Jump to content

ji20874

Members
  • Posts

    3,737
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by ji20874

  1. Can the SSA simply write 1-2 sentences stating that the awardee's proposal is technically acceptable and is the lowest price? Yes.
  2. Perhaps para. ( f )( 5 ) of the provision at FAR 52.215-1 will be helpful?
  3. "Was notified by KTR..." Did the notice comply with para. ( b ) of the contract clause at FAR 52.232-20? YES or NO Did the notice comply with para. ( b ) of the contract clause at FAR 52.243-7? YES or NO
  4. It isn't just contracting officers -- remember, every contracting officer has some oversight burden, and some contracting officers have a crushing oversight burden. Those oversight burdens tend to extinguish innovation. Here's an example. In addition to being a contracting officer, I am also a husband. If I decide to take my wife to a steakhouse for Valentine's day, the documentation level and approval level are very low -- I consider my wife's interests and I make a decision and away we go are we're both happy. But imagine if I have to document my decision in writing and submti it to another person for review, like, my mother-in-law. Why not a fancy Italian restaurant? Why not a place with candles and romance? Did you compare all the menus and prices? Did you analyze the calorie implications of all possible choices? Pity the poor husband who has to put up with that oversight burden. Pity the poor contracting officer who is similarly situated. With my wife's support, I can tell my mother-in-law to leave us alone. But I can't tell all my overseers at work to go away -- I have to get their coordinations and concurrences and reviews and approvals.
  5. Steveatus, If it is a service, as you say it is, then your second sentence above is non sequitur to your first sentence. Is it a service as defined in para. (6) of the definition of commercial item in FAR 2.101? A service is a commercial item under para. (6) if-- YES - NO - of a type offered and sold competitively YES - NO - in substantial quantities YES - NO - in the commercial marketplace YES - NO - based on established catalog or market prices for specific tasks or outcomes under standard commercial terms and conditions It is a commercial service under para. (6) is the answer to all of these is YES. A single NO answer means it is not a commercial service under para. (6).
  6. A common practice is to award a contract by putting a SF-1449 (or SF-1447 or other form) prepared in one's automated contract writing system (just a very few pages) and signed by the contracting officer on top of an offer which is really sections A through J of a solicitation completed and signed by the offeror. Is this what you're talking about?
  7. It might be that the contract is not silent, and I agree with Vern that the contract is the first place to go. If the contract contains the clause at FAR 52.237-4, -5, or -6, well, look at paragraphs ( d ), ( a ), or ( b ), respectively.
  8. I do't like this sort of question -- once someone starts answering, more information comes out. Oh, well... Was the purchase order was issued under FAR Subpart 13.5? If YES, did the contracting officer prepare a sole source justification amenable to FAR 13.501( a )( ii ) and make the justification available to the public amenable to FAR 13.501( a )( iii )?
  9. Ask the contracting officer which CLIN covers that specification paragraph.
  10. But let's look at the plain text of the clause (FAR 52.237-2): "...the Contractor shall replace or repair the damage at no expense to the Government..." A contractor's "...failure to use reasonable care causes damage..." to a Government keyboard results in a Contractor's "...replace or repair..." of a Government keyboard. I don't see an appropriations augmentation issue here, but I admit not having gone to the Redbook on this matter -- I'm just looking at the FAR.
  11. Maybe the original poster should avoid a money solution. How about a new keyboard and a new radio? Both are possible under the contract clauses at FAR 52.236-7 and 52.237-2, if the Navy contracing officer will enforce the contract. I am relying on the original posting in assuming the contractor is at fault or didn't use reasonable care in its work (otherwise, there i sno reason for the original posting).
  12. The difficulty of the Congress to get an appropriations bill passed in a timely manner is a well-known fact, apparent to all persons and all offerors and all bidders. If this fact produces risk, well, a prospective contractor can price for risk in its offer. This may sound cold, but it's true. It's business. Even non-Government parties are sometimes late paying their bills.
  13. You need to talk to your Navy friends. Regarding the contractor's duty to the Government (here, the Navy represents the Government), see the contract clause at FAR 52.236-7 or FAR 52.237-2, whichever is included in the Navy's contract. The Navy might be able to hold the contractor responsible for the damage, but how you get the money out of the Navy, well, that's not a contracting matter -- that's where your friendship will be helpful. If you want to get your lawyers involved, the Army lawyers can ask the Justice lawyers to sue the contractor, but that likelihood is small, I think. As for the employee's radio, well, he or she can file a small claims suit against the contractor -- but that is a private civil matter. You know, I'm getting into areas where I'm not really competent. You need to talk to your Army lawyers. Let me end my post by reminding you of the general principles in the clauses at FAR 52.236-7 or FAR 52.237-2, suggesting that you talk to the Navy contracting officer, and saying "Good Luck!"
  14. I don't think there is a clear teaching point. If I read the damned definition, to use Vern's words, and a letter meets the definition of a claim, then I must process it as a claim... But wait, wait, maybe I should ask the contractor first to make sure the letter was intended as a claim? If the above sentence is true, why should I bother asking the contractor? Well, for the good reasons Vern provides. We ask the question because we know from experience that every request of the sort we're talking about is not intended to be a claim. Some are, some aren't. In cases like this, the proof seems to be in the contractor's intent rather than the form of the request letter.
  15. It isn't a claim until the contractor makes it one. Once it is a claim, proposal preparation and attorney costs won't be chargeable to the Government (directly or indirectly). So the contractor might want to keep negotiations open as long as possible -- keep ( B ) from happening for as long as possible, and maybe never if the parties can come to agreement.
  16. Is this ( A ) a unilateral change order, ( B ) the unilateral settlement of a change order, or ( C ) the bilateral settlement of a change order? If ( C ), the contractor should not sign it unless it agrees with the settlement adjustment. Or, in other words, the contractor should sign it only if it agrees with the settlement adjustment. If ( A ) or ( B ), the contractor doesn't sign, period. Still, the obligation to proceed diligently already exists in the contract's Disputes clause. No signature on the SF-30 is required to turn on the proceed diligently requirement.
  17. So, does this mean that the original posting was in error when it asserted that "[t]he Master Contract requires the task order solicitations to contain the Limitation on Subcontracting clause"?
  18. You could send the contracting officer a nice letter saying that because the parent IDIQ contract allows for performance-based payments for all task orders issued under the contract (does it?), your offer to be submitted in the near future in response to RTEP no. ______ will include terms for performance-based contract financing payments amenable to the parent contract clause at FAR 52.232-32, Performance-Based Payments. Don't be sloppy. Don't talk about progress payments. Don't be a cry-baby. Make sure and submit a qualifying performance-based payments plan. I am assuming the task order will be of a fixed-price type -- otherwise, no performance-based payments. See FAR Subpart 32.10. Good luck!
  19. See the contract clause at FAR 52.232-20 Limitation of Cost or at FAR 52.232-22, Limitation of Funds, whichever is in your contract.
  20. As I remember, there is an Air Force Far Supplement requirement to do this -- but other agencies don't have that requirement...
  21. My first thought? Not a claim... Like Cajuncharlie, it is a request, not a demand or assertion. But even though it is styled as a request, it might stil be a claim depending on the history. If there is no history, and if this submission came in out of the blue, so to speak, well, the matter of right is not is not established. If the contractor's right to payment is covered by a contract clause, one supposes the "claim" would reference that clause. Is the entitlement under the Government Delay of Work clause? The "claim" doesn't establish this as its matter of right. If it did, para. ( B ) of the clause at FAR 52.242-17 might preclude payment. Was the matter in dispute when the submission was made? If not, this isn't a claim. Given no other information, as a contracting officer I would try to discern if maybe this is merely an issue in controversy, as that term is defined in FAR Subpart 33.2.
  22. I hope the evaluators don't get to pick the awardee. Go out to all the contractors submitting offers by letter or e-mail and tell them the clause required by the master contract at FAR 52.219-14 was inadvertently omitted from the solicitation but will be included in the task order, amenable to the instructions in the parent contracts. Invite updated offers within five calendar days. You may or may not have to re-do the technical evaluations, depending on how the contractors update their offers. If you want to throw out the favored contractor, you might make an argument that it should have known that the clause was required and its 90% subcontracting approach violates the parent contract and makes its present offer unacceptable and unawardable. Just award to the next contractor in line, and in the debriefing (if one is required under FAR 16.505( b )( 6 )), tell the contractor why its offer was unawardable.
  23. What outcome do you want? Do you want to throw out the offer? Do you want to accept the offer? If you want to throw out the offer, you can. If you want to keep the offer in the running, you can. Either way, you will have to deal with the sloppiness of the missing clause, but that shouldn't be too big a deal if, as you said, the parent multiple-award contract clearly requires the clause. I might be able to help you if I know which way you want to go.
  24. If you're otherwise ready to award, how about sending a note to your intended contractor saying the clause required by the master contract at FAR 52.219-14 was inadvertently omitted from the solicitation but will be included in the task order, and asking for the contractor's concurrence as a clarification? The contractor already knows that the clause is supposed to be there, and is likely already intending to comply. You could send the note to all the contractors who submitted offers. This can be clarifications, not discussions. See GAO Decision B-408890, IAP-Leopardo Construction, Inc. (Dec. 2013). This case discusses the differences between clarifications and discussions in a fair opportunity FAR 16.505( b )( 1 ) environment. But it seems you have a defect in your solicitation. You need to address it during the solicitation phase, either by amendment or through clarifications or some other way.
  25. "...if we decided to use the Walsh-Healey Public Contracts Act, it would make the acquisition non-commercial..." You cannot say you're using Walsh-Healey; therefore, the acquisition is not commercial. You're approaching it from the wrong direction. Here's the right way -- if the acquisition is for a commercial item, then the Walsh-Healey Public Contracts Act does not apply. See FAR 12.504( a )( 4 ). But you're probably covered by 10 USC 7299, where we read, "Each contract for the construction, alteration, furnishing, or equipping of a naval vessel is subject to the Walsh-Healey Act (41 U.S.C. 35 et seq.) unless the President determines that this requirement is not in the interest of national defense." You're buying repair -- is repair covered by "construction, alteration, furnishing, or equipping"? Follow the link below for a Coast Guard acquisition for ship repair using FAR 13.5: https://www.fbo.gov/index?s=opportunity&mode=form&id=9530744461b329525653c4593735180e&tab=core&_cview=1 You might need answers from a Navy-specific source -- hopefully, your attorneys have already dealt with these questions before. Good luck! Let us know your answer.
×
×
  • Create New...