Jump to content
The Wifcon Forums and Blogs

ji20874

Members
  • Posts

    3,193
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by ji20874

  1. I hope so... Oh, I really hope so... I hope my value in my career has been more than document assembly.
  2. A weekly status report is not a deliverable or outcome. Well, it might be delivered, but when we talk about purchasing supplies or services, we aren't talking about status reports. Successful migration from one system to the other is a deliverable or outcome. This should be a simple question: Who is responsible for the migration from one system to another? [select one] Contractor Government (with contractor providing support to Government employees)
  3. Me, too. The FAR tells us that the contract needs to include some labor categories, hourly rates for those labor categories, and a ceiling price. It does not require that the contract fix or cap a number of hours for any labor category. If I did include hours in a contract, I would show them as estimates. If I thought the contractor might be reckless, I would require regular status reports and meaningful/rigorous oversight. Freyr, No matter how "right" you might be, you still need to be able to work with your contracting officer. Part of our problem with T&M contracts is that we use them to buy employees (Bob for 40 hours and Mary for 80 hours) rather than to achieve deliverables or outcomes (such as repairing a cuckoo clock).
  4. TASK: Repair the broken cuckoo clock. CONTRACT TYPE: T&M A single CLIN-- 001, Repair Cuckoo Clock, T&M Ceiling Price $100 Two CLINs-- 001, Break-Down and Quote, FFP $25 002 [option or upon direction] Repair Cuckoo Clock, T&M Ceiling Price $75
  5. I think everyone agrees with this. I think the question is whether a contracting officer, before award, should impose absolute criteria to judge the contractor's future compliance with LOS. To me, trying to do this would be problematic for several reasons already discussed above. If there is a basis for questioning the contractor's compliance with LOS during contract administration at the end of a contract or task order period, I prefer allowing the contractor to show its compliance using any method it decides upon at that time.
  6. Here is the text of FAR 42.1503(b)(2)(vi): I do not read this as creating an affirmative duty on the contracting officer to investigate or the contractor to report -- I don't think the contracting officer has any affirmative duty to investigate whether the contractor is involved in human trafficking, or whether the contractor paid its taxes completely and on time, and so forth. However, if the contracting officer learns of anything of the sort listed, he or she may report it in CPARS amenable to FAR 42.1503(b)(2)(vi). That said, if the contracting officer's normal review of invoices and so forth demonstrates that the contractor is not complying with the LOS requirements of the contract, the contracting officer may raise the matter with the contractor -- but the burden of proof seems to be on the Government rather than the contractor. As Don shared above, it seems that the powers-that-be have already decided that there is no requirement on the contractor for LOS compliance reporting.
  7. YES, leave it up to each offeror or contractor -- YES, we should leave it up to each offeror or contractor to interpret and argue various interpretations. There is no government-wide interpretation. A contracting officer should not want to impose a single interpretation. Before award, let the contractor make its own representation that it will comply (just a representation, not a demonstration of proof).' After award, if the contracting officer feels the representation is not being honored, let the contractor demonstrate that it has complied using its own arguments. If the contracting officer is not persuaded, that is when he or she deals with it. And YES, one contractor might be more persuasive than another contractor. This is not timidity -- this is prudence and professionalism.
  8. Newbie, I am trying to remember whether the PSC makes any difference or has any importance. It might be a rhetorical question. The NAICS code might matter because that sets the small business size limitation, and for 8(a) contracts might limit the field to certain players, but does the PSC make any difference to anyone? Who cares about the PSC?
  9. I have worked in several agencies, and they all handle it differently. I am okay with that diversity. Whether or not a contracting officer in Agency X can sign a particular modification (or other action) can only be answered within Agency X.
  10. That is not what I said. Please see FAR 16.602. There are no materials on a labor-hour contract.
  11. See FAR 16.602 for your answer. When you read this citation, remember that ODCs are "materials" as that term is defined in para. (b)(1)(ii) of the clause at FAR 52.232-7.
  12. It seems to me that the original posting is about social services outcomes with benefits for society as a whole, rather than traditional performance and delivery outcomes with benefits for an agency. Maybe this is somewhat analogous to the difference between basic research and applied research, which is expressly accommodated in the FAR.
  13. If the purchase order incorporates the license agreement, and if the license agreement gives the contractor the right to terminate the agreement, well, there you go. One supposes that both the Government's and the contractor's attorneys will have reviewed the whole arrangement (purchase order plus license arrangement), and that both parties are satisfied with the arrangement. As far as I can tell, there is no FAR prohibition on allowing a termination privilege to a contractor -- the FAR only insists that the Government have the privilege.
  14. No, if by "agreement" you mean a FAR-based contract. Under the standard FAR clauses, the privilege of terminating a contract for convenience or default (or cause) lies only with the Government -- the contractor has no such privilege. However, the contractor does have certain privileges under the Disputes clause of FAR-based contracts. I am talking about standard FAR clauses. Nothing stops a contractor from trying to negotiate the inclusion of home-made clauses in a contract when a negotiated process is used.
  15. Angie, Contractor acquired property (CAP) is property that a contractor acquires in order to perform a contract. Usually, the CAP is not a contract deliverable. However, since title to the CAP in a CPFF contract belongs the the Government, the contractor has to deliver the CAP to its rightful owner or otherwise comply with disposition instructions. No, a POP extension is not necessary for this. It is simply part of the contract administration process, and no additional payment is due. Please see the contract clause at FAR 52.245-1, GOVERNMENT PROPERTY.
  16. Tell the COR that the request appears to be a change to the contract, and negotiate a fair price for a contract modification for the new submission requirement.
  17. We're talking about whether the number of awards under the cited authority can be limited to three as an example, and whether a competitive range approach can achieve that end. But in real life, the Air Force already did a procurement using the cited authority and limited the number of awards upfront in the solicitation. I mentioned the procurement and a protest (one of several) in my first posting under this thread.
  18. Jax, In addition to what Vern said, I would add that you should ascertain whether the contractor is entitled to an increase in the contract price in the first place. You speak of a "proper request," and part of proper includes a valid basis to even entertain a request.
  19. Somehow, the Air Force justified 40 awardees. It would be interesting to read the legal review, if anything was put in writing.
  20. I appreciate the discussion. Here's something to throw into the mix: FAR subpart 15.3 is only for competitive source selections, so for me, everything done under FAR subpart 15.3 is competitive. Nothing in FAR subpart 15.3, not a single word, pertains to non-competitive actions.
  21. Please see if FAR 8.402(f) answers your question.
  22. I think using Alt I and then limiting the competitive range for efficiency is an elegant way to cap the number of awardees.
×
×
  • Create New...