Jump to content

ji20874

Members
  • Posts

    3,734
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Reputation

0 Neutral

3 Followers

Contact Methods

  • Website URL
    http://

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Male
  • Location
    Virginia

Recent Profile Visitors

28,760 profile views
  1. I wish the word “descope” would disappear from 1102 vocabulary. Are we talking about a (1) a change order under to the Changes clause; (2) a partial termination under the Termination clause; or (3) something else?
  2. Maybe we can categorize contractor FFP assumptions into two buckets for this discussion? Proposal Pricing Assumptions. Assumptions an offeror makes as part of developing its firm-fixed-price proposal. Performance Assumptions. Assumptions an offeror makes which condition or limit its offer, provide an excuse for non-performance, and so forth. pconner, what kind of assumptions are you talking about?
  3. I was a Defense employee posted in a Commerce organization -- we used Defense rules and approvals for some contracts, and Commerce rules and approvals for other contracts.
  4. I don't know if it is typical, but certainly it is allowable. I have seen it happen several times in my career. Sure, why not? Several years ago, I simultaneously held an unlimited contracting officer's warrant in the Defense Department and an unlimited contracting officer's warrant in the Commerce Department, and awarded contracts under the jurisdiction of both departments.
  5. But a T&M/LH contract does not buy hours -- the notion is error -- a T&M/LH contract buys a job where the number of hours needed is unknown, and the contractor agrees to provide its best effort to compete the job within the agreed-upon ceiling price.
  6. Yeah, but you have to decide whether you are a professional or a clerk -- and even if you strive to be a professional, your organization might treat you like a clerk. The negotiation examples I shared are legitimate and honorable, and using them will help you shift more to a professional perspective. The clerk perspective pervades the 1102 community, and that is sad. I am glad you are asking questions.
  7. Too many 1102s want to apply FAR 15.306 everywhere. Back in the days when we had 1105s, they understood small purchases/simplified acquisitions and they handled them. When 1102s move into that arena, many of them carry their Part 15 baggage with them -- and they carry that baggage into purchases against schedules, orders under IDIQ contracts, and everywhere else. sam101, Look at these and tell me if you think they are fair... (1) Simplified acquisition, quotes at $36,200, $36,600, and $41,000 -- all quotes are identical except for price -- the contracting officer's requisition or purchase request is for $36,000. The contracting officer asks the first quoter if it can drop its price by $200 -- the first quoter says YES, and the purchase order is issued. I think this is fair and allowed under FAR Part 13. (2) Simplified acquisition, same quotes as above. The first quoter says NO to the request to drop its price by $200 -- the contracting officer asks the second quoter if it can drop its price by $600 -- the second quoter says YES, and the purchase order is issued. I think this is fair and allowed under FAR Part 13.
  8. Yeah, I thought the linked thread was pretty clear, too.
  9. I see them as different. The FAR text on schedule BPAs speaks only of estimate (not ceiling), and even allows for orders going beyond the estimate (not ceiling) -- this leads me to believe that estimate (not ceiling) is the correct and intended word. But I allow others liberty in their practice, and they may impose ceilings if they choose.
  10. If the evidence suggests the parties had a common understanding at the time of schedule BPA establishment that the BPA had a ceiling (and not an estimate, or a separate lower estimate), I think I would want to respect that understanding and enforce the ceiling as limiting on the agency. It might be interesting to see how the attorney would make a case that a ceiling and an estimate are the same thing, and that both mean estimate. I note that we are now talking only about schedule BPAs, not simplified acquisition BPAs.
  11. I think I would want to hear the protest parties make their arguments about whether the "ceiling/estimate" was intended to be (1) a ceiling; or (2) an estimate -- after all, they are two entirely different things. Whichever way I decided based on the arguments and evidence, I would probably want to bemoan the sloppiness of the agency's BPA text and to chide the protesters for not inquiring about which term was correct before the BPAs were established. A typo such as in a FAR citation is easily overlooked and forgiven, but a contracting officer's use of the terms "ceiling" and "estimate" as synonyms indicates a quality problem with the contracting officer as well as with all of the reviewers and attorneys who let the sloppy text slide through.
  12. In my experience, contracting officers and others routinely believe that ceilings are required for BPAs, both FAR Part 13 BPAs and Subpart 8.4 BPAs. They are astounded when they learn the truth, and some refuse to accept the truth. I think most BOA ceilings are imposed because of this error in learning rather than by agency policy or purposeful contracting officer decision -- and if an agency does have a policy, that policy may well exist because of this error in learning rather than a legitimate agency-wide need to impose a ceiling. That said, where a ceiling is imposed, my practice has been to respect it.
  13. FAR 37.204's call for an agreement between agencies for one agency's federal employees to assist another agency in an evaluation is for a simple agreement. It most certainly IS NOT an "interagency agreement for advisory and assistance services" -- it IS NOT related at all anything in FAR 37.203 -- it IS NOT related to anything else anywhere else in the FAR -- it IS NOT an IAA in the sense that acquisition people think about IAAs -- the assistance being provided IS NOT advisory and assistance services as that term is used in the FAR. Your agency's HR office will know how to do any needed agreement -- if an agreement on paper is needed, it will be an HR agreement, not a procurement agreement. This is EASY.
  14. I think OP is talking about negotiating a new contract -- he or she has not inquired about changing or modifying an on-going contract.
  15. Joel, because OP is talking about the negotiation for a new contract (and not about administration or the existing contract), your last comment about change of scope seems inapt.
×
×
  • Create New...