Jump to content
The Wifcon Forums and Blogs

ji20874

Members
  • Content Count

    1,847
  • 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

24,732 profile views
  1. Joel, Yeah, I've heard all that, but I don't do it that way. If we take the FAR to a literal extreme in 43.103, then EVERY bilateral modification is a supplemental agreement (13.C), and 13.D. can only be used for unilateral mods that aren't already provided for in 13.A. and 13.B. (because EVERY bilateral modification is a supplemental agreement, according to 43.103). But really, you will agree that it makes zero difference whether one uses 13.C. or 13.D. for a bilateral equitable adjustment after a change order as long as we cite the Changes clause.
  2. Cost realism analyses are supposed to be for cost-reimbursement contracts. See FAR 15.404-1(d)(2). But cost realism analyses can also be used for fixed price contracts. See FAR 15.404-1(d)(3). The FAR doesn't change "cost realism" to "price realism," but common practice has. The GAO usage reflects the common practice. It is interesting that these cost realism analyses for fixed-price contracts often involve no cost data at all. The provision at FAR 52.222-46, Evaluation of Compensation for Professional Employees, has been interpreted by the GAO as requiring a realism analysis -- that analysis is limited to the amounts to be paid to professional employees.
  3. The resulting bilateral equitable adjustment modification should cite the Changes clause as the authority for the modification -- I would use block 13.D. of the SF-30. [Note: Others would use block 13.C. while still citing the Changes clause -- that's okay.]
  4. Yes, there is case law that might be applicable. Look up Harris and FBI. Do you want to establish BPAs with all the contractors to explain to your agency’s local terms and conditions? Or do you want to establish a BPA with one contractor and send all your future work to that one contractor?
  5. The original poster wrote, "To me the addition of work is not a change to the description, but an introduction of additional, new work and as such not covered by the authority of the changes clause." I have no basis for disagreeing with the original poster's assessment that the new work is beyond the reach of the Changes clause, so I offered supportive advice to the original poster accordingly. But you feel the new work is within the reach of the Changes clause? Did you and the original poster have a private discussion that gave you more insight than is available from the original posting? The Changes clause does not cover all possible "in-scope" changes. It only covers those "in-scope" changes which are listed in the clause's first paragraph.
  6. Treat every need for refill as a new repetitive purchase and establish one of more BPAs under FAR Part 13.
  7. Are you the contracting officer? If you believe the new work is not reached by the Changes clause, then you don’t cite the Changes clause. You have two choices: (1) Is the new work amount less than the SAT? Then maybe you write a sole source justification under FAR part 13 and say the incumbent contractor is the only source reasonably available. You add the work by bilateral modification citing the FAR citation for the sole-source procurement. (2) If the new work is over the SAT, then maybe you write a J&A under FAR part 6 and do the same thing. If you change your mind about the reach of your contract’s Changes clause to this effort, then you have two choices: (1) Issue the unilateral notice to order the change and settle up later with the contractor by bilateral modification citing the Changes clause. (2) Negotiate the change and the cost without ordering the work, and issue a bilateral modification citing the Changes clause to authorize the work and adjust the contract. If none of the above will work, you can do a new acquisition for the new work.
  8. I partly agree, but not completely. If a windstorm blew down some framing in a cost-reimbursement construction contract with the normal clauses, and the contractor wanted to direct charge the Government 100% of the cost for replacement labor and materials, wouldn’t a prudent contracting officer tell the contractor that it should have carried the customary insurance protections? Buying risk insurance is a customary practice in the construction industry.
  9. Buying insurance is not contingency. The standard construction clauses make the contractor responsible for protecting the worksite and the property on the worksite from vandalism and so forth. Insurance is a lot cheaper than a night watchman. Of course, a prudent contractor might want both.
  10. It seems confused construes the FAR text as follows-- The proposed contract action is expressly authorized or required by a statute to be made— [1] through another Government agency, including acquisitions from the Small Business Administration (SBA) using the authority of section 8(a) of the Small Business Act (but see 5.205(f)); or [2] from a specific source such as a workshop for the blind under the rules of the Committee for Purchase from People Who Are Blind or Severely Disabled. If confused doesn't synopsize, no one (another potential EDWOSB offeror?) will know the difference until after award when he or she makes the post-award synopsis and publicly posts the J&A required under FAR Part 6 for an EDWOSB set-aside.
  11. Do you really want to see what others think? Or, do you want someone to argue with you and convince you? Three regular posters here have suggested you’re not looking at this the right way, and you dismissed their inputs. Perhaps you should go ahead and do what you already seem to be intent on doing — it doesn’t look like you will get an endorsement here.
  12. Are the costs for the items going to be charged to an indirect cost account, or directly to the contract?
  13. An EDWOSB is not a mandatory source for purposes of FAR part 8. Indeed, 8.004 specifically uses the term "non-mandatory source" to refer to women-owned small businesses, and according to the definitions in FAR 2.101, EDWOSB is a subset of WOSB. I think you are desperately grasping for straws. FIRST POINT: I don't think that an EDWOSB is reached by the "such as" statement in FAR 5.202(a)(4). That's my opinion. You asked for opinions of other practitioners, right? SECOND POINT: Let's look at the grammar. I think 5.202(a)(4) is an exception for actions "made through another Government agency," and that the two "including" clauses provide examples of "made through another Government agency." I interpret the text as follows-- The proposed contract action is expressly authorized or required by a statute to be made through another Government agency, including— [1] acquisitions from the Small Business Administration (SBA) using the authority of section 8(a) of the Small Business Act (but see 5.205(f)), or [2] from a specific source such as a workshop for the blind under the rules of the Committee for Purchase from People Who Are Blind or Severely Disabled. You seem to be trying to interpret the text as follows-- The proposed contract action is expressly authorized or required by a statute to be made— [1] through another Government agency, including acquisitions from the Small Business Administration (SBA) using the authority of section 8(a) of the Small Business Act (but see 5.205(f)), or [2] from a specific source such as a workshop for the blind under the rules of the Committee for Purchase from People Who Are Blind or Severely Disabled. I think my interpretation better meets the reasonable and prudent person standard. If the FAR drafters had intended your interpretation, I think they would have used a semi-colon -- instead of a comma -- before the "or," and I think they would have put some punctuation between "made" and "through." I hope this is helpful in assuaging your confusion.
  14. And, an EDWOSB is not a specific source -- there are lots of EDWOSBs out there.
×
×
  • Create New...