Jump to content
The Wifcon Forums and Blogs

ji20874

Members
  • Content count

    1,408
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by ji20874

  1. napolik, I have done it by including a statement in the award document that I sign. For example, an awarded contract might contain (a) the acceptance -- a few pages with the contracting officer's signature on the contract SF-1447; and (b) the offer -- the underlying solicitation A-J with the offeror's signature on the solicitation SF-1447 and fill-ins in Sec. B. The acceptance (a) and the offer (b) combine to form the contract. The incorporation statement goes in (a).
  2. Bilateral: by including the new text in Section H proper. Unilateral: by including the new text in the award document.
  3. The Section L blurb is already in the solicitation, saying that any aspect or feature of the proposal may be incorporated into the resulting contract: L-6. Incorporation into Contract The Government may incorporate any aspect or feature of the offeror's proposal into the resulting contract. Then, in the awarded contract, you include text such as in Section H (Special Contract Requirements): H-19. Incorporation into Contract The automobile provided by the contractor shall be a Mercedes Model Z. This requirement does not waive, relax, or alter any other requirement of this contract. or H-19. Incorporation into Contract The Contractor shall use the approach to nickel-cadmium plating with Acme Platers described on pages 14-16 of the offeror's proposal. This requirement does not waive, relax, or alter any other requirement of this contract. These are simplified examples. In real life, there would be a few more words.
  4. I usually include text in my solicitation Section L that any aspect or feature of the offeror's proposal may be incorporated into any resulting contract. You write contract text saying that the particular aspect or feature is incorporated into the contract. Using your example, where the requirement was for an automobile that goes at least 65mph and has trunk capacity of at least 1 cubic yard and seats five comfortably and so forth, and the best value offer was a Mercedes Model Z, you include text that the contractor will provide a Mercedes Model Z. If the reason for the selection was an offeror's superior approach to nickel-cadmium plating using a specific subcontractor, you include text that the contractor's approach to nickel-cadmium plating using that named subcontractor, as described in pages 14-16 of its technical proposal, is incorporated into the contract. NOTE: This is not incorporating the entirety of the offeror's technical proposal into the contract -- generally, I do not like doing that -- and this is not incorporating pages 14-16, either. Anyway, I might also include a statement that this incorporation of the feature or aspect of the proposal into the contract does not waive, relax, or alter any other requirement of the contract -- the Mercedes Model Z still has to meet all of the performance requirements and/or design criteria in the statement of work (the contractor offered the Model Z to meet exactly those requirements). Normally, I would call this contract text a clause -- but there is some sensitivity in this forum about contracting officers and home-made clauses, so I haven't used the term. But I am all in favor of home-made clauses when appropriate -- I think drafting clauses for use in contracts is a crucial skill for contracting officers to have -- a contracting officer who cannot do it is to worth his or her pay. Agency and local rules that prohibit contracting officers from writing home-made clauses are stupid rules. NOTE: I am talking about clauses drafted by the contracting officer that are not deviations -- also I am not talking about clauses promulgated by the agency head.
  5. Progress Payments by CLIN

    When I was a DoD contracting officer many years ago, I was aware that DFAS cares nothing about the text of the contract or the contract's FAR clauses, and does wherever it wants when paying invoices -- this leaves PCOs and ACOs to find workarounds to try to respect the contract's text. It seems that hasn't changed.
  6. napolik, My practice: Whenever I conduct a trade-off, and the winner is selected because of some feature or aspect of its offer or proposal (yes, these are different), I want to incorporate that feature or aspect into the resulting contract. Vern, i hope your efforts here will result in a contracting officer somewhere shifting more towards evaluating offers (promises) and less on evaluating proposals. This means our solicitations should ask more for offers (promises) and less for proposals.
  7. el conejo, You don't need a citation. The protester didn't give you a citation. There is no basis for the protester's argument, so the protest can be denied because the protester failed to establish the basis of the protest.
  8. Dear Sir (or Ma'am), i am in receipt of your protest to the agency of our award of a task (or delivery) order to _____ for __________. The basis for your protest is that we relied on your quotation of 8/18/2017 in evaluation and award process, rather than your quotation of 6/29/2017. Your quotation of 6/29/2017 was sought for market research purposes, and was used for market research purposes. Your quotation of 8/18/2017 was sought for a purchase, and was used for that purpose. Your later quotation (of 8/18/2017) was materially different from your earlier quotation (of 6/29/2017). One supposes you could have extended your earlier quotation if you wanted us to use it for our purchase, but you did not. Instead, you provided a new quotation. We reasonably used your new quotation for our evaluation and award process. There is no basis for your argument that we should have used your earlier quotation instead of your later quotation for our evaluation and award process. Your protest is denied. i appreciate your interest in Government procurement. /s/ Contracting Officer
  9. When the question is the authority that someone relied on for a specific action taken by that person, the very best answer is to ask that person. Asking the contracting officer directly is very good advice -- sometimes it's the best advice.
  10. Please ask the person who sent the e-mail.
  11. No. That is not a partial set-aside. Rather, that is reserving some awards for small businesses. See FAR 19.502-4, where reserves are covered by para. (a) and set-asides are covered by para. (b). I am supposing that Alliant WAS NOT a partial set--aside.
  12. J&A Requirement

    FAR 6.302-1(c) refers only to products, not services. The original poster seems to be talking about services. Therefore, I don't think FAR 6.302-1 applies in this scenario where a small percentage of the contract is for work on items which must be performed by the item OEMs. The solution may be as simple as a statement of work blurb saying that the needed services must be performed by the OEM or one of its licensees or dealers. This may be true because of product warranty or similar considerations. I'm thinking that a J&A is not needed.
  13. napolik, Maybe the Alliant contracting officer didn't have a reasonable expectation that small businesses could fulfill the entire requirement. I'm supposing, but that would be a valid reason.
  14. page limitations on proposals

    As long as the Government is expected to read and understand every word in a technical proposal, and unsuccessful offerors will try to re-do the technical evaluation in a protest, then page limits make sense.
  15. page limitations on proposals

    I think there is some merit to 1, 3, and 5. And in the current environment, tight page limits generally make sense.
  16. Your CEO can condition the discount on a minimum -- such as $100 each for units 1-500 and a 10% discount for quantities over that. You need to treat this as a business proposition and play ball, or walk away for other opportunities. Or, pose the question directly to the agency.
  17. Does para. (c)(4) of the clause at FAR 52.215-1 (or other similar provision in your solicitation) help you?
  18. Joel, I didn't say anything about the way we've always done it. Perhaps your comment to me was mis-addressed?
  19. Waiver of Amounts Due the Government

    Maybe there is another way to look at it, in order to make it okay? At least it is mutual and works both ways. I suppose both parties could agree, for administrative efficiency and to avoid nickels and dimes, that any amounts due by or to either party will be rounded downward to the nearest $500 increment -- so $415 gets rounded down to zero and $1,215,412 gets rounded down to $1,215,000. If so, then they could agree to limit the effect to closeout. Since the clause has been in effect for 22 years, and since there was probably a legally sufficient determination at the first, and since it has stood the test of time, I'm willing to leave it alone. I say this as a contracting practicioner, not as an attorney and not as a party that would be aggrieved. I suppose anyone wanting to object to the clause should do so before proposals are submitted, rather than after contract formation.
  20. Joel, You may err in your conclusion -- this is not a design-build discussion; rather, this is a FPI discussion focusing on whether the target and ceiling prices may be different.
  21. I'm not aware that a D&F is required for competitive multiple-award contracts. A D&F for what?
  22. While it is common practice for contracting officers to combine special standards of responsibility with evaluation factors, the GAO is able to tell the difference (as illustrated in the cases that Vern cited). But all along, FAR 9.104-2(a) tells us that "[t]he special standards shall be set forth in the solicitation (and so identified) and shall apply to all offerors" (emphasis added). Thus, a contracting officer errs when he or she combines special standards of responsibility with evaluation factors, and categorizes all of them as evaluation factors.
  23. Was there anything in FAR 31.205-18 that was helpful to you? Or 48 CFR 9904.420 (referenced in FAR 31.205-18(b))?
  24. Which do you want to monitor: the outputs (outcomes, results, deliverables) or the inputs (labor hours)?
×