Jump to content
The Wifcon Forums and Blogs


  • Posts

  • Joined

  • Last visited


Contact Methods

  • Website URL

Profile Information

  • Gender
  • Location

Recent Profile Visitors

27,168 profile views
  1. May I recommend that you make an argument, one way or the other, and then ask others to share insights on your arguments? I think you need to separately address the incentive for an employee obtaining a vaccine and the incentive for an employee seeking an exemption from the contractor. And consider whether you are talking about an already-awarded contract versus negotiating a new contract.
  2. And who knows? That contract with Transdigm might have delivered the part that kept an airplane flying. It might be that under the circumstances, the best possible contract price was negotiated.
  3. $128 : $7000 = $0.128 : $7.00 I can easily see $7.00 as a reasonable price for something that costs 12 or 13 cents to produce. Think of a specialty bottle of water.
  4. In some situations, it may make sense for an organization to contract for housing and provide it to personnel, rather than making those persons find their own accommodations with their housing allowances. If your organization is contracting for housing, I am sure the proper authorities have decided it is appropriate to do so.
  5. Here is the substance of the proposed law... (my emphasis) But here is what the FAR already says... (my emphasis) Is there a difference? is uncertified cost information different than data other than certified cost or pricing data?
  6. I did an internet search for CASES Act. How about Public Law No: 116-50, Creating Advanced Streamlined Electronic Services for Constituents (CASES) Act of 2019? Hint: If the RFP mentions compliance with the CASES Act, your should should be on CASES Act, not CASE Act.
  7. I am unaware of either a requirement or a prohibition regarding the evaluation of proposed subcontractors. For reference, FAR 15.305(a)(2)(iii) uses the word "should...when...," not "shall...when..." But for me, I would rather evaluate the proposed prime contractor's past performance in managing major subcontractors. I am unaware of either a requirement or a prohibition regarding rigid "comparable magnitude" definitions. I don't like rigid "comparable magnitude" definitions because they may limit competition to firms who "pass" the definition and may otherwise lessen a contracting officer's flexibility. I prefer to determine relevance after seeing the facts and the context, rather than before.
  8. The contracting officer for that procurement will have to answer your questions. In my practice, I prefer not to evaluate the experience of proposed subcontractors -- or, in other words, I prefer evaluating the experience only of the proposed prime contractor (this might include experience in managing major subcontractors). Some other contracting officers seem eager to evaluate experience of proposed subcontractors. And, in my practice, I do not like to set rigid "comparable magnitude" definitions -- rather, I prefer to give more confidence to comparable experiences that are more similar to the agency need, and less confidence to experiences that are less similar. Some other contracting officers seem eager to use rigid eligibility or go/no go approaches.
  9. If you're willing to debrief unsuccessful awardees, you might as well do a debrief for the successful as well. It's easy.
  10. Right, it depends. Under some circumstances, it might be that the contractor employees pay for the tests. Under other circumstances, it might be that the contractor will pay for the tests without specific reimbursement from the Government (already included in the contract price). Under still other circumstances, it might be that the contractor will initially pay for the tests and then obtain reimbursement from the Government. Under yet other circumstances, it might be that the contractor needs to negotiate a change proposal to cover these costs. And there might still be other possibilities. It depends.
  11. In addition to the previous thoughts, I would add that you need to look at the guidelines and FAQs on the OMB website [saferfederalworkforce.gov]-- if this is a contractor obligation for electing to assign unvaccinated employees to the contract, you will find that answer there. I haven't re-read the guidelines and FAQs lately, but I am thinking that the biweekly testing for unvaccinated employees is the obligation of the employer -- but you should do your own reading of the guidelines and FAQs. Remember, the guidelines and FAQs are incorporated into service contracts (and some other contracts) by the clause that was shared last September - October timeframe.
  12. Why are you asking this question, Batman? You can find the references yourself, if you really want to. Look in the payment clauses for those contract types (and for A-E contracts) and you will find a requirement for a release of claims before final payment. Look in the payment clause for all or most other contract types, and you won't. Simple. But we're talking about closeout, right? Look in FAR 4.804 and search for "release of claims" or anything similar -- you won't find it. The FAR does not require a release of claims for any closeout, not a single one. And it is absurd for a contracting professional to think that a release of claims is a necessary part of a closeout process.
  13. Fact 1: The FAR never requires a release of claims for closeout. Fact 2: The FAR supplement Carl cited does not require a release of claims for closeout. It merely reminds personnel in that agency that if a release of claims was otherwise needed (such as prior to final payment for some contracts), it should be included in the file before closeout begins ("When applicable..."). Some people make closeout way too hard. If it were me doing the closeout, I'd be like Vern (but somewhere else, so as not to crash his party -- maybe Istanbul, which is delightful at this time if year).
  14. 48 CFR 3004.804-570 does not require obtaining a release of claims for every closeout action. Read what it actually says: "When applicable and prior to contract closure, the contracting officer shall obtain the listed DHS and Department of Defense (DOD) forms from the contractor for closeout." The key words are "When applicable." A release of claims is required only for a few contracts, including cost-reimbursement contracts, T&M contracts, and fixed-price construction contracts -- and for all of these, the release is required before final payment, long before closeout. If it isn't applicable, then it isn't applicable and need not be obtained for closeout. When it is applicable, it should have already been obtained long before closeout occurs. Agency supplements are not the FAR. They are agency supplements to the FAR. Read FAR 1.101: "The Federal Acquisition Regulations System consists of the Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR), which is the primary document, and agency acquisition regulations that implement or supplement the FAR." Read the FAR! It is amazing what can be learned through reading!
  • Create New...