Jump to content
The Wifcon Forums and Blogs


  • Posts

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by ji20874

  1. I am unaware of either a requirement or a prohibition regarding the evaluation of proposed subcontractors. For reference, FAR 15.305(a)(2)(iii) uses the word "should...when...," not "shall...when..." But for me, I would rather evaluate the proposed prime contractor's past performance in managing major subcontractors. I am unaware of either a requirement or a prohibition regarding rigid "comparable magnitude" definitions. I don't like rigid "comparable magnitude" definitions because they may limit competition to firms who "pass" the definition and may otherwise lessen a contracting officer's flexibility. I prefer to determine relevance after seeing the facts and the context, rather than before.
  2. The contracting officer for that procurement will have to answer your questions. In my practice, I prefer not to evaluate the experience of proposed subcontractors -- or, in other words, I prefer evaluating the experience only of the proposed prime contractor (this might include experience in managing major subcontractors). Some other contracting officers seem eager to evaluate experience of proposed subcontractors. And, in my practice, I do not like to set rigid "comparable magnitude" definitions -- rather, I prefer to give more confidence to comparable experiences that are more similar to the agency need, and less confidence to experiences that are less similar. Some other contracting officers seem eager to use rigid eligibility or go/no go approaches.
  3. If you're willing to debrief unsuccessful awardees, you might as well do a debrief for the successful as well. It's easy.
  4. Right, it depends. Under some circumstances, it might be that the contractor employees pay for the tests. Under other circumstances, it might be that the contractor will pay for the tests without specific reimbursement from the Government (already included in the contract price). Under still other circumstances, it might be that the contractor will initially pay for the tests and then obtain reimbursement from the Government. Under yet other circumstances, it might be that the contractor needs to negotiate a change proposal to cover these costs. And there might still be other possibilities. It depends.
  5. In addition to the previous thoughts, I would add that you need to look at the guidelines and FAQs on the OMB website [saferfederalworkforce.gov]-- if this is a contractor obligation for electing to assign unvaccinated employees to the contract, you will find that answer there. I haven't re-read the guidelines and FAQs lately, but I am thinking that the biweekly testing for unvaccinated employees is the obligation of the employer -- but you should do your own reading of the guidelines and FAQs. Remember, the guidelines and FAQs are incorporated into service contracts (and some other contracts) by the clause that was shared last September - October timeframe.
  6. Why are you asking this question, Batman? You can find the references yourself, if you really want to. Look in the payment clauses for those contract types (and for A-E contracts) and you will find a requirement for a release of claims before final payment. Look in the payment clause for all or most other contract types, and you won't. Simple. But we're talking about closeout, right? Look in FAR 4.804 and search for "release of claims" or anything similar -- you won't find it. The FAR does not require a release of claims for any closeout, not a single one. And it is absurd for a contracting professional to think that a release of claims is a necessary part of a closeout process.
  7. Fact 1: The FAR never requires a release of claims for closeout. Fact 2: The FAR supplement Carl cited does not require a release of claims for closeout. It merely reminds personnel in that agency that if a release of claims was otherwise needed (such as prior to final payment for some contracts), it should be included in the file before closeout begins ("When applicable..."). Some people make closeout way too hard. If it were me doing the closeout, I'd be like Vern (but somewhere else, so as not to crash his party -- maybe Istanbul, which is delightful at this time if year).
  8. 48 CFR 3004.804-570 does not require obtaining a release of claims for every closeout action. Read what it actually says: "When applicable and prior to contract closure, the contracting officer shall obtain the listed DHS and Department of Defense (DOD) forms from the contractor for closeout." The key words are "When applicable." A release of claims is required only for a few contracts, including cost-reimbursement contracts, T&M contracts, and fixed-price construction contracts -- and for all of these, the release is required before final payment, long before closeout. If it isn't applicable, then it isn't applicable and need not be obtained for closeout. When it is applicable, it should have already been obtained long before closeout occurs. Agency supplements are not the FAR. They are agency supplements to the FAR. Read FAR 1.101: "The Federal Acquisition Regulations System consists of the Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR), which is the primary document, and agency acquisition regulations that implement or supplement the FAR." Read the FAR! It is amazing what can be learned through reading!
  9. No, it is not. And even if it was, that listing is not a list of required documents for closeout. For example, look at (3) for final royalty report -- does this mean you MUST have a final royalty report in the contract file before closeout? No -- what if there were no royalties? Or (6) for property clearance -- does this mean you MUST produce a property clearance report? No -- what if there was no government property? Or (11) for termination docket -- does this mean you MUST create a termination docket? What if there was no termination? Read what the listing is -- it says in (a) that "the administrative closeout procedures must ensure that..." So if any of those items in the list are applicable, they need to be dealt with -- but none of those items in the list requires the creation of a document. This mindset flows into (b), where it says "[w]hen the actions in paragraph (a)...have been verified..." See, the first key word is actions, not documents, and the other key word is verified, not created or included in the file. That whole listing in (a) is a listing of actions to verify, not documents to produce for closeout.
  10. I'm with Vern. Batman, where is there a FAR requirement for a release of claims for closeout? Contract file closeout is a unilateral administrative action for the Government's administrative convenience. It has zero impact on the rights and obligations of the parties to the contract. Please read FAR 4.804. Then, do what FAR 4.804 tells you to do. Maybe your office requires a release of claims for closeout as part of your own homemade procedures, with no basis in the FAR or common sense? If so, I regret your office's unnecessary and no-value-added rules.
  11. Mike, What about all the strap-hangers? Will they cooperate and participate in real time, trying to be helpful? Or will they be silent during real time and then stab you in the back, so to speak, with questions and demands for serial reviews and re-writes and so forth? Top management support is good! I hope your top management will demand that this support flows all the way through the organization.
  12. To start, please refer to the inspection clause of your contract (maybe FAR 52.246-__, or maybe para. (a) of FAR 52.212-4).
  13. Lesley Field signed a memo on Nov. 15 as the Acting Administrator (Subj: Issuance of Agency Deviations to Implement Requirements Addressing the Use of Nonavailability Waivers Under E.O. 14005).
  14. Is the principal purpose of the contract and/or the task order to furnish services in the United States through the use of service employees? This is the acid test for SCA applicability -- not the irrelevant fact that a word processor or clerk will be used somewhere during performance.
  15. REA'n Maker, I assume your comment was addressed to me? If so, you need to re-read my comment which you partially quoted. It is unfair to twist another person's words, to change the context, and to react only to a portion of the other person's comments. If you will re-read my comment which you partially quoted, you will see your error. I said nothing about changing from Secret to TS/SCI. And even if I did, I clearly allowed for an adjustment to contract price and other terms. So, I said nothing of the sort that you suggested. I shouldn't have to answer your question, which is based on faulty reading. For shame.
  16. I prefer supplemental agreement. However, I can see an argument for a change order under the Changes clause as being within the general scope of the contract. In order to enter the Government facility or otherwise interact with Government employees, the contractor's employees have to meet the Government's new facility security and safety access standards. And, with a change order, the contractor can afterwards assert a right to an adjustment in contract price or other terms as appropriate. Same as for imposing a new badging and background check requirement, right?
  17. I suppose Serco's saving grace is that Serco is also a Seaport-NxG contract holder.
  18. Here's an idea for two-phase approach -- I don't know if it meets your needs, but you haven't explained your needs. Release solicitation. PHASE ONE. FACTOR ONE - EXPERIENCE. All offerors submit EXPERIENCE information, sharing their own real experience with real clients with real results. Government selects those offerors who, in the SSA's subjective opinion, provide the greatest confidence of being successful based on experience. PHASE TWO. FACTOR TWO - ORAL PRESENTATION, and FACTOR THREE - PRICE. Selected offerors submit price proposals and appear for oral presentations. Oral presentations cover whatever needs to be covered to assess the offeror's ability to perform the contract successfully. Tradeoff includes all three factors (1 - EXPERIENCE, 2 - ORAL PRESENTATION, and 3 - PRICE). I hope this is helpful. [aside 1] I don't know why you insist on three phases -- that might be the right answer, but you shouldn't lock yourself into three phases until you understand your acquisition. [aside 2] I cannot reconcile "phases 1-3 under one solicitation" in your last posting with "I am considering two or three procurements to cover each phase" in your initial posting.
  19. Are you asserting that if you do an ISR, then you don't have to do a SSR? Or, are you asserting that the SSR is only applicable to companies with commercial subcontracting plans? The contract clause at FAR 52.219-9 describes your obligations for reporting in eSRS.
  20. creyes814, Are you the contractor? Do you want the extensions? Are the extensions unilateral (no contractor agreement and signature) or bilateral (with contractor agreement and signature)? What authority is cited in the extension modifications? Is your contract fixed-price or cost-reimbursement?
  21. PHASE ONE Solicitation released full and open competition. Up to five contracts awarded, each for PROOF OF CONCEPT. Every contractor who delivers on time is paid and advances to next phase. PHASE TWO Solicitation release limited to successful contractors from previous phase. Up to three contracts awarded, each for functional PROTOTYPE. Every contractor who delivers on time is paid and advances to next phase. PHASE THREE Solicitation release limited to successful contractors from previous phase. One contract awarded for COMPLETE SYSTEM DELIVERY. Is this what you're talking about?
  22. Are you talking about one procurement that will have three phases, and the end result will be one contract? Or are you talking about a series of procurements, with one or more contracts for each phase? Are you willing to share what you are buying?
  23. This thread is about implementing the President's COVID19 mandate for federal contractor employees. On that topic, the topic we are talking about in this thread, I really think contracting officers need to follow the direction of their superiors.
  24. Maybe it could, especially if the rent was for a location solely for the performance of the contract work. But if the rent is for the company headquarters space, maybe it couldn't. We don't know if the original poster performs the contract work in a government facility, in a contractor-provided facility just for that contract, or in its company headquarters space. Other direct costs is a subset of materials. If rent fits under other direct costs, then it also fits under materials.
  • Create New...