Jump to content
The Wifcon Forums and Blogs

C Culham

Members
  • Posts

    2,117
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by C Culham

  1. It might be that the "reasonableness" view could be supported by Section 3610 of the CARES Act. While the Section deals with other than facilities the accommodations being provided by the Section might be used to support why facilities are idle. Noted here the original dates of the Section were extended to September 30, 2021. I do not pay specific attention to the winds of Congress but I do wonder if another extension is possible.
  2. I do not know why but your post brought this to mind "Victory Vertical".
  3. Well.... No With many years under my belt I am reserved to think nothing will ever totally fix the problem. I dislike saying it but cheaters cheat. In such discussioins I always remember a conversation I had with a fellow CO who spent time in retail before coming to the government. He worked for a big box company. At first I was surprised but then I guess it made sense when he told me that the company acknowledged that shoplifting would always be a problem and had a line item in the company's books (my simple term) where X amount of product in dollar value was written off each year to such a loss. When he let me know the amount for the one particular store he worked for in a city I was at the time amazed until I realized how much the store probably did in sales each year. War story of sorts yes and circling back to the subject it is clear that regulation won't fix the problem. Constant theme in Forum it would seem. To the question - acknowledge that some things will never get fixed, give some credit to the workforce that they do they best they can considering all the circumstances (to much regulation, adequacies of their abilities, adequacies of management, etc.) and deal with the "eaches" and move on. And turn on a light bulb to Congress that legislation is not always the answer.
  4. Yep. thanks for the more recent decision. My post of the first one was because it re-enforced your comments.
  5. "Protest that agency was required to consider proposed subcontractor’s past performance is denied where solicitation is conducted under Federal Acquisition Regulation part 8, and where the solicitation only requested past performance information for the “offerors.” " https://www.gao.gov/products/b-413901%2Cb-413901.2
  6. Nope not you on the "fix" it was directed at the OP, sorry I was not clear.
  7. The easy out I guess, just wing it. I for one would be a little more cautious in case someone is lurking around my door that sure would like the work going into the future. As usual a OP sometimes is lacking pertinent facts and while this may not be directly on point I could see where some of the concepts discussed might be applicable such as GSA policy on continuous contracts - https://www.gao.gov/assets/b-417956.pdf No more deep dive on my part with my only advice to the OP that further research beyond getting some quick responses here to support your proposed fix might be well worth it.
  8. So I do not mind simple. And no debate with any thoughts offered, but I do wonder? Today I have responded to two posts in Forum regarding IDIQ's and what do I wonder? Why are not the OP's asking the CO designated for each of the IDIQ's, and specifically the CO with regard to the GSA MAS in this thread? I guess I am old school but if I was the CO for an IDIQ that was available for use by multiple agencies and someone wondered what they could and could not do with regard to actions regarding orders under the IDIQ I would like the opportunity to give my advice followed or not. I think the CO's are noted somewhere. Are they responsive who knows! Just wondering!
  9. It will be interesting to see if other thoughts will make your life easy, mine probably doesn't. Not saying I am right or wrong but it would seem that a new GSA MAS contract implies a new scope of work, not for your BPA but for the MAS itself and orders against it. Along with this quick thought is the mechanics of FAR 52.216-22 if in the GSA MAS. Would the BPA, as an order and then modified, some how be affected by the date stipulated in -22? A spinoff thought if you will of the scope thought. Of course everything depends on the specifics of the GSA MAS, the BPA as an order, just my quick thoughts.
  10. So a comment by a responder got me to thinking. IDIQ, task order. Does the parent contract say anything about the debriefs? I did not find anything. Task order? Only you as the OP (and PCO) would know. And then I found the following here - https://www.seaport.navy.mil/Home/FAQ/FAQContractors/ " How do I request a debrief? Award of task orders under these IDIQ contracts are not governed by FAR Part 15, but the issuing contracts office identified in the Task Order solicitation will accommodate requests for award determination information to the maximum extent possible. Please contact the contract specialist and/or PCO in charge of the bid event for information regarding the award determination." Only thought of following a "I'm serious" line of action would be that I would most likely document the debriefing.
  11. Let me see if I can give an example to help you understand what I was getting at. Test is required as other posts have pointed out. You have a contract that has terms in conditions in it. Lets say the original contract prior to the COVID thing simply says "Contractor must comply with all requirements for entry into the building". In this case I could see a CO saying that the costs of the tests are PROBABLY your responsibility. Now if the contract was absolutely silent on anything related to access and CO has come to you and stated that you must test employees for access and you must do the tests with lots of other musts like provide results etc. then the musts MIGHT be considered a change in the contract requirements whereby you MIGHT have a case for requesting a equitable adjustment. Bottom line it just depends on the specific facts related to your specific contract, if there is one and a whole bunch more.
  12. Who is doing the testing? Is there an existing contract that requires the contractor to access the facility? If yes, what are the specific terms stated in the contract about access to the facility? Does the public have access to the building and if so do they have to have screening tests? Bottom line a response to your questions requires additional details.
  13. The wording of the FAR supplement to which ji has addressed with his Fact 2 (emphasis added) - "When applicable and prior to contract closure, the contracting officer shall obtain the listed DHS and Department of Defense (DOD) forms from the contractor for closeout." To the "applicable" ji keeps pushing I do not disagree. However in the context of this thread ji first stated and continues to state that a release is not required for close out. The OP for this thread provided in a post the following - "When performing Contract Closeout, a release of claims is required," Per the citation I have provided from a FAR supplement if the OP was with Homeland Security and had one of the noted contract types or for whatever reason the contract or some higher up in Homeland Security decided the governments interest needed the release for risk avoidance then again the release would be needed before for close out. Now if the OP was with say Department of Commerce the OP could unilaterally close out the contract without the release but would need to document how doing so is in the Governments best interest. While I understand both ji and Vern's intention that close out could be simple and a template is not needed they both err in my view with their carte blanc comments as we do not know what type of contract the OP is trying to close-out, the value and the risks that must be considered and quite possibly documented in a unilateral close out memorandum that could be used because of or even absent any other agency guidance. You see Vern and ji propose the easy out for everything. I would suggest that doing so is not prudent, and quite honestly if a person were to read (as is a strong suggestion made in other posts in Forum) they would find that even ji and Vern would suggest that following agency and bosses instructions are the most prudent course of action. If the OP is "required" to do a memo and the issue of release needs to be addressed I can not write it for him/her but I darn sure can provide the best information I can to assist in the effort. At this point I find nothing in the FAR and its supplements that a Release of Claims for any and all contract at close out is not required but that it shall be obtained in certain cases, unless the risk of not getting is noted as being in the Governments best interest and the agency and its bosses allow it. Hmmm - https://www.dhs.gov/publication/low-risk-closeout We do not see eye to eye but who says we have to. Now I am going to go enjoy my favorite whisky distilled in Hood River, OR as I am out of the mix unless ji or Vern want to address me or my comments further.
  14. Why don't you be on your way then, I have Batman covered you do not need to stick around with me in the mix! PS - I am very interested where in FAR 4.804 the words "procurement clerk" are stated.
  15. As always you caught me in poor wording. It is a supplement to the FAR and as such carries the same weight as the FAR.
  16. Nice punt. Let me be clear I never said this - You did and it is not a true statement whether you want to defend it or not. What is true is that if Batman worked for DHHS a release would be required ("shall")in certain circumstances. I never said "always" but FAR 48 CFR 3004.804-570 does require it none the less.
  17. You let out a little info beyond you OP. How about just a little more. What Department and what agency are you performing the closeout for?
  18. So apparently you, and dare I say Vern Edwards, believe that the supplements to the FAR, by specific example 48 CFR 3004.804-570, are not the FAR. Interesting!!!!!!
  19. Thank you for the clarification. My first thought is look to your agency's policies etc. If nothing exists to assist here is reference that may help you out in creating a memo that may be viewed as satisfactory. https://www.commerce.gov/sites/default/files/2021-02/CAM 1304.804 Closeout.pdf "2.6.2 Contractor Is No Longer in Business Unfortunately, it is not uncommon to have open contracts with companies that are no longer conducting business. In these instances, the Government shall take every reasonable measure to locate the company and/or its principals. The contract file should be documented with every attempt made to locate the company and its officials. If all of the above attempts prove unsuccessful, it is recommended that an administrative unilateral closeout process be implemented. In addition to the documentation required for the specific contract type, the following factors should be addressed, as applicable: a. Is the contract physically complete and has Government acceptance of goods/services been received? b. Was the contractor previously paying any funds? c. What is the status of indirect cost rate settlement (if contract is other than firm fixed price)? d. Have all reasonable measures been taken to locate the company and documented in the contract file? e. Has the contract been terminated for convenience or default? f. Any other pertinent information relative to the contractor or performance of the contract (e.g., unsettled subcontract cost, litigation, etc.) should be considered. It is recommended that the contracting officer check with Office of General Counsel and the Office of Inspector General to ascertain if any actions are pending."
  20. I think the OP, should they be of mind, has that say!
  21. As always sometimes a post has hidden facts that would help in a response. I posed the questions for that purpose. To your question no, but what about you do you have one? I direct to the OP's question might have ideas for agency document that could be used absent a template, whether used to cut and paste or not!
  22. As I continue to read the discussion and read the articles provided I also harken back to the days when I utilized the USACE Partnering approach. Maybe Alpha is a new twist on it, I won't read more to reach a foregone conclusion, but a look see about it might be of help in your search for help. https://www.iwr.usace.army.mil/Portals/70/docs/cpc/91-ADR-P-4_Partnering.pdf
  23. By my read it is a "shall" .... 8.405-4 Price reductions. Ordering activities may request a price reduction at any time before placing an order, establishing a BPA, or in conjunction with the annual BPA review. However, the ordering activity shall seek a price reduction when the order or BPA exceeds the simplified acquisition threshold. Schedule contractors are not required to pass on to all schedule users a price reduction extended only to an individual ordering activity for a specific order or BPA.
Ă—
Ă—
  • Create New...