. It is not a clause in the standard T&Cs of a EERA with no FAR or supplement stated. It is in an EERA as simply Clause 9 and reads in part as stated by the OP. Suggest reading iClause 9 and referencing it only.
  22. I always like visiting WIFCON to see how any particular subject might have be covered in the past. You might find this short discussion thread to be helpful to the advice and thoughts already provided......
  23. Well dang it I thought this new provision provided an opportunity with regard to this discussion (referenced below) and then I read closely and lo and behold not yet! Why? Well to my amazement the provision has added a new definition to commercial item acquisition that appears to have left Kickstarter by the wayside. And really "Commercial Product" now means a COTS item that is not a service? Too bad Kickstarter not yet and come on bill writers try using familiar and already defined words and quit inventing new ones! COMMERCIAL PRODUCT.—The term ‘‘com- 8 mercial product’’ means a commercially available off- 9 the-shelf item, as defined in section 104 of title 41, 10 United States Code, except the term does not in- 11 clude services. 12
  24. C Culham

    Are Payment Logs Required?

    There is not a FAR/DFAR requirement as noted by others in the thread but the FAR does provide the following guidance (see below). Noting the FAR wording it is not a requirement but again guidance. Within the same subsection of the FAR the guidance provides that there can be cross reference in the “Contracting Office contract file” to documents filed elsewhere. As noted in this thread the move to electronic payment tools and databases has probably replaced the need for your office (aka the Contracting Office) to follow "just how we have always done it” and to make a simple cross reference to where the detail on payments is now stored (“contract paying office”) which would meet the guidance intention. I say this noting that it would be hoped that your agency’s payment system documentation requires retention of the payment information consistent with the retention of contract records after completion and final payment is made for a contract. See FAR 4.805 for the guidance on retention. Armed with this basic information and a little more detail research effort on your part in researching your agency FAR supplements and policy on contract records you might consider proposing an alternative to the spreadsheet which appears to be duplicative effort. “4.803 -- Contents of Contract Files. The following are examples of the records normally contained, if applicable, in contract files:…… (c)Paying office contract file. (1) Copy of the contract and any modifications. (2) Bills, invoices, vouchers, and supporting documents. (3) Record of payments or receipts. (4) Other pertinent documents”
  25. C Culham


    Found the below....looks like a conversation with the company will help sort out what is going on, recommend you call them. PGI 204.1870-2 Maintenance of the CAGE file. The following information and procedures are provided to assist contracting officers. (a) Assignment of CAGE codes for entities located in the United States or its outlying areas. (1) CAGE codes are assigned per legal entity at individual physical addresses (i.e., the same entity at the same physical address will not be assigned two or more CAGE codes). The only exception to this rule is when an entity has a registration in the SAM with multiple EFT addresses identified by multiple DUNS+4 numbers. In this case, each DUNS+4 number record is assigned a separate CAGE code to assist in correct processing of payments.