Jump to content
The Wifcon Forums and Blogs

MBrown

Members
  • Content Count

    75
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

0 Neutral

About MBrown

  • Rank
    Member

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Male
  • Location
    Pennsylvania
  • Interests
    All manner of federal acquisitions.

Recent Profile Visitors

4,876 profile views
  1. They certainly could make such a request. They could also argue that adding the clause creates some type of adhesion scenario. I'll leave that up to the lawyers to decide. At my agency, the guidance we received was clear. Existing contracts that did not have 52.204-25 in them were to be modified to include the clause, and the representations for 52.204-24(d)(1) & (2) were to be obtained, or no options could be exercised (i.e., relationship ends without the clause), regardless of whether the contractor was the only source.
  2. There have been multiple versions of the section 889-related provisions/clauses since August 2019, when Section 889(a)(1)(A) (prohibition on acquiring covered equipment) went active. The current versions of 52.204-24 (OCT 2020), 52.204-25 (AUG 2020), and 52.204-26 (OCT 2020), are merely the latest. Depending on the Agency, incorporation of the current versions into existing contracts (e.g., prior to an option exercise) could be mandatory. At DoD, the 23 Jul 2020 DPC Memorandum, Implementation of the Section 889(a)(1)(B) Prohibition on Contracting with Entities Using Certain Telecommunicatio
  3. My agency had a few similar experiences. The facts of your action and your agency's position may dictate additional actions that you may need to take. In our case, each of our experiences with contractor refusals concerned actions that were outside of the U.S., where the vendor is the telecommunications monopoly provider and directly owned/controlled by a foreign government. In those cases, through the interventions of multiple people, we were finally able to obtain vendor representations in response to 52.204-24(d)(1) and (2), as well as sub-para. (e) supplemental disclosures sufficien
  4. I agree with Don. If you are asking about whether a non-commercial purchase order may be awarded as a cost-reimbursement, I would argue that 13.302-1 only advises that purchase orders "generally are issued on a fixed-price basis." "Generally" doesn't imply exclusivity. My question is, would you have any concerns with meeting the requirements of 16.301-2 & -3 if utilizing SAP? ?
  5. Know what Parts of the FAR and/or Supplement(s) cover your acquisition and read the Scope and/or Applicability sections, then read the applicable provision and clause prescriptions.
  6. Does anyone else find some of the E.O. language confusing or concerning? Pursuant to Sec. 8, within 180 days FAR Council is to “consider proposing” a change to FAR Part 25 whereby the “component test” used for domestic end products, would be replaced by some type of value added test (“a test under which domestic content is measured by the value that is added to the product through U.S.-based production or U.S. job-supporting economic activity”). Seemingly at odds with the value added concept, the FAR Council is also to consider increasing “the numerical threshold for domestic content req
  7. It's to be expected. Trump administration issued a freeze/delay on rules that the Obama administration finalized before leaving office, but which had not taken effect before Trump took office. Likewise, the Obama administration froze Bush regulations. Bush froze Clinton, etc. The cycle continues.
  8. Is it an a request for equitable adjustment, or is it a request for reimbursement? Sec. 3610 of the CARES Act gives an agency discretion (available funding "may be used") to reimburse a contractor for certain paid leave that the contractor provided to its employees to keep them in a ready state. There is no entitlement to reimbursement created by Sec. 3610. Sec. 3610 provides, in part: "Such authority shall apply only to a contractor whose employees or subcontractors cannot perform work on a site that has been approved by the Federal Government, including a federally-owned or
  9. It's important to keep in mind that there are two (2) different prohibitions at play. Section 889(a)(1)(A) is the prohibition on the Government acquiring covered equipment and services (the representations at FAR 52.204-24(d)(1)). Section 889(a)(1)(B) is the prohibition on the Government doing business with entities that use covered equipment and services (the representation at FAR 52.204-24(d)(2)). Additionally, there is no monetary threshold on applicability and the prohibitions in the FY2019 NDAA are being applied to micropurchases utlizing a Government Purchase Card. https://www.a
  10. Don, I was following up the (correct in my view) comment by policyguy that he has "not worked by the adage that a clause is self deleting." What I mean is it is a false presumption that inclusion of an inapplicable, unenforceable, or inappropriate clause in a contract may done without harm, or the risk of harm. The inclusion of unnecessary or improper words in a contract does not render those words meaningless. The fact of their inclusion costs people time to read, as well as time and/or other resources to challenge or apply. If you were the contractor, would you not price-in such cos
  11. From my perspective, a good PM is an expert at managing all of the people involved and keeping a project on target. A good CM is an expert at managing compliance the terms and conditions of the contract and with analyzing and negotiating cost factors that affect the bottom line.
  12. A good template or boilerplate ought to come with an introduction and/or instructions providing guidance on how to tailor to specific acquisitions. No one should work with the view that a clause is "self-deleting". A clause cannot self-delete. It might be found illegal, unenforceable, or unworkable, but relying on the fiction that a clause is self-deleting is unprofessional and opens the risk door wide to the prospect of claims.
  13. Hmmm. On contract awards, my favorites were: using the CAGE code for the wrong awardee; including a price and nothing more in Section B of the award; and leaving the fill-ins blank in the liquidated damages clause. Also, there was the time that I just wanted to bang heads against the wall when a co-worker sent the Government's negotiation position to the contractor with the e-mail tag-line of "Can you give me a proposal that is priced within this range?"
  14. Gwestbury, is it possible that your customer is unrealistically seeking a firm fixed price contract instead of a cost reimbursable contract?
  15. Wow! Now, I'm converted to the Modulo world. In Modulo, I can claim to be 25 years old and everyone has to believe it.
×
×
  • Create New...