• Content count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

0 Neutral

About ji20874

  • Rank
    Platinum Member

Contact Methods

  • Website URL

Profile Information

  • Gender
  • Location

Recent Profile Visitors

22,152 profile views
  1. See FAR 15.404-1(a), and also (a)(1). Note the emphasis on "final agreed-to price" and "final price" being fair and reasonable. Is the contractor's proposed price fair and reasonable? There is nothing wrong per se with an overhead rate of 14.95%. I assume you're getting certified cost and pricing data (sole source over the threshold), so you can review or challenge or audit or negotiate any part of it. There is nothing wrong per se with profit on subcontracted work. If you don't use a structured approach to analyze profit, you'll still want to consider the factors listed in FAR 15.404-4(d)(1)(i) through ((vi) in your analyzing profit.
  2. There are a lot of rabbit holes in our work. :-) Speaking of rabbit holes, and since we don't know if this is a construction acquisition, let me add that the fill-in to the clause at FAR 52.236-1, Performance of Work by the Contractor, might prohibit a large business (or any other subcontractor) from doing 99% of the work.
  3. This is true insofar as we're talking about a contract (or purchase order) for services (or construction). And as best as I can tell from the original posting, we are probably talking about a contract for services (or construction). But I wouldn't want anyone to think that this same principle applies to a contract (or purchase order) for supplies. In a contract for supplies that is a total small business set-aside, even a contract below the simplified acquisition threshold, the contract will include the clause at FAR 52.219-6, Notice of Total Small Business Set-Aside. For a contract for supplies, paragraph (d) of that clause requires the contractor to furnish "only end items manufactured or produced by small business concerns in the United States or its outlying areas" except that if the total contract amount does not exceed $25,000, the contractor may furnish "the product of any domestic firm." The original poster did say that 52.219-6 was included in his or her solicitation. He or she did not clearly say that the acquisition was for services (or construction), although I assume it is because "a large business will do 99% of the work."
  4. REA, Here's how it works -- I don't like it; I'm just explaining it. An offeror with an approach we like gets a pass, an offeror with an approach we don't like gets a fail. I'm okay with pass/fail in LPTA if we really have some technical measures to assess -- and I'm okay sometimes with "approach" in LPTA -- but sometimes, all I see is technical approach, management approach, and/or staffing approach -- in such a case, I generally prefer tradeoff.
  5. Batman, Please help me understand. I can't make sense of this: versus: Does the -8 option expire in July, or did it already expire in January? And was the -8 option exercised for the parent IDIQ contract, or was it exercised on one/some/all task order(s)? If the -8 option was exercised for the parent IDIQ contract, what did the -8 option purchase, inasamuch as a parent IDIQ contract does not purchase any services?
  6. Deaner, It is good to read the clause, isn't it? The 52.237-3 clause need not be used only in the last 90 days of the incumbent contract -- it can also be used on the first 90 days of the successor contract.
  7. I'm with Vern -- the Continuity of Services clause presumes the successor contract has been awarded -- the incumbent contractor is not responsible for full performance, but only for phase-in/phase-out services in support of the successor contractor. And I'm with Don -- if the clause is in the parent contract, then it can apply to any of the task orders. If you still need full performance, don't use the 52.237-3 clause. Write a JEFO or other appropriate sole source justification if you need to and extend the period of performance of the order. Save the 52.237-3 clause for after award of the successor contract.
  8. I suppose this is a competitive acquisition, because you wrote "One offeror submitted..." and "tradeoff". You may open discussions with all offerors in the competitive range. Or, if you want to award without discussions, you award at the proposed price (estimated cost + fee = price). If the contractor gives you a notice of overrun during contract performance, you exercise one or more of the Government's flexibilities as listed in the clause at FAR 52.232-20 or -22, and you record the contractor's MARGINAL or UNSATISFACTORY performance under the cost control element in CPARS. If you do add additional funds to cover the overrun on estimated cost, you do not increase the fee. You may have other remedies available to you, depending on whether this is a CPFF or CFAF contract. At this point, you do not know that the offeror will overrun -- you acknowledge a possibility, but you don't know. It would be stupid to award on the probable cost calculated by the Government, so don't even think about it. Remember, if you think this is really a huge problem, you can open discussions with all offerors in the competitive range.
  9. The micro-purchase threshold is irrelevant to your situation. You made a contract or other award where you did a written price analysis. Now, you are modifying that award for an amount less than $3,500. However, you are not making a micro-purchase. Since you are not making a micro-purchase, you are not covered by FAR Subpart 13.2. You might be thinking that something in FAR Subpart 13.2 exempts you from price analysis. Well, you're not covered because you're a contractor, but still, the text in FAR Subpart 13.2 about not always having to verify price reasonableness doesn't apply because you aren't making a micro-purchase.
  10. An offeror intending to submit a proposal by e-mail really, really, really should make its submission by “5:00 p.m. one working day prior to the date specified for receipt of offers." An offeror who fails to do so, and whose proposal is late, should protest to the Court of Federal Claims instead of to the GAO. I'm with the GAO on this matter. Desparado, I've done a number of bid openings but I've never had that pressing situation -- I have had situations where a bidder arrived late and he knew he was late, so there was no complaint. At a bid opening, I always clearly announce when the time set for bid opening has arrived, as you probably do, too. In training others to do bid openings, I remind them that they must have the professional backbone to declare the time and then to stand by their announcement. I tend to discern that many of our younger colleagues do not have sufficient backbone to do it.
  11. Pepe, I'm sympathetic to your call to action. But how many of our contracting officers can tell the difference? How many of their supervisors can tell the difference? How many of their procurement analysts can tell the difference? How many of their attorneys can tell the difference? I wish I could say "most" or even "many" or each category. I can't. Here is a few things off the top of my head from the "blue" or "lore" category-- · A determination to include or exercise an option must be in a D&F (Determinations and Findings) format. · Q&As for a solicitation must be provided by solicitation amendment. · Any modification over 20% (or any other fill-in the-blank figure) is automatically out-of-scope. · A J&A (or other sole source documentation) is needed before issuing orders that cumulatively go above the estimated quantity (or price) in a requirements contract. · A task/delivery order purchasing the contract minimum must be awarded simultaneous with (or immediately after) the award of any IDIQ contract. · A determination of responsibility is required to support an option exercise or issuance of a task/delivery order. · A BPA must include a ceiling or maximum amount for the BPA, and a J&A (or other sole source documentation) is required before issuing orders that cumulatively go above that amount. · A contractor release of claims is required before closing out every contract, purchase order, or task/delivery order. · A contract closeout must be done with a bilateral contract modification. · A notice (solicitation) for a fair opportunity consideration must state whether all non-price factors, when combined, are significantly more important than, approximately equal to, or significantly less important than price. Let me stop there -- lunch is over and I need to get back to work. By the way, every single one of the above statements is FALSE but they are believed to be true by some of our associates -- that's why they're in the "blue" or "lore" category. I'm reminded that in matters of religion, one sincere adherent's folklore is another sincere adherent's doctrine. Some people reading my list of folklore might argue with me and insist that something on the list is doctrine. I hope no one tries to burn me at the stake -- but if I do err, maybe someone will teach me with chapter and verse from the FAR or other FAR-level document (not from an agency guide or office SOP). I'm open to learning.
  12. Gordon (or anyone else who is hip and with it), Help me out -- what does #MCGA mean?
  13. apsofacto, Vern did not suggest a T4C -- he suggested a no-cost T4C -- that's different. See FAR 49.402-4(c).
  14. The no fee on the cost portion made sense to me. To agree on a fee, the parties have to agree on an estimated cost -- but here, the parties cannot agree on an estimated cost, so they cannot agree on a fee. The fixed price portion can include whatever fee the hand of competition will allow.
  15. A contractor may be in default based on anticipatory repudiation. If a contractor has declared its intent not to comply with the contract terms, a termination for default at that time may be appropriate -- it is not necessary to wait for the actual failure to occur. From the 2014 Contract Attorneys Deskbook (chapter 25, Contract Terminations for Default): "Each party to a contract has the common-law right to terminate a contract upon actual or anticipatory repudiation of the contract by the other party." https://www.loc.gov/rr/frd/Military_Law/pdf/CAD_2014_Ch25.pdf