Jump to content
The Wifcon Forums and Blogs


  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

0 Neutral

About Desparado

  • Rank
  • Birthday 10/29/1965

Contact Methods

  • Website URL
  • ICQ

Profile Information

  • Gender
  • Interests

Recent Profile Visitors

20,499 profile views
  1. The examples you list are different (imho) to the government formally giving out information to only a select few contractors. There is a reason that after questions are submitted in writing, the answers (and questions) are posted to FBO. In order to maximize competition and keep the playing field level (aka, fairness) I would not disseminate information this way. But that's just me... Now, having said that... I do see a way this can be done fairly by posting well in advance that the call would take place, and then follow up with posting the key points of the call on FBO.
  2. So how does the playing field stay level if someone doesn't attend the conference call but still wishes to submit an offer? Sometimes we do things because it's an appropriate way to do them.
  3. The same language exists in 52.217-8 and always causes issues as some feel that you have to wait "within" 30 days (or whatever number you put in the blank) to exercise that clause, and others feel that it has to be prior to that time frame. Legalese and English are not synonymous.
  4. Sadly, this is an actual situation. Multiple award IDIQ A&E services contracts.
  5. Lawyers appear to be on board with the "some" as well. Small agency, limited A&E experience.
  6. Everyone's assumptions above are accurate. It is a multiple award IDIQ contract for A&E services. We do a QBS competition where the most highly qualified firm is selected for task order award IAW 36.6, but as a task order also has some 16.505 applicability.. The "some" people in my organization feel that no contract, task order or anything can be awarded without being priced, period... I appreciate all your input. It has been informative.
  7. Don - I agree with you, but unfortunately that is the battle I am fighting (and losing). They won't allow unpriced anything.
  8. Sadly, it is not, but I appreciate the offer! I feel that if this were USACE, I wouldn't have this problem.
  9. That was one suggestion as well. But, like you, I find that clunky and unnecessary. Sadly, my lack of A&E knowledge puts me at a disadvantage in these discussions with the HQ peeps.
  10. They don't argue that there can be options... but insist they much be priced. They are really just going with the basic concept that any award has to have a negotiated cost/price (even if a ceiling) to be legal and binding.
  11. Agree on all points. They state we do not have the authority to issue a task order without pricing for all phases and options.
  12. Oh believe me, I have... They are sticking to the article in the original post that these equate to unpriced options and are therefore illegal. We are making selection based solely on technical, then reaching agreement on a fair and reasonable price for the first phase of work (there are several phases but the latter phases are undefinable at a level low enough to facilitate getting a cost proposal), but their contention is that we still have to get a full cost proposal for all phases upfront.
  13. Joel - 100% agree, but we have some in our agency that state that we still have to get a full cost proposal even though the nature of our A&E work contains several unknowns that make it impossible to price upfront.
  14. BTW - I have this in Contract Administration because I am discussing task orders on multiple award A&E contracts. The underlying contracts are silent on this issue.
  15. So if we do use options and the FAR does not apply, how does that affect the idea of unpriced options? Since cost is not a competitive factor in A&E selection, is the taboo on unpriced options applicable?
  • Create New...