dcarver

Sorry for the delay in responding, we are very busy. Thanks for the advice and yes we could use brand name or equal but since we already have the J&As approved we will avoid having to evaluate any "equal" proposals that the program office already knows won't meet thier requirements. We probably would not get any but why chance it since we already have the J&As.

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.

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.

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.

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.

Most federal agencies have authority to enter into a 1-year severable service contract, beginning at any time during the fiscal year and extending into the next fiscal year, and to obligate the total amount of the contract to the appropriation current at the time the agency entered into the contract.17 10 U.S.C. § 2410a (defense agencies); 41 U.S.C. § 253l (civilian agencies); 41 U.S.C. § 253l-1 (Comptroller General); 41 U.S.C. § 253l-2 (Library of Congress); 41 U.S.C. § 253l-3 (Chief Administrative Officer of the House of Representatives); 41 U.S.C. § 253l-4 (Congressional Budget Office). See also B-259274, May 22, 1996. Otherwise, the services must be charged to the fiscal year(s) in which they are rendered.

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.

I remember a Navy contract back in the 90's that specified a contractor employee had to travel a distance of at least 50 miles from his/her official work location to the location at which contract work was being performed in order to qualify as being in travel status. I don't know if that was or still is a standard Navy clause, or what, but it gave us fits.

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.

See also, FAR 31.109, Advance Agreements.

I worked DHS FOR 2 years and obtained my level 1 certification. Then I left to DOD for a promotion they do not recognize my level 1 cert from DHS. Furthermore they are telling me that I am going to have to take CON 090 and Con 170 to reclaim my level 1 certificate. However, I just received a call from one of the training managers and he said I could probably obtain credit for Con 090 via a fulfillment package. Does anyone have an example of a fulfillment package for Con 090 as I am unsure where to begin.

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.

Anyone that does not know enough to crosswalk the SSP into UCF Sections L & M of the RFP should get out of contracting...

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.

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.

Sure. The source selection plan could have a mult-tiered evaluation process. The first tier could be price. If too high, an offeror would not make it to the next stage .... of course as stated prior- SHOULD one do this? Personally, I would not. Discussions can change everything.

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.

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.

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.

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.

One issue that I am seeing is the amount of wait-listing for required CON classes. Yes, some agencies have the resources to have their own internal CON training schools/facilities. However, my agency does not have that, so I am at the mercy of scheduling and open chairs in classes. I have been wait-listed for CON 353 for months now because of a backlog. My agency requires this course in order to meet certain "career milestones" including the required Level III certification. Speaking of Level III...my agency has far too many contracting employees with Level III training, yet these same employees do not do anything even remotely near even Level II work. Why would an agency push for advanced contract training for employees that do basic-level contracting work?

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...

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).

I was wondering the same thing. If you're taking training to become Level II certified (presumably you are DoD since you're taking CON classes), why are you taking CON217? DAU scrapped the 215, 217, and 218 classes almost two years ago and changed the curriculum while adding additional classes. Your first gripe should be why you are being told to take the wrong version of the class. It's even worse that is useless in content as well.

No. The first sentence states:

When a service contract expires, and a follow-on contract is awarded for the same service, at the same location, the successor contractor or its subcontractors often hires the majority of the predecessor's employees.

Emphasis added. If the Government is just letting the contract expire and taking on the associated work, then a follow on contract would not be awarded would it?

newbie-ish question:

I thought that a contractor didn't actually "accept" a DX contract, but that they had to perform, whether they wanted to or not.

I thought that Ktrs signed up for getting DX orders forced on them,

though I haven't a clue how one becomes a member of the exclusive "critical industrial base" club subject to that burden.

I've never been involved in something in DPAS.

not true ?

The contractor accepts the DX rated contract when they propose to the requirement. The DX rating is specified in Section L as a full text provision of the RFP.

It isn't "forced" on them generally speaking unless there is already an existing contract in place and the Secretary of Defense, Homeland Security, or Energy (Or Commerce...) determines that item to warrant a DX rating after contract award.

Here, google is your friend for all you want to know about DPAS ratings: http://www.bis.doc.gov/dpas/

If you want to join the "exclusive" club, make something that is for use in the DX programs listed through a link on the page above.

Gnatman,

You must see more FPRAs than I do. I haven't seen one in a decade, since by the time DCAA finishes its GAGAS-compliant audit, and the ACO gets approval of its PNO/PNM, and then negotiates, and then gets approval for its Memo of Negotiations, the contractor has, without exception, resubmitted its Forward Pricing Rate Proposal and whatever the previous FPRA rates would have been are now OBE and mooted.

In my experience with large and small contractors, nobody EVER terminates a FPRA, since they self-terminate before execution.

H2H

There are FPRAs in place, even with the big companies. They're just not on the bigger rates, but more of Direct Labor, Escalation, and CERs. I have not seen an FPRA on Overhead, G&A, Fringe, etc. for a bigger contractor because the FPRPs are so frequently updated that by the time there is a full audit completed on the FPRP submission the contractor is already preparing the next.

Ok yes, I do see 32.501-3, we may be in trouble. This is going to cause a serious cash flow issue as we will already be operating at $0 profit.

Like Don's post, I don't think 32.501-3 is the end all be all to stating you can't include the CPFF as a portion of the price, but you'd have to otherwise prove why they should be included I would think. I was pointing out that somewhere in FAR 32, they do attempt to define Contract Price since they don't up front or in Part 2.

I think your best bet would probably be persuading the KO to change it to a quantity of 24 rather than 1 lot (that appears to be what it is anyways).

Blitz - If you read on to 32.104(d)(3), you'll see that they consistently are utilizing "price" for individual contracts or orders and "value" as a summarization term for the aggregate price of all orders under an ID/IQ or BOA.

Regardless, the poster would still need to meet the conditions of 32.104(d)(1) to get to 32.104(d)(2). The onus is on the contractor to prove that they won't be able to bill for products for a substantial amount of time (examples given) AND that the expenditures made for performance during the predelivery period will have a significant impact on working capital. After that, you get to the dollar value restrictions.

If the section entitled "Contract Price" did not exist (32.501-3), and if it wasn't plain that they were using price as a singular term and value as a plural term, I'd agree with you. But they do attempt, at least in one subpart, to define Contract Price, which excludes the cost reimbursement line items.

Again, this is getting down to a common sense thing here, why would you utilize the cost reimbursement value as a part of the contract price when it is not eligible for the PBP? Isn't it just common sense that when determining price for the use of PBPs that you would only use the items eligible for PBPs in the first place?

Not withstanding that 52.232-1 seems to be an appropriate avenue for you to receive your reimbursement, I still contend that 32.104 was discussing Contract Price, not Contract value. When asking for Performance Based Payments, reading 32.1001(e) is pretty plain that they are not available for cost-reimbursement type contracts (or CLINs). So why would the value of the cost-reimbursement type CLINs be included in the contract price for determining if you are eligible for PBPs? Contract Price is not defined in Part 2 or 32 with respect to PBPs, but the reading of it with respect to other financing arrangements discussed in 32 (Progress) shows that they specifically only use the fixed value of the contract when determining contract price. Just trying to wrap my head around why you would use the cost portion to determine the value in this instance.

You'd need to provide a bit more information if you're trying to get PBPs. Such as, why you need them, is it a deliverable end item with a long lead time, etc. There are specific criteria for the use of PBPs, and depending on which agency you are working with, even more criteria and scrutiny.

As for the definition of contract price, neither Part 2 or 32 defines it up front. Looking across FAR 32, Contract Price is defined for hte purpose of progress payments, which states that for the purpose of FFP contracts, contract price is the current amount fixed by the contract plus the NTE amount for unrpiced modifications. I think you'll run into some resistance in trying to prove you're eligible for the financing with the smaller amount. Specifically, 32.1001(e)(1) states they can't be used for cost reimbursement line items, so I'm not sure why you would think that the cost line items would be included in the contract price for the purpose of determining eligibility for contract financing on a fixed price line item(s).

PMDave, are you doing your modifications/upgrades through the ECP process as called out in your SOW, or are you just attempting to address obsolescence as it hits?

I don't think just "contemplating modifications/upgrades within the PWS" allows you to just buy as much as you want to upgrade your system. Working on prior vehicle programs, they were setup as ID/IQ contracts and obsolescence and upgrades were addressed through the ECP process. If they were priced ECPs then we negotiated the price of it and issued a subsequent task order to cover the work required for it while pricing the ECP kit for future delivery orders. This was well established in our SOW though that we would be doing so, i'm not sure that just "contemplating" this in your SOW covers it.

What else would he have us do? They write the laws and regulations into such a narrow definition that it's hard to reasonably interpret your way out of it to defend yourself, especially when there are multiple cases on it from GAO that uphold the very same position that he took the opposite stance on.

I'd love to take the common sense stand on this one that they made reasonable attemps to submit their updated proposals on time and that since the only means of submittal was electronic commerce (which was broken at the time) they should have reasonably accepted the proposal. The clause, however, is pretty damn specific that it should of been sent in the day prior in the case of electronic commerce or otherwise in Government control before the submittal time.