Jump to content
The Wifcon Forums and Blogs

ji20874

Members
  • Content count

    1,503
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

0 Neutral

About ji20874

  • Rank
    Contributing Member

Contact Methods

  • Website URL
    http://

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Male
  • Location
    Vermont

Recent Profile Visitors

24,220 profile views
  1. SCA is irrelevant. I can contract for a contractor to provide a physician (non-SCA) to staff a clinic 8 hours a day, every Monday-Friday (excluding federal holidays). It doesn't have to be the same physician person every day -- but when the customarily-assigned physician is absent for any reason, the contractor must provide a substitute. We should write each contract to get us what we need.
  2. ji20874

    GSA - Under SAT - LPTA

    RightSaidFed, Thanks for pointing to FAR 8.405-5(d) -- I wasn't previously aware of that. Professional discussion is good. Original Poster (I cannot use the screen name), In light of the above, I'll adjust my advice-- Step 1. Ask each of the four for a discount. See FAR 8.405-4. Not "revised pricing," but discount. This might solve your problem. If not, go to Step 2. Step 2. Consider FAR 8.405-5(d). This might solve your problem. If not, go to Step 3. Step 3. Re-read (and really read!) https://www.gao.gov/decisions/bidpro/402519.htm. This definitely will solve your problem.
  3. ji20874

    GSA - Under SAT - LPTA

    After getting discounts, if you still have a two-, three-, or four-way tie, see https://www.gao.gov/decisions/bidpro/402519.htm.
  4. ji20874

    GSA - Under SAT - LPTA

    Ask each of the four for a discount. See FAR 8.405-4.
  5. ji20874

    Business Development

    I did not discern a question in the original posting...
  6. ji20874

    Use of 52.217-9 to extend IDIQ Ordering Period

    Or maybe, the DFARS supplementation adds to the FAR text for DOD personnel by addressing a matter which the FAR does not address -- they could have put their rule in 216.505 with the same effect of directing DOD personnel to limit a contract's ordering period to five years. But wherever they put it, the FAR text's meaning is unchanged by an agency's supplementation.
  7. ji20874

    Use of 52.217-9 to extend IDIQ Ordering Period

    Yes. FAR Subpart 17.2 was written long before the FAR envisioned task and delivery order contracts. The DFARS supplementation proves nothing about the text of the FAR.
  8. ji20874

    Use of 52.217-9 to extend IDIQ Ordering Period

    DFARS 217.204(e) limits the ordering period for an IDIQ contract to 5 years. But the FAR does not, and if MAD-D's agency is outside the reach of the DFARS, well, let's just say that the DFARS limitation will not apply. Everything in FAR Subpart 17.2 is written for options that purchase supplies or services. Nothing in FAR Subpart 17.2 is written for options extending the ordering period of task and delivery order contracts. In my mind, if the option exercise that is being considered is for the purchase of supplies or services, then FAR Subpart 17.2 applies. If the option exercise being considered is for the extension of the ordering period of task and delivery order contracts, then FAR Subpart 17.2 cannot be blindly or rigidly applied because FAR Subpart 17.2 was not written for options extending the ordering period of task and delivery order contracts.
  9. But you probably wouldn't, right? I wouldn't write a contract for a guard or fire watchman in your examples where the contractor employee gets to decide if and when to show up at the worksite, with an understanding that we'll pay only for those hours where the contractor employee actually performs. For other possibilities (not the guard or fire watchman), I'm okay with a FFP LOE with a +/- 5% for sake of administrative efficiency, but I wouldn't want to set up that CLIN with HR as the unit -- I would rather do it on a LOT or JOB basis (or maybe MONTH) with the specified level of effort in the text -- and I wouldn't want to make payments to the contractor based on the hour, but would prefer to make payment based on the LOT or JOB, or with milestone payments. But sometimes, don't we see evidence in our work and read postings here on WIFCON of putative firm-fixed-price contracts (based on CLINs and clauses) where the manner of administration has effectively turned those contracts into T&M/LH contracts? Yes, others have seen poorly-written contracts. I suppose most of us have seen evidence of putative firm-fixed-price contracts (based on CLINs and clauses) where the manner of administration has effectively turned those contracts into T&M/LH contracts.
  10. And, both of these can be firm-fixed-price.
  11. FAR 13.303-2( c )( 3 ) authorizes BPAs with schedule contractors. As Joel mentioned, FAR 8.404( a ) points to 13.303-2 ( c )( 3 ). FAR 13.303-5( b )( 1 ) mentions a general limitation on purchases against BPAs and provides an exception for BPAs with schedule contractors. But yes, while Part 13 provides the general background for all BPAs, the particular procedures for BPAs with schedule contractors are in FAR Subpart 8.4.
  12. If you'll read FAR 13.303 carefully, you will see that it does indeed cover BPAs issued under schedule contracts.
  13. NenaLenz, A GSA schedule contract is not "just an agreement to agree." A GSA schedule contract is a contract, under which orders are issued -- but the parent schedule contract itself is a contract. For FAR coverage on agreements, see FAR Subpart 16.7. But remember, your arrangement is not covered by the FAR, for two reasons: first, the FAR doesn't cover USPS; and second, the FAR doesn't cover concession contracts. No one here has read your national contract, so we can't definitively answer your question. I can't tell that the USPS has a problem -- your company is working and sending money to USPS, so maybe USPS is happy? If so, there may be no need for USPS to take any action. It seems your company has a problem (your company wants to "assert a claim for equitable adjustment"), so if anything needs to be done, it seems your company needs to do it. As an aside, the applicability of the Contract Disputes Act to concession contracts is unsettled law. In some cases, judicial tribunals have said yes, based on the individual facts of the individual cases -- but these cases seem to be the exception to the general rule that concession contracts are not covered by the CDA. Thus, if you do intend to file a claim, you might have to find an authority other than the CDA. I'm wondering, is your arrangement covered by USPS Handbook EL-602, Food Service Operations? If yes, as a commercial contractor or under the Randolph-Sheppard Act?
  14. NenaLenz, Is there any problem? A claim? A failure? If the concessions contract did not involve an expenditure of appropriated funds, then the FAR does not apply. If the concessions contractor has been making payments, and there is no dispute about the amount, maybe all is well. I assume your agency has the right to accept payment to augment local facilities funds, rather than payments going to the Treasury, but this is not a contracting concern.
  15. It's not a fairy tale, Vern -- really and truly, it is common practice across agencies to award IDIQ contracts without funds citations in the contracts to cover the contract minimums. Please show me the regulatory citation where an IDIQ contract must contain a funds citation to cover the contract minimum. Show us what you know. Sad.
×