Jump to content
The Wifcon Forums and Blogs


  • Content count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by ji20874

  1. 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.
  2. Oh, you weren't telling me to teach the IT pukes to design compliant systems? You can take my word for it that it is common practice in multiple agencies to award IDIQ contracts without funds citations. Indeed, I just called a contracting officer in a different agency -- he said (with no prompting from me) that no, there is no funds citation in the IDIQ contract -- the recording for the minimum is not done contractually, it is done administratively. I'm not defending the practice of not including the funds citation, just explaining it to you as common and current practice. Anyway, a current practicing contracting officer tells you that it is common practice that an IDIQ contract does not contain a funds citation for the contract minimum, and you refuse to believe it? I'm not a liar. Why don't you cite me proof that an IDIQ contract must include a funds citation for the minimum? If you can cite that proof, I can share that with others and maybe we can start accommodating you.
  3. Really, Vern? Do you really think a single contracting officer can require that his or her agency comply with your expectations of data processing system functionality? In today's practice in several agencies, it is common to issue IDIQ contracts without funds citations for the contract minimum. If those agencies record the minimum as an obligation on their books, they do so administratively -- or manually, if you prefer. The recording doesn't occur automatically, but is done by humans in the comptroller community.
  4. Suggestions on a better licensing approach?

    How about making license management a fundamental responsibility of the LMS contractor, and making the license management approach an important factor in your evaluation process?
  5. In all of the agencies I have worked in, including DoD a long time ago, an IDIQ contract generally does not contain a funds citation. Sure, there are sufficient funds within the agency to cover the contract minimum, and that obligation is administratively (or manually) recorded. Funds citations appear on the orders.
  6. The recording process described above doesn't work for IDIQ contracts, because generally an IDIQ contract does not cite the account from which the funds are to be taken -- it doesn't provide a "fund citation" to the comptroller. In such a case, the normal obligation recording process doesn't work for IDIQ contracts. That's correct. But when the process isn't completed automatically through an agency's contract writing system, the recording is done administratively or manually. I agree. The current spat began when REA'n Maker objected to my statement: "To meet the recording requirement, an agency (1) can issue an order; or (2) administratively record the obligation on its internal books." Hopefully, he understands the process now and no longer finds my statement objectionable. Yes, it is fine if he understands administratively to mean manually.
  7. Good point, Vern. The GAO does use the adverb in some of its reports, so there is precedent for its use -- and the adverb is well understood in the comptroller communities. There is a good reason for this: in many agencies, the awarding of a contract will include a funds citation, and the recording happens automatically through electronic systems -- a purchase is made and the obligation is recorded. However, for an IDIQ contract, there usually is not a funds citation, and no purchase has been made, and yet a recording still has to be done -- that recording has to be done manually, so to speak, and then has to be erased as funded orders are issued and purchases are made.
  8. Suggestions on a better licensing approach?

    I commend you for trying to hire a contractor to manage all the licensing for a big project -- there are companies that do this very well. I recommend you find some through market research, and then through further one-on-ones, let them help you craft your work statement, CLIN structure, and so forth.
  9. Those Pesky IDIQ Contracts Again

    I entirely reject any notion that the fill-in for para. (d) of the clause at FAR 52.216-22 establishes the scope of the contract.
  10. For a "normal" contract, the contract creates the obligation and makes the purchase at the same time. After the contract is awarded by the contracting officer, the agency comptroller records the obligation on the books of the agency. Creating the obligation and recording the obligation on the books of the agency are two different matters and two different processes (although some agencies have automated systems that seem to effectively combine these into a single automated transaction). In the old days, there could be several days or weeks between the creating of the obligation and the recording of the obligation. But an IDIQ contract is different -- the IDIQ contract creates an obligation (for the contract minimum) but does not purchase anything -- it is an obligation without a purchase. Purchases will occur later, when orders are issued. Because an IDIQ contract creates an obligation without a purchase and without a citation of funds, the agency comptroller will administratively record the obligation on the books of the agency -- this is intended to be a temporary recording, which will be erased later when orders are issued. You seem to be offended by use of the word "administrative" and "administratively" -- but these are the words the GAO uses to refer to this sort of recording. I did not initiate this usage. It has a very real practical relevance. Some agencies (the simple-minded agencies, in my opinion) decide to satisfy the recording statute by mandating that the award of an IDIQ contract must be accompanied simultaneously with the issuance of an order purchasing an amount to satisfy the contract minimum. Other agencies (the more mature agencies, in my opinion) satisfy the recording statute by administratively recording the minimum when an IDIQ contract is awarded, and then erase these entries as orders are issued satisfying the minimum. A contracting officer who cannot tell the difference will likely be fine as long as he or she never leaves his or her current agency -- but a contracting officer who moves to a different agency must respect the approach of his or her new agency. And any contracting officer who wants to move up into management echelons should understand the interplay between creating and recording obligations.
  11. Non-COs obligate funds all the time, every day of the week, in every federal agency. An obligation of funds is a legal liability to disburse funds immediately or at a later date as a result of a series of actions. The world is much, much bigger than us and our contracts. COs routinely obligate funds, true, but contracted dollars are only a small portion of federal obligations. Non-COs obligate all the rest. For the CO-created obligations: After a contracting officer creates an obligation, the agency comptroller records the obligation on the books of the agency. These are two separate processes, with separate bases in law. In some agencies, this is done electronically, and in these cases, sometimes one electronic action satisfies both processes. The only place in this thread where "administrative obligation" appears is in your own post.
  12. No, it is a standard and required procedure. Agency comptrollers administratively record obligations on the books of the agency every day of the week for all sorts of reasons. We err if we believe that an obligation can only be recorded by citing funds in a contract -- the world is much, much bigger than us and our contracts.
  13. Those Pesky IDIQ Contracts Again

    Acq NewB, I gave you good advice. Anyone errs who suggests that the fill-in in para. (d) of the clause at FAR 52.216-22 serves as a permanent limit on the right of the parties to mutually agree later to something else, or serves as a limit on either party's privileges under other contract clauses that allow for contract adjustments, equitable adjustments, and so forth. The fill-in in para. (d) of the clause at FAR 52.216-22 serves as a limit on the Government and a protection to the contractor -- the Government may not unilaterally require the contractor to make deliveries after that date. But the fill-in does not stop the contractor from voluntarily making deliveries after that date, and does not stop the Government from voluntarily accepting deliveries after that date. Clearly, the Government could not unilaterally issue an order that requires delivery after the date in the fill-in for para. (d) of the clause at FAR 52.216-22. But this is not your situation, so the fill-in for para. (d) is not a limitation on your bilateral modification wherein both parties agreed to a new delivery schedule. Your contractor needs to keep its promise and perform.
  14. Those Pesky IDIQ Contracts Again

    Acq NewB, Yes. If the contractor wanted to keep/honor/enforce the 52.216-22 end date, it should not have signed the modification. By voluntarily agreeing to the modification, the parties agreed not to be bound by the 52.216-22 end date.
  15. Assessment of Actual Damages

    CharliD, Don't forget to make sure the CPARS report tells the story.
  16. For a contract with a principal purpose to furnishing services subject to the Service Contract Act, FAR Subpart 22.10 requires a wage determination for all government-required performance locations. The contracting officer may meet this requirement by incorporating several wage determinations, or by getting a nationwide WD. You might want to ask the contracting officer for a listing of all places where it will require contractor performance, and for a wage determination (or combination of wage determinations) that cover all of those places.
  17. Weighting? Where does that word come from? What requires weighting? Oh, you mean declaring in a solicitation the relative importance of the evaluation factors? This is required for FAR Subpart 15.3 source selections and for FAR 16.505 fair opportunity considerations over $5.5 Milion, but it isn't required for FAR Subpart 8.4 schedule purchases or FAR Part 13 simplified acquisitions or FAR 16.505 fair opportunity considerations under $5.5 Million. Declaring the relative importance of the evaluation factors helps prospective offerors/quoters understand the Government's needs, and helps them make their own tradeoffs as they prepare their proposals.
  18. If you are the selecting official, you select the offer that provides the greatest value to the Government. If you think that Company A's offer provides better value (based on past performance) and you're willing to pay the higher cost associated with it, then pick Company A. If you think Company B's offer provides the best value (based on price), and you are satisfied with whatever risk is associated with that firm's past performance, then you select Company B. You decide. It's easy. You err if you think this is an algorithm where the inputs you describe will dictate an outcome.
  19. CS, Be careful! The GAO said the agency needed to record the obligation -- it didn't say the agency needed to "immediately issue an obligation order." To meet the recording requirement, an agency (1) can issue an order; or (2) administratively record the obligation on its internal books.
  20. Assessment of Actual Damages

    I agree! But then, when you do the CPARS report, do it factually and unemotionally -- if it is a fact that the contractor tied in the transformer incorrectly, and that resulted in a major power surge, blowing fuses all over the campus, damaging a compressor and a door controller, and cancellation of patient appointments, you may say so in the CPARS.
  21. Assessment of Actual Damages

    Split Fittings: It seems the contractor honored its warranty obligations. That's good. Complete Power Outage: You need to read para. (i) of the clause at FAR 52.246-12, Inspection of Construction, if that clause is on your contract. You need to determine if the faulty tie-in work fits under "latent defects, fraud, [or] gross mistakes amounting to fraud." If YES, then you might have a remedy -- whether or not that remedy will reach to the actual damages you are imagining, I cannot say. CPARS: Please do an updated CPARS.
  22. Assessment of Actual Damages

    Hi, CharliD, A few questions before I try to engage... Have you read the contract? Do any contract clauses or other terms and conditions address your situation? Are your attorneys of any help? Have you written and posted a CPARS report that tells the story?
  23. NAICS and Scope

    I conclude that a contracting officer need not/cannot do a new NAICS code analysis for a task order because the NAICS code analysis was already done for the parent IDIQ contract, and the order opportunities must use the NAICS code(s) established in the parent contract. I do understand why you won't answer the questions I put to you.
  24. NAICS and Scope

    Vern, So, then, you would assert that a notice (or solicitation) for a fair opportunity task order must include all the FAR clauses where the prescribing language says to include the clause in all solicitations? By the way, I never said everyone else was wrong. You are wrong to so suggest. I said that I don't use the word solicitation to describe what the fair opportunity procedures calls a notice, because it makes sense not to, and that I believe the word solicitation was intentionally avoided. Given a choice between believing the word usage was intentional or unintentional, it is far easier for me to believe it was intentional. If there was no purposeful intent, then they almost certainly would have used the word solicitation. But they didn't call it a solicitation -- they called it a notice. Why do you think they did that?
  25. CPARS comments

    Michael, If you only have one data point, I agree with you. But in a source selection, past performance should be only one among some number of other factors, all of which can influence the selection decision.