MBrown

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.

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

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

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

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.

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.

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?"

Gwestbury, is it possible that your customer is unrealistically seeking a firm fixed price contract instead of a cost reimbursable contract?

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.

Has anyone else noticed that there have been no updates to FARSITE (http://farsite.hill.af.mil) since at least January 2, 2018?

VA1102, I'll offer one caution to you as you consider the jump to DoD. Depending on the agency, if your Contracting certification is not DAWIA, you might be required to recertify. I have a co-worker with FAC, who had to recertify with DAU / DAWIA courses. That stated, there is nothing wrong with refresher training. Make the jump and be welcomed aboard.

It looks like it will be dealt with again. Compare provision/clause dating in FAC 2005-96 with the month and year used by Acquisition.gov.

Looks like Acquisition.gov is also having trouble with how to interpret FAC 2005-96. It seems they've backdated all the provision/clause changes to "OCT 2017." I think something must've been rotten in the Swedish Chef's kitchen.

Sort of makes me look forward to dinner with the family.

Have you looked at FAR 6-302 and 6-303?