C Culham

Oh come on uc2004. In an echo of Vern's post of sorts, when the Federal government realizes and respects that everything costs money with regard to their forced requirements that are based on false assumptions of compliance with their own view of what a OMB circular requires then Federal government contracting would be a whole lot easier and cost effective. Think about it NASA has a class deviation to enforce an OMB Circular? Really the FAR Council couldn't get it right so NASA has to deviate...oh my goodness NASA's take on the whole effort is as Vern has pointed out!

Looks like you read the compliance reference I provided! To your concerns. Think of it this way, why in the heck would one company have a policy that provides that an individual's accrual of leave (money as you note!) gets transferred to another company! Maybe the new company has a policy to let folks buy leave, who knows, but at least the rightful owner of the money (the employee) gets it, they earned it! The Directory of Service Contract Act Occupations will answer your question. You can find it here - https://www.dol.gov/whd/regs/compliance/wage/SCADirV5/SCADirectVers5.pdf You might want to wander through the USDOL website for any other questions you have before raising a question here!

Maybe some did, maybe some did not, see this GAO Decision posted to WIFCON just the other day................ Bridge contract. See Global Dynamics, LLC v. United States and GiaCare and MedTrust JV, LLC and MedTrust LLC, No. 17-1875C May 1, 2018 . (May 3, 2018)

Jahbulon - By my read FAR Case 2018-003 has not be moved forward yet or in other words the FAR has not been revised to implement the statute and the subsequent regulation of the SBA regarding "Credit for Lower Tier Small Business Subcontracting";. Until such time that SBA's rule is implemented in the FAR I for one could not answer your questions. Here is a WIFCON discussion that might help Here are a few references that makes me think your questions are premature. https://www.agc.org/news/2017/01/05/sba-finalizes-small-business-subcontractor-counting-rule https://www.acq.osd.mil/dpap/dars/far_case_status.html which states - 2018-003 (S) Credit for Lower-Tier Small Business Subcontracting Implements section 1614 of the NDAA for FY 2014, as implemented in the SBA regulations on 12/23/2016 (81FR 94246), which allows prime contractors to receive credit toward goals in their small business subcontracting plans for subcontracts awarded by their subcontractors.11/15/2017 DARC Directort asked Small Business Team to draft proposed FAR rule. Report due 01/10/2018. Report due date extended to 06/06/2018.

Thank you gentlemen. One thought is the issue of workforce capabilities. An issue frequently discussed in WIFCON. I am an optomist that absent so much regulation right minded acquisition can still occur. In part because everyday folks buy stuff all time. Poorly worded thought right now but am I on the right track in making it a part of the arguement?

Thanks Vern - Not sure I can do it the same justice you can but I will do some reading, research and drafting to see what I can come up with. I know I could handle the effort of getting to all concerned if something is published as you mentioned so if anyone wants to do a combined effort let me know!

How, when, to whom? Seriously, I really want to know how to take advantage of the opportunity.

Interesting comparison but there is a bigger comparison beyond the military. Work on many Government installations was then is now done by government personnel ("force account") but a large majority is now contracted out.

If you are really serious about “gets our agency one machine type and contractor” then throw consideration of a Requirements Contract into the mix. Additional thought is that the “must” with regard to multiple award IDIQ’s needs to be considered and addressed if you head the IDIQ direction. From FAR 16.5 regarding application - – Requirements Contract - A requirements contract may be appropriate for acquiring any supplies or services when the Government anticipates recurring requirements but cannot predetermine the precise quantities of supplies or services that designated Government activities will need during a definite period. IDIQ-Contracting officers may use an indefinite-quantity contract when the Government cannot predetermine, above a specified minimum, the precise quantities of supplies or services that the Government will require during the contract period, and it is inadvisable for the Government to commit itself for more than a minimum quantity. The contracting officer should use an indefinite-quantity contract only when a recurring need is anticipated.

This website of the USDOL may be of better help on compliance with regard to the question you raise about accrual. See Number 18. https://www.dol.gov/whd/recovery/pwrb/toc.htm

As noted read the contract. Consider as well getting appropriate counsel. Others have addressed the exercise of the options for years 2, 3, and 4. With regard to the issues during performance of option year 1 and the changed physical conditions an alternative to discuss with counsel is a possible claim under the disputes clause (usually FAR Clause 52.233-1) since the KO has not responded to your requests for equitable adjustment.

Thank you Vern. Yours and Matthew's thoughts took me to the National Drug Code, ISO and beyond. My conclusion, some one needs to ask Thornberry (and probably the House Armed Services Committee) what "leg up" is the intended language suppose to provide that the current definition does not?

Vern - Just wondering as I follow this discussion. The draft language includes "and ‘‘(B) is ordinarily produced using customer drawings or specifications for the general public using the same workforce, plant, or equipment." I am wondering if the practice bomb example works? Applying the proposed definition the firm would also have to manufacture practice bombs ordinarily for the general public. Seems different than say a firm that manufacturers box wrench's for general public and then only manufacturers practice bombs for the government. Does not fit the definition to make the bombs a commercial item by my read. Or in other words the read of the proposed language makes the item commercial only if the firm manufacturers the same thing on a custom basis that is sold to the general public and also then manufactured to custom needs of the government. My mind goes to something like a pole barn, manufactured home, the other examples like vehicles already mentioned and then to ships and jets. How about an option - everything is commercial item and tweak when certified cost or pricing data applies to any procurement, dollar threshold and what is being provided not whether it is commercial item or not? Or is this an old idea that is a non-starter?

Vern's post only as reference to a thought. What is the intended reach of audience? Reading through all the comments it seems the target is Contract Specialists. I say this as the term Contracting Officer would encompass GS-1105 Purchasing Agents as well.

The meaning of number 4 IS the current meaning and intent of the definition of commercial item already present. Read the current definition, think "modification" OR "minor modification". Then think "Any combination of items". Ad lib - I was proud to call Don Tucker of Tektronix history a friend and mentor. Don was a member of the late 1980's and early 1990's Commercial Products Acquisition Team an industry group who's work was the catalyst to the current FAR Part 12 and by my memory their effort was to accomplish exactly what Thornberry is now trying to screw up. No more plans and specs for a dang oscilloscope just buy what Tektronix makes have them paint it green and change the knobs to black, it will do everything you want government!!!!!!!

Constricting - Hopefully Joel does not mind the clarification but I would offer that you do not edit the provision. If in fact you want to use your own language supported by evaluation criteria you would create your own provision. I have provided a sample of the title and starting language on the way I would go about it below. I say this noting the following language of the FAR. 12.602(a) "When evaluation factors are used, the contracting officer may insert a provision substantially the same as the provision at 52.212-2, Evaluation-Commercial Items, in solicitations for commercial items..." My example - Evaluation of Offers - Commercial Items - In lien of FAR 52.212-2 the following provision is inserted. (and then go from here.)

Now I understand and would agree an answer to your question would depend on the specifics of disagreement between buyer and seller on what is reasonable.

So in context of the clause and its paragraph (d) can you provide a little more clarity on why you do not believe (d) answers your question.

(edited) No experience. No but do you think this would if received from a user if they meant it? “I have reviewed all the quotations received, the pricing and the technical material provided inclusive of warranty and other information. Based on experience on ease of use of the needed product, availability of local maintenance to support warranty and after warranty work, and general knowledge gained from reviewing available market place information on how each offered item would standup to the intended use I recommend award to XXXXXYYYYYZZZZZ.” Opps forgot this thought - In the context of your background to your specific questions where did the "or equal" come from? I can not quite make the connection to references in FAR Part 13 regarding brand name consideration when a general product is stated in a solicitation - "send me quotes on lawn mowers" and brand name or equal when it is a specified requirement of the solicitation "Send me quotes on XYZ lawn mower or lawn mowers that are equal in X (motor size, deck size, rider, push, blah, blah blah).

I am honestly concerned about this thread and even confused about it. I have tried writing a post a bunch of times and have finally settled on this. Hopefully better late than never! For the OP – You have not identified the value of nor type of courier services needed which would make a difference for a detailed response. The quick thoughts on your approach are that you have confused process for SAP (FAR Part 13) and Negotiated Procurement (FAR Part 15) and have not considered guiding principles of FAR Part 12. If you truly want to use FAR Part 15 (LPTA) then redo your 52.212-2 to better align with FAR Part 15, FAR 15.204-5, 15.304 especially. Also if you do so make sure you clarify what you really want to do with past performance as its use as an evaluation factor is not clear. Also you need to consider how you might tailor FAR 52.212-1 if you head the FAR Part 15 way. You did not provide an example of what your instructions (52.212.-1) are going to be but they must be aligned with how you plan to evaluate or in other words tell offerors what you need to evaluate the offerors. As you consider how you might tailor 52.212-1 please read FAR 12.205(a) and 12.302 and really think about what you want from the offerors based on customary market practices used to select a courier. If you want to use FAR Part 13 SAP then read and re-read the linked discussion that Matthew provided. And again if you decide to really make it simple then do not forget FAR 12.205(a) and 12.302 and think about what you will need from the offerors to keep it simple and again tailor 52.212-1 to fit what you need to evaluate offerors simply based on market practice. For Contracting Cowboi – You really are all over the place. If you would have stopped at your first response you would be close on concerns about the OPs post but as noted to the OP please consider 12.205(a) and the scenario offered by the OP only. The rest of the stuff you have brought in to the discussion is good for conversation but might have been better presented in a different thread.

No intent to hijack this thread or speak for Vern but..... Specific to the idea of an acquisition of a commercial item, a pharmacist, how about your market research as THE data. After all why does one pick CVS over Rite-Aid or Walgreens. They sure don't ask for a one or two page document. Remember we are talking about SAP and you have lots of latitude to make a decision even when it's only pricing you have received.

Let me add that you have confused your process. You state "SAP" but then in your 212-1 provision state LPTA and reference FAR Part 15. SAP is contained in FAR Part 13, FAR Part 15 is Negotiated Procurement.

No

0

The "Poll" discussion forum has been defeated!