ji20874

A brick is a construction material and is an item of supply. A contracting officer can use a commercial item contract to purchase a brick. A brick building is a matter of construction of real property. A contracting officer cannot use a commercial item contract to build a brick building.

1. Sounds like construction to me. See the definition of construction in FAR 2.101. 2. Doesn't sound like a commercial service to me. It seems the price was not based on established catalog or market prices for specific tasks performed or specific outcomes to be achieved and under standard commercial terms and conditions. See the definition of commercial service in FAR 2.101. 3. FAR Subpart 15.4 can easily reach to cover procurements under FAR Subpart 13.5. The level of documentation should be appropriate to the circumstances. 4. A contract's effective date certainly can differ from the contract's period of performance start date.

No one is talking about a battle. There should always be room for professional dialogue, and a reviewer should never hold a file hostage. I do not share your confidence that reviewers, as a rule, are experts. I also believe any approving official should be willing to engage and give guidance.

It is a pitiful and sorry state of affairs in a contracting office when a contracting officer MUST make a change to satisfy a staff reviewer, in order for the package to continue its progress. Ideally, and professionally, when a contracting officer disagrees with a staff reviewer's comment, the file should go forward for the approver to make the call. Boogie, if you believe you are right, why don't you approach the approver and ask for his or her decision on the matter?

You don't need to call it either one -- just use the SF-1442 and complete block 11 -- you're done. It is a completion date.

In my construction solicitations and contracts, I used a homemade clause to declare that the government anticipated issuing the NTP between _____ and _____, or something like that.

FAR 15.305 lists the following categories of proposal evaluations: cost or price, past performance, technical, and small business subcontracting. Within that framework, it seems to me that key personnel qualifications would be "technical."

Are you (A) challenging or objecting to the changes, or (B) just wondering if "any" changes can be made? (A) You haven't described either the original work or the changes, so it might be that no one here can help you. (B) Yes, of course, changes can be made. Changes can be made in any contract, including AbilityOne contracts.

Busy, Who are you in this story? An IG inspector? The contracting officer? The contractor? Has the change already been done? Or are you trying to get it done? "Can you change the SOW to make it what you want it to be?" I hope so. An agency should be able to order or negotiate changes to stay up-to-date. Who is objecting, the agency or the AbilityOne firm? Or, are they both satisfied but you are unhappy? I am not seeing any problem, based on the little information shared in the original posting. What do you think should have happened instead?

But remember that FAR Part 6 does not apply to simplified acquisitions, most orders under indefinite-delivery contracts, and many other contracts.

The contract is already awarded? If FAR Part 6 even applies, see if you're covered by FAR 6.303-1(e). But FAR Part 6 does not apply to simplified acquisitions, most orders under indefinite-delivery contracts, and many other contracts. The far more important question is whether the sole source procurement is justified by the administratively delayed justification. If YES, maybe there isn't too much to make a stink about at this point.

You can get some ideas from the list at FAR 15.404-1(b)(2). Please tell us, are you engaged in a real pricing situation in your workplace? Or are you taking a class and looking for help with a class assignment?

You need to include all costs that will serve as the basis for the new contract's price.

You need to include all costs that will serve as the basis for the new contract's price.

The evaluation should be on the cost the Government will incur. This is most commonly done for transportation costs when the Government pays for shipping (fr example, see FAR 52.247-47). But it can also be for other costs, such as testing or qualification costs, training costs, inspection costs, re-configuration costs, or license costs -- estimates of the Government cost should be added to the proposed contract price for the price/cost evaluation. This is not evaluating offerors differently -- this is evaluating offerors fairly. Will this work for solicitation text? PRICE EVALUATION. The Government's evaluation of an offeror's price will include an adjustment for other costs the Government may incur if it accepts that offer. An estimate of these other costs will be added to the offer price to determine the Government's overall cost. These other costs may include ________ (contracting officer fill-in).

Best wishes! If you talk to others in your office, be mindful that some (many?) of them will not understand the difference between evaluation and responsibility -- this may include superiors and reviewers and policy experts. Maybe you can somehow help them understand correct and fundamental principles -- but if not, I will be happy if only you do.

Sure, they (sureties) will argue when you squeeze them for money -- but that is not what we're talking about. We're talking about simply informing the surety that the contractor is failing to comply with the contract while there is still time for a recovery. My experience is that sureties take the contractor's contract compliance seriously. Speaking of those sentences you read, doesn't one of them require you to explicitly label special standards of responsibility as such in the solicitation? If you explicitly label them that way, as the FAR requires, then you will have separated them from the evaluation factors. So you need to decide -- do you want these matters handled as part of the responsibility determination, or as part of the proposal evaluation? Take your pick, but remember that these are different.

Did you also post this question in another forum? I recommend not doing that.

<i>"Only request the minimum you need to evaluate them right?"</i> I wouldn't use the word "evaluate" -- we're talking responsibility, which occurs after proposal evaluation. We don't want to confuse any of our readers who cannot tell the difference. Only request the minimum you need to satisfy yourself regarding responsibility. And, don't require responsibility information as part of the technical proposal mixed in with all the evaluation factors information. Remember, you only need responsibility information on the apparent awardee from the evaluation process. You can ask for responsibility information after proposal receipt and after proposal evaluation, and you can talk to the apparent awardee about responsibility matters without inviting discussions as that term is used in FAR subpart 15.3.

In a construction contract, the contractor has to submit and continually update a schedule, all to the satisfaction of the contracting officer. You can insist (maybe as an SCR) that blaster availability be an item on the schedule, and that it appear at least 90 days before blasting is scheduled to start. You can remind the contractor of its obligation maybe two weeks before this 90-day deadline, and on day 89 you send a cure notice (with copy to the surety) if a blaster has not been made available. The surety will make sure the problem is solved.

If you are doing sealed bidding, you cannot do LPTA and you cannot have a technical proposal. However, with sealed bidding, you may require information to support a responsibility determination -- this will not be a technical proposal, but will simply be information to be used in the responsibility determination. I do not think your approach or your text will solve your problem. Anybody can submit a document saying that they can get a blaster in the future. Don't you want to require, as a matter of responsibility, that the company already have demonstrated experienced using blasters who are certified and who have 5 years of experience along with timely availability?

I am not familiar enough with the literature to make a recommendation. However, those few sentences you found might be enough for you to start a meaningful conversation. A special standard of responsibility is simply a must-have for an offeror to be selected, and you declare it up-front (in your solicitation) so everyone knows. By making a matter a special standard of responsibility (and identifying it as such in your solicitation), you remove it from the comparative tradeoff evaluation -- doing so can be very useful sometimes. Examples: you might require that the offeror have a particular license or permit by the date of proposal submission, or you might require that the offeror have a certain experience. These are pass-fail items. The contracting officer has a lot of discretion here. If you share your idea, you can get feedback here. Here's something you can read: https://sgp.fas.org/crs/misc/R40633.pdf

Don't you think the prime contractor's single submission will cover all of the professional employees working under the contract, whether they are prime contractor or subcontractor employees?

Are you talking about the compensation plan contemplated by FAR 52.222-46, Evaluation of Compensation for Professional Employees? Or some other plan? Please specify the citation.

It seems to me that the level of inquiry should match the circumstances. You said we're talking about commercial items, right? Well, if the item is on the shelf and ready for delivery, it seems very little inquiry into financial health is required, unless maybe the warranty is crucial. If the item is custom manufacture, well, if the company is selling to others and delivering on time, that seems to indicate a healthy supply chain, and that seems to indicate adequate financial resources. Please don't require a exhaustive analysis and exhaustive documentation when it really isn't required.