Jump to content

C Culham

Members
  • Posts

    2,929
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by C Culham

  1. Based on a FFP contract would Volume 3 be applicable or would it be Volume 1?
  2. FAR 52.236-13 - Accident Prevention reads in part the following. "(c) If this contract is for construction or dismantling, demolition or removal of improvements with any Department of Defense agency or component, the Contractor shall comply with all pertinent provisions of the latest version of U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Safety and Health Requirements Manual, EM 385-1-1, in effect on the date of the solicitation." (Just as Retread posted I finished this, posting anyhow)
  3. "If the government can't or won't tell offerors how often they'll have to travel, where they'll have to go, and how long they'll have to stay, then offerors cannot intelligently propose travel costs. Demanding that they do so and then trying to evaluate competitively proposed travel costs in such a case would be unfair and, frankly, stupid. If you can't specify travel, don't make offerors propose travel costs. Instead, make travel a cost-reimbursement no-fee line item CLIN and specify the travel budget in the solicitation, so it will be the same for all offerors and won't have to be evaluated. Provide for the CO to increase the travel budget unilaterally at his or her discretion. Alternatively, provide for travel to be fixed-priced on an ad hoc basis during the course of performance, as travel requirements become known. That would work sort of like IDIQ, except that it is not pre-priced. You'd have to write a clause for that. Don't evaluate travel costs during source selection. Alternatively, if you don't want to do cost-reimbursement and feel that you absolutely have to evaluate travel costs, then (a) establish "standard trip" CLINs of one day, two days, etc., varied by destination, if necessary, ( specify estimated quantities for each CLIN, and ( c) tell offerors to propose standard trip fixed unit prices and total amounts. Then evaluate travel as part of the total fixed price. There is some risk in that for the offerors, but it would be manageable." Quote by Vern Edwards. Reference - which you might want to read in full.
  4. But not issued pursuant to and as BPA under your GSA FSS contract? If yes, ask the CO of the BPA as regulatory guidance varies by agency, via the agency's FAR supplement. If issued pursuant to and under your GSA FSS contract then FAR 8.4 applies as well as agency supplement to FAR 8.4. Bottomline your question can not be answered without much more detail.
  5. I along with others have provided rationale. You want it. Submit a Freedom of Information Act(FOIA) request. In truth the CO should do it!
  6. This (below)no longer exists in the DFARS. If you read the current 208.402 one could surmise the reason. "204.802 Contract files. Official contract files shall consist of— (1) Only original, authenticated or conformed copies of contractual instruments— (i) “Authenticated copies” means copies that are shown to be genuine in one of two ways— (A) Certification as true copy by signature of an authorized person; or (B) Official seal. (ii) “Conformed copies” means copies that are complete and accurate, including the date signed and the names and titles of the parties who signed them. (2) Signed or official record copies of correspondence, memoranda, and other documents."
  7. In your wandering around of the SBIR website did you notice that some PTAC/Apex assistance centers can help? Did you contact the one for your geographical area to see if they can help with your questions?
  8. Well you will need the CO's buy-in, right? I would suggest clarifying discussion with your CO but here are a couple of thoughts to assist in that discussion. Read the entire contract and make sure there is nothing in it that addresses the situation. I say this as the previous COR must have had some basis to make the statement. And, with out knowing the contract, if purchases are allowed within the POP and it is specifically stated that delivery must occur on or before end of POP, delivery could occur after POP and the government could receive and it would reflect in an adverse performance rating. Additionally, another remedy for late delivery if delievery must be by end of POP as stipulated in the contract the government could ( I want to repeat could as the contract wording would help assure the could) possibly accept late delievery with consideration for the contractor not meeting the strict requirements of the contract. Hope these thoughts help in working it out with your CO.
  9. Sorry for the confusion if I implied it was. I just felt that the OP left a gap as it was not explicity stated that simplified acquisition procedures (SAP) were being used. Stating "authority" did not hit me as an explicit affirmation that the SAP was the intent.
  10. Steward - I ran into this and thought I would share. I just thought it was an interesting connection to your original post. Reference - https://www.gao.gov/products/b-413442 "Protest challenging the issuance of a task order to a large business concern is dismissed for abuse of process, and the protester is suspended from protesting for a period of one year, where the protester has submitted 150 protests this fiscal year, challenging an array of acquisitions (some of which were fully performed years earlier) conducted by a host of contracting agencies worldwide; has repeatedly failed to demonstrate that it is capable of, or interested in, performing the solicited requirements; and has repeatedly failed to engage constructively on the substantive and threshold issues raised by its protests."
  11. However if one believes they are going to insert FAR 52.212-2 into the solicitation there is this to consider (emphasis added)..... "(a) The Government will award a contract resulting from this solicitation to the responsible offeror whose offer conforming to the solicitation will be most advantageous to the Government, price and other factors considered. The following factors shall be used to evaluate offers: ________________________________________________ ________________________________________________ ________________________________________________[Contracting Officer shall insert the significant evaluation factors, such as (i) technical capability of the item offered to meet the Government requirement; (ii) price; (iii) past performance (see FAR 15.304); and include them in the relative order of importance of the evaluation factors, such as in descending order of importance.] Technical and past performance, when combined, are __________ [Contracting Officer state, in accordance with FAR 15.304, the relative importance of all other evaluation factors, when combined, when compared to price.]" When considering whether one should use FAR 52.212-2 such consideration should be based on FAR 13.500(b).
  12. None specific sorry. I do wonder. CPFF risk of performance does lie with, in general terms, the government. Yet, makes me wonder if the real entity(ies) to ask your question of is the contractors on any instant procurement. Simple example - In your proposal please indicate the number of key personnel you propose, credentials required of the personnel and their function(s) and how your make up of key personnel will alleviate risk of non-performance.
  13. More piggy-backing. Critical to the posed question is are the key personnel at any ratio or number essential to the carrying out of the work of the project? The answer is more important than subscribing to a set ratio. The discussion has generated another thought on my part. Using the measure of a $40M procurement I wondered if key personnel would be a static number throughout contract performance? Then I wondered about the ability as detailed within the solicitation/contract where the contractor and the government evaluate the necessity and accomplishments of key personnel (they are a deliverable of sorts are they not if a key personnel clause demands them) and provide the ability to adjust, by mutual agreement, the number of key personnel throughout contract performance. Such a term in the award contract would give the ability to both the contractor and government the ability raise the necessity of the number of key personnel. Diversion of key personnel is generally allows (with government consent) via the boiler plate clauses that can be found so the departure with my thought that diversion or otherwise removal of key personnel was an anticipated event based on the work. Afterall if the work was being accomplished by the government itself I would imagine adjustments in personnel, including those that a key, would be a given.
  14. A very interesting read. It would be interesting as to what, if anything, happened to Mr. Calvin and Ms. Swenson?
  15. My thoughts are not at a high level of reasoning but rather just the quick ones that came to mind as I read. Seems that the last paragraph on Page 6 answers the question. Possibly not practiced that much is this ideal - "Negotiating the contract type and negotiating prices are closely related and should be considered together." Government picks the contract type and sticks to it regardless of the knowledge learned from receipt of proposals and how a different contract type might actually fit the need.
  16. Good point. Maybe its a matter for the IG as it is interesting to say the least that the contract has reached its limit on labor catagories but there is a "ton" of money left on the contract. Eithere someone is not very good at math or maybe its hidy holing some money! Lots of unanswered questions to assist in a specific answer but one could conclude that the OP (who I think is not a CO but industry) has gotten adeuqate general thougths to help solve the matter.
  17. I noted I was not going to argue but I suggest you consider this....emphasis added FAR 12.302(a) "...contracting officers may, within the limitations of this subpart, and after conducting appropriate market research, tailor the provision at 52.212-1, Instructions to Offerors-Commercial Products and Commercial Services, and the clause at 52.212-4, Contract Terms and Conditions-Commercial Products and Commercial Services, to adapt to the market conditions for each acquisition...." Your "allowance" is limited! I think you will find that research of GAO protests would support in some instant cases that changing 52.212-4 absent appropriate market research can result in a sustained protest. My reference for such a statement is from the 30,000 foot level that encompasses this quote.... "Inserting terms into FAR Part 12 procurements that are inconsistent with “customary commercial practices.” (CPDT Subcategory 3.1). Detail of this reference found here -
  18. Well I am not going to argue but I find the thought as being on the precipice of a possible protest. If your "wipe out" is based on market research I can by in but if not then I do wonder.
  19. Is not this almost a full circle question as one would need to know if the service is severable or not? Yes but I do not see it an issue. Or stated another way if it is acknowledged as an out of scope add via a modification (the context in which I made my statement) does it matter where the money comes from? I do not think so but I could be convinced otherwise I guess.
  20. Now I am going to be nitpicky. If the debriefing is "offered" say in the solicitation then would it not be required? In posing this question I do understand completely that if noting in the solicitation states that a debreifing will be provided and then the agency just decides to do them out of the goodness of their heart it is not a a reqired debriefing. Just making the clarification as a saleint question was not asked of formerfed. And that question is - Is the offered debriefing going to be stated in the solicitation or just something the agency might do at their discreation? To further my thought it would seem if the latter the agency could place themselves in a predicament where they pick and choose who to give a debreifing too. Once again I understand the idea of a courtesy but in the end under the standard of fair dealing stating the avialability of a debriefing in a solicitaton seems to make the most sense to me to avoid the appearance of giving favor over one offer from another.
  21. Or a JOFOC that follows due process of synopsis and could therefore result in a modification to the existing contract. It is an available alternative approach!
  22. I never can remember if providing a outside resource link in WIFCON is okay or not but here you go. The referenced case in the document is an interesting read. https://www.wardberry.com/records-retention-requirements-for-federal-contractors/
  23. Thoughts in no particular order.... First the subject. As I read the subject line and the original post the idea is not to eliminate the ability to protest but to change how to and the venue(s) to do so. A protest renamed? Unfunded or funded mandate? Agency funding would need to be increased to handle the administrative efforts under the change and establish the recovery fund. Would the change establish additional funds or keep agency funding the same? Quality assurance reviews. Would there be a set time limit for these reviews? Large procurements have a lenghty PALT as it is. Benefits -The benefits seem one sided advantage government. Yet an element of private industry no doubt thinks there is benefit to have the ability to protest. It is they that will be the hurdle to clear for a change to occur unless they are convinced something is in it for them. Agencies do screw up sometimes. Currently protests can be made to the agency. The private sector may view the change as just another effort to allow agencies to kick them aside. Examples are the current ability to protest to agency and fair opportunity ombudsman, two approaches that agency's have little policy and procedure regarding. Somewhere hidden in the idea is the gem, a carrot/stick, which I like. If I am reading right complaint to agency, they solve the suggested inconsistency at some level during solicitation process and all are happy....done. All move on. Complaint to agency, they don't solve and there is no allowance to delay during complaint process, like a dispute responsibility of all to just move forward. However contractor has right to what I will call a post solicitation appeal and if successful agency pays. Seems like an agency would take a more serious approach to solving as they should already be doing. Hope the thoughts make some sense and are helpful.
  24. If asking from the perspective of the government the answer is- Yes! FAR 4.805 provides no exception therefore it applies to all contracts. This reference may also help. https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2015/12/04/2015-30460/federal-acquisition-regulation-retention-periods
×
×
  • Create New...