MBrown

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 costs when preparing a proposal or a claim? The fact of the inclusion of unsuitable language in a contract does not mean that it will not be considered enforceable by a court of law. Federal contracts may be written with word processors that contain features that auto-correct as the words are typed, but federal contracts once written do not auto-correct themselves.

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?

I offer a few opinions on page limitations, font requirements, margins, etc. 1. They are used to limit the amount that the selection board and/or selection authority will have to read. If you had reason to believe that you would receive 10, 50, or 100+ proposals, would you set page limits? 2. They are used to limit the amount of text from the solicitation that will be unnecessarily regurgitated in the proposal. The selection board and/or selection authority might actually want proposals from firms that can get to the point, not waste time. 3. Limitations grant an excuse to the selection board and/or selection authority to disqualify/reject lower priced non-conforming proposals (whether fairly or selectively done).

I second the motion!

JAG: I concur with napolik and Culham, in part. In those jurisdiction of which I am aware, law firms (businesses) are not licensed to practice law. Individuals are licensed. That stated, if the business is violating that rules for the practice of law applicable to the State or Territory in which they operate, I would recommend advising the contracting officer of your allegation that the business cannot not responsibly perform. I wouldn't recommend simply recognizing a done deal and moving on. Additionally, if you believe, or know, that improper conduct is occurring, have you considered reporting the conduct to appropriate prosecutor's office or disciplinary board for the Bar of the State in which the offending business is operating? Look to your own status. Might you have a duty to make such a report?