Jump to content
The Wifcon Forums and Blogs


  • Posts

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Recent Profile Visitors

4,642 profile views
  1. Boof - Not to be rude here, but I've met many a program office who "know" no one else can do it. They are continually proved wrong. With regards to vehicles, I would make a guess that many people could do it, but you are most likely not buying enough for them to justify altering their production line to make it work. That is a different argument than "only one person can do it" but you don't know until you ask either. Without knowing the type of vehicle either (SUV size or military size), if you were buying enough you may interest the larger defense vehicle companies. You don't know until you ask the question.
  2. FARmer - Think. What makes sense for your current requirement? Processes are often not defined and should not be because mandating a standard procedure often leads to bad results because some requirements do not fit. Phase 3 as you mention would not make sense for something that is a competitive FFP contract because you are not doing a cost analysis there. Not everything fits into a defined process, think through the requirement to see what best fits your current situation.
  3. My question is why are you looking to see if the fiberglass is considered fabric or not? 225.2002-1(a)(2) specifically refers to headgear as clothing, so the berry amendment applies in this situation since a helmet is headgear, correct? Even if you assume (a)(2) doesn't apply, is fiberglass then considered a synthetic fabric or a coated synthetic fabric under (a)(7)? Your answer is probably going to need someone from your requirements community to sit down with you and the attorney to walk through it.
  4. Vern/HeyGuy, The GAO states in Volume 1, Chapter 5, Section 5 the difference between severable vs. non-severable tasks and how they may be funded, with specificity towards crossing fiscal years. It expands on 2410a authority a bit. If you combine this with the fact that it is not an antecedent liability, then it would appear that the cost overrun should be paid with the current fiscal year appropriation. I want to throw this out there: HeyGuy, when you are asking about the incremental funding, is the incremental funding for the overrun or just adding additional funding? I just want to be sure you aren't asking two separate questions.
  5. This is still used in some Navy contracts. I've actually had that exact issue come up recently because travel was 45 miles from the standard work location to a location where some quarterly meetings are held and the contractor wanted reimbursement but we did not grant it due to that clause in the contract.
  6. See also, FAR 31.109, Advance Agreements.
  7. Fulfilling 090 may be a bit hard for someone one year on the job, as you need to demonstrate how you've fulfilled each portion of the course through alternate training or work performed.
  8. I agree, but that doesn't mean that those people don't exist in contracting. I digress, I was just trying to make a point that the SSP isn't binding, the RFP is. You guys are taking my comment a bit too far on it. I think we can all agree that the SSP and RFP evaluation criteria should be the same.
  9. I agree, but I was just stating on principle what the SSP says is not binding. You would hope that they have included L&M as an attachment (and the final version), or even better just referenced the RFP directly. I was just pointing out that relying upon the SSP isn't binding on anything, it's what the RFP says. You hope that the instructions to offerors and evaluation criteria in the SSP match the RFP exactly, but I'd be lying to you if I told you that I haven't seen otherwise.
  10. The Source Selection Plan is an internal Government document that has no outcome on the competition. It's purpose is to set forth the roles and responsibilities of the source selection team. If Sections L and M of the RFP have such an evaluation process, then sure. But the SSP doesn't dictate it.
  11. Not to try to offend, but do your own research and be able to backup your decision. Further, if you are considering a T4D, I would be talking to your offices attorney for the advice. Conversely, if you have a bonafide reason for the T4D, the appeals process shouldn't scare you. It sounds like you are scared if they were to appeal it and are hoping for the shortest time possible to get past it.
  12. You still haven't provided enough information. Did the Government provide you the re-written spec? Did you re-write the spec yourself to incorporate the new part? Does anything in your SOW provide for you to do this (i.e. Engineering Change Proposals)? Is this a Government provided specification or a contractor developed specification (i.e. you proposed to a P-Spec and provided a design that would fit that)? There are a lot of variables here that change the answer you are provided.
  13. We always try to leave the remaining balance on the CLIN for Cost type contracts for final indirect rate calculations at contract closeout. However, the struggle you'll find (at least from the Government perspective) is that the customer is hunting every dollar to obligate. Sometimes the hardest thing is explaining to the customer (not necessarily your contracts counterpart) why the money should remain. My biggest peeve is measuring program office performance in the Government by the amount they obligate and expend. It invites waste, but I don't see this changing anywhere in the near future.
  14. Not to get into pay issues, but if they are GS-13 or above they are required to have Level III training. Granted, you would assume they would be doing work commesurate with their pay, but I think you can see where I am going with that...
  15. Interesting. I'm sure it is more course numbering than anything, and I would hope that if DAU was driving FAI course content that they provided FAI with the most up to date content after they supposedly revamped all of the courses (I haven't taken the new courses, so I could not provide comment on how well revamped they are).
  • Create New...