Jump to content

dcarver

Members
  • Posts

    112
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by dcarver

  1. It is lack of effort of the KO, but you'll find that at many agencies, if the clause is an agency specific clause, requires the head of contracts to sign off on any deviation to a provision or clause that does not allow for tailoring. However, this is a bilateral modification, you are more than right to go back to the KO at the agency and let them know you would like this changed before accepting the clause. You could also point out while you are at it that Block 13 should be checked as C or D, that is extremely lax oversite that they didn't even catch that.
  2. It is not "quite a bit of work." The SBA website has a template class waiver form on it, and all the KO needs to do is fill it in and submit it. Its actually pretty simple, given that they give you a template form to work off of. They provide you with all of the information you need to provide in your waiver request, and it takes a maximum 15 days to process.
  3. You establish a new contract off of the parent BPA for every call. Using the 1449 should solve your issue (used PD2 and made calls off of BPAs, allbeit much larger than the micro purchase threshold). You then modify the contract established from the call, rather than the BPA.
  4. I see what your assertation is. You ask "Can the VA set-aside an acquisition for SDVOSB using FSS procedures and still be compliant?" Technically speaking, my answer would be no, they cannot. They must conduct market research prior to getting to the FSS procedures to determine whether they can set-aside for SDVOSB or not. So, technically speaking, they couldn't set-aside using FSS procedures and be compliant if they had not made the determination first. The real question is, if they set-aside for SDVOSB and ran a competition for only SDVOSB companies, would anybody notice (or care)? Or is your point that if they set-aside using FSS Procedures and went sole source would another SDVOSB protest and have the protest sustained?
  5. You could use a limited sources J&A to limit the sources to only the resell partners. Why pay the pass through fees on administering the database of warranties when you could contract directly with the authorized reseller? Surely your agency is able to track a simple database of warranties? I would think it is much cheaper for your agency to hire one or two personnel to administer this database as opposed to paying the pass through fee on the warranty itself, as well as the costs of administering the database.
  6. Since you guys are focused on how to price the item, I'll throw out the idea for the contractor to sell it to the Government. How exactly have you pitched your idea to the DOD and they are interested? Did you just simply ask someone in the field if they were interested, or perhaps just ask a PM and they said "oh that looks good?" It seems that you are focused on keeping the Intellectual Property of this item, which is of increasing value in the time of shrinking budgets so you can continue to receive revenues. Perhaps an Unsolicited Proposal should be thought of? It appears your item is unique, since you have developed it completely at your own expense and not at the direction of the Government. It may get a bit muddy since you have contacted somebody and they are interested, but nonetheless an avenue worth exploring if you want to be able to re-coup costs.
  7. A quick glance through FAR part 8, I don't believe there is anything that prevents you from using FAR part 12 (13-15 and 19 do not apply except in certain circumstances for FSS), but there is nothing that mandates that you must use FAR Part 12 either. As desperado mentioned, GSA Schedule contracts already include clauses 52.212-3, 4 and 5. However, GSA uses there own system for ordering, so I don't see why you would include 52.212-1 unless you wanted something specifically from that clause that is not included, or differs from the GSA instructions. I would ask the same question, what in FAR 52.212-1 does your colleague want? The purpose of GSA is to make commercial items available Government wide to purchase in a streamlined set of procedures. As with anything the FAR is silent on, I would use your best judgement given the specific acquisition you have.
  8. Easiest advice? Read the protest rules in Part 33 and go seek the advice of your Departments lawyer. They are always the best guidance through a protest.
  9. A few more details would help us in understanding your particular case, and you should read what retreadfed has mentioned above as well, it may solve your problem. Is this a multiple award IDIQ? I can only assume so since you awarded under one and it wasn't the incumbent, which makes me believe it is. What is the dollar value of the task order? There are specific rules for protests of task/delivery orders awarded under an IDIQ, many of which are based on the dollar value of the order.
  10. Agree with woops85, who says that you can't? Your question rather should be Is there any specific authority that disallows me to do this, not looking for authority that allows you to do so. There is a big difference between the signed date and the PoP start date in what you are asking. The signed date is just the date upon which you issue the order, the PoP start date is the start of the work. Why shouldn't you be allowed to work ahead and issue the task order now to start in a month or so? You've already exercised the option for that period of time, so the work is valid. If you hadn't exercised the option yet, then it would be a different scenario.
  11. See FAR 16.505(a)(2) I would say that if the issue date (effective date) of the order is within the period of performance you would be okay to issue the order. However, if you are questionable about this, there is nothing stopping you from preparing the order now and issuing the order when the period of performance begins. You do have an IDIQ after all and the order is unilateral.
  12. Retreadfeds CoFC case may not apply to your particular situation. In the terms of the case, it was dealing with a contract that was signed but had an effective date prior to the date the contract was signed. In your case, the effective date of your contract is after the date the contract is signed. That tells me the performance is set to start at a certain date in the future, and therefore the company you are in contract with should not be incurring costs. Why would the contractor be incurring costs before your effective date on the contract to be determined allowable or not by the ACO?
×
×
  • Create New...