Jump to content

ji20874

Members
  • Posts

    3,738
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Posts posted by ji20874

  1. First, generally, you should not want to prepare a solicitation package with inconsistencies between its various parts.

    That said, YES, of course! Section H takes precedence over Section C's specifications! Always! Section C is sometimes boilerplate, but Section H is always carefully tailored for that solicitation, right?

    If something could fit in both sections, take your pick.  Example:

    Section C. The contractor shall comply with Agency Policy 1-1 in the performance of the work, except that Sections 4 and 5 do not apply.

    Section H. The contractor shall comply with Agency Policy 1-1 in the performance of the work, except that Sections 4 and 5 do not apply.

  2. There is a general requirement for pre-award synopsis for procurements over $25K -- there are exceptions, but sole-source under SAT isn't one of them.  See FAR Subpart 5.2.

    If you think the sole source SAT action is unwarranted, you may file a protest.  The GAO will review an agency’s decision to limit competition for reasonableness. If you think the agency awarded to a large business without regard to the automatic set-aside requirement of SAT, you may also file a protest.

    7 hours ago, contractor100 said:

    Someone here is saying that Part 13 effectively allows sole source awards to any company under Part 13, regardless of the company's size. That does not seem to be what Part 13 says.

    Right -- Part 13 does not say that.

  3. Well, for a cost-reimbursement contract (you said it is CPAF), shouldn't you bill actual incurred costs (actually paid to the employee) as the direct labor charge?  And other overhead or G&A costs as indirects?  Under your cost-reimbursement subcontract, maybe you are not entitled to $102.31 per hour for on-call work, especially if the on-call work doesn't materialize, and if/when it does, your actual direct labor incurred cost is not $102.31 per hour.

    4 hours ago, Contractor500 said:

    ...we have an IDIQ with 5 Task Orders currently. It's Cost plus award fee...

    Do you mean that (A) you have an IDIQ subcontract and 5 task orders from the prime contractor; or (B) the prime contractor has an IDIQ contract and 5 task orders with the government?  If (B), what is your subcontract arrangement with the prime?  Is it CPAF or something else?  The prime's arrangement with the government is irrelevant to you -- what matters is your arrangement with the prime.

    3 hours ago, Contractor500 said:

    ...It's the rate we bill the customer...

    Is it the rate (C) you bill the prime contractor, or (D) the prime contractor bills the government?  The only thing that matters is (C), right?

  4. Even if you bill it as labor, the prime can bill it as ODC when it invoices the government, right?

    5 hours ago, Contractor500 said:

    ...our employee has a rate of $102.31...

    Is that a loaded or billing rate (such as would be used for T&M)?  Or, is that the rate actually earned by and paid to the employee?

  5. 53 minutes ago, Contractor500 said:

    ...it doesn't appear to have a block for contractor signature...

    There is your answer.  

    Think about it.  We're talking about classified information.  The government decides the security requirements -- the contractor simply complies or faces penalties (including jail) -- there is no negotiation and no contractor input -- there is simply no need for a contractor signature.

    Similarly, the contractor doesn't sign the wage determination -- it simply complies.

  6. I have never used these labels in my exchanges with offerors.  I regret that some DHS contracting officers think they must.

    I'll go even further -- it is not necessary to use these labels even in the internal technical evaluation report.  I have led evaluations where we scrupulously avoided using those labels.

  7. Voyager, look at the Changes clause in your contract. Does that clause authorize the government to issue a [unilateral] change order to extend the delivery date for the purpose you described?  This is a YES or NO question.

    If YES, please tell us the citation for the changes clause and the actual text of the clause that authorizes the change order you describe.  We have not seen your contract or its contents.

     

  8. This is simple.  You (the contractor) have no obligation to perform above the ceiling price, and the Government will not pay above the ceiling price.  That is your bargain.

    Read para. (d) of the clause at FAR 52.232-7, if that clause is included in your contract.  If not, read para. (i)(2) and (3) of the clause at FAR 52.212-4 Alt I.

    Maybe you failed to uphold your end of the bargain contained in these paragraphs by keeping your overrun silent and not providing the required notice?  Really, this is simple -- just do what the contract says -- give the notice that you are required to give.  Or, if you choose to keep quiet, you eat the costs.  Right?

  9. Forget about contractor staffing and government onboarding.  Instead, look at the nature of the work.  Do you want the contractor to actually accomplish something (deliver a product or complete a service) for a fixed-price?  Or do you want the contractor to try to do something within a ceiling price?  Do you want to pay for a completed job, or for billable hours?  Do you want a result, or an employee?

  10.  

    16 minutes ago, Guardian said:

    I get it, but no one can get around the fact that part 15 states, "in accordance with 15.503(b), shall be debriefed,"

    No.  You are neither reading it correctly, nor quoting it correctly.  FAR 15.506(a)(1) says that if an offeror makes a request within three days after receiving the 15.503 notice, the offeror "shall be debriefed."  It absolutely does not say that a 15.503 notice is a debriefing.

  11. In a Part 15 procurement, the contracting officer does the FAR 15.503 notice first, and the FAR 15.506 debriefing occurs later.  The "shall be debriefed" text in 15.506 refers to the debriefing, not the notice.  If a Part 15 offeror makes a request within three days of receiving the notice, the agency "shall" provide a debriefing.

    The 15.503 notice and the 15.506 debriefing remain entirely and wholly separate.

  12. 1 hour ago, Guardian said:

    Carl stated that FAR 13 does not require debriefings.

    And rightly so, as Carl is correct. The "brief explanation" contemplated by FAR Part 13 is not a debriefing -- it is a brief explanation. FAR 13.106-3(d) sends the reader to 15.503(b)(2) -- it does not send the reader to anything in 15.505 or 15.506 -- so, Guardian, you are looking beyond the mark -- look only to 15.503(b)(2) and do not look to 15.505 or 15.506.

    The post-award notice requirement of FAR 15.503 is entirely and wholly separate from the debriefing requirement of FAR 15.505 and 15.506.

    • In a Part 15 procurement, both are applicable.
    • In a Part 13 procurement, only the first is applicable and then only if requested by a quoter.
  13. This raises two thoughts...

    (1) Order of precedence applies to multiple items within a single document (perhaps including attachments), such as a solicitation or a contract.

    A solicitation may contain the provision at FAR 52.212-1, but it does not contain "FAR 13 rules" -- so is there any order of precedence question to be resolved?

    If you are running a procurement where the solicitation includes FAR 52.212-1, you do what the solicitation says.  If you are planning a procurement that will include FAR 52.212-1, you tailor that provision to show what you intend to do -- then you do it.

    If you don't want to do the debriefing described in FAR 52.212-1, then you should tailor that provision accordingly. 

    (2) But, have you carefully read that text?  The standard version of the provision at FAR 52.212-1 does not promise a debriefing -- it merely says "If a debriefing is offered..."

    A solicitation does not have to offer a debriefing, as the general right to debriefing arises outside the solicitation.  The provision at FAR 52.212-1 does not promise a debriefing.  So, what is the conflict for which you need to reach to order of precedence to resolve?

  14. Well, Vern has answered the questions you asked.  Inasmuch as your contract does not contain either the clause at FAR 52.216-7 or Alt I to 52.212-4, it seems to me that you do not have a cost-reimbursment contract (or other contract that allows for government payment to reimburse for indirect costs).  That the contract does contain the clause at FAR 52.212-4 (without its Alt I) suggests it is a firm-fixed-price contract for commercial items, and there can be no cost-reimbursable CLINs in such a contract.

    That said, I don't know what your contract actually says -- only you know that.

    I hope this thread has been helpful.

×
×
  • Create New...