MBrown

I have heard contractors, who received such awards, telling people that they received a five year contract. That said, a contract is a contract and a base year contract with four one-year option periods is a one year contract unless an option gets exercised to extend it.

Consult a corporate tax attorney. Depending on your LLC/S-Corp's state of domicile and/or the state of domicle of the members/owners, there are advantages / disadvantages to both. Throwing government accounting standards on top of the varied liability and state & local tax treatments can be daunting.

If the anticipated contract is awarded: 1. Read the contract. 2. Follow the terms, conditions and requirements of the contract, scope of work, specifications, drawings, etc. 3. Construct or repair the bridge as appropriate. If you are talking about an extension of services under FAR Clause 52.217-8, continue performing for the increased/extended contract period and seek an adjustment as may be appropriate if there is a wage determination that changed.

Almost forgot to add FISCAL LAW to the list. Whether resident or non-resident, a fiscal law refresher can always be beneficial.

As a follow-up, while there are many non-resident training opportunities that people often ignore for that chance at a trip somewhere, I recognize that the post is entitled "Resident Course Traiing Suggestions". As before, there are some great DAU / FAI courses out there for consideration. CON 243 (A-E Contracts); CON 244 (Construction); CON 250 (CAS Fundamentals); CON 260 (Small Business Program); etc. Practitioners might also consider some other sources for training: Army Logistics University www.almc.army.mil Air Force Institute of Technology (School of Systems & Logistics) www.afit.edu

What about DAU and FAI - Are you adverse to the multitude of web-based courses available through DAU/FAI (OR have you taken ALL of those)? Core Plus development courses are plentiful and cover a variety of topics. Do you work on Construction or A-E projects? How about plussing up your continuing education with some Facilities Engineering courses. Are weapons systems your thing? Why not check out the boundless opportunities for learning about Life Cycle Logistics and Systems Engineering. As almost any contracting professional ought to know, you can always (and I do mean always) use more education in the fine arts of negotiation and pricing. How is it possible that someone with the knowledge to obtain an advanced degree cannot find continuing education opportunities in acquisition?

Think of the multiple award task/delivery order contract as a narrowing of the universe of offerors.

Maureen, Vern is correct in that it is an appropriations law issue. Prinicples of Federal Appropriations Law, 3rd Ed. (AKA - GAO Redbook), Vol. 1, Page 5-41, provides some guidance: "If an agency is contracting with fiscal year appropriations and does not have multiyear contracting authority, the only authorized course of action, apart from a series of separate fiscal year contracts, is a fiscal year contract with renewal options, with each renewal option (1) contingent on the availability of future appropriations and (2) to be exercised only by affirmative action on the part of the government (as opposed to automatic renewal unless the government refuses)." (citations omitted).

Counsellor - Being a lawyer qualifies you to tell people you are an expert in almost anything and many of them will believe you. Now is the time to prove your mettle. Follow gboyle's advice. If you want to be a contract administrator, stop going into debt with academia. You do not need an LLM, an MS or MA. You spent three years with legal theory. Moreover, not even knowing your law school, I presume you've had a full semester to over a year of immersion into the history of american contract law (i.e., the fine art of language to use to get your ball and go home); fundamentals of stiffs with gifts (wills, trusts, estates); commercial shell games (sale of goods, payment systems and/or secured transactions); and the absolute finest series of courses ever developed to drill home with nauseating detail how to engage in poor legislative drafting (federal income tax, corporate taxation, and/or environmental law). In short, you have been trained by professed legal scholars in how to read, spot and analyze issues, and then regurgitate the professor's view of how things ought to be so that you can pass. Thus, you are very marketable for entry level contract administration. The big dogs in the private sector look for seasoned contracting personnel to round out their teams of salespersons, accountants and lawyers. The medium dogs look for someone who can explain the FAR, keep them out of too much trouble, and get their federal forms straightened out. The puppies typically paw the administration off on their spouse or sibling while trying to figure out how to get their invoice paid. If you are somewhat fresh from law school or simply burned out with family court and petty criminals, I highly recommend the 1102 Contract Specialist career series with Uncle Sam. I also recommend that you consider the Government Contracts Attorney career field. Either way, focus on the court decisions and government contract treatises. Get an acquisition intern position and take the government sponsored DAWIA certification courses for contracting. Finally, make sure to let your prospective employers know that your education and license show you are the type of person who will typically open the regulation, policy memo, or court decision and actually read and think about them.

Sweet, Garlic,or Oscar Mayer?

How is it that a "reseller" has its own products? If it does have its own products, would that not make it a seller? Contractor100 are you envisioning a scenario where RESELLER ONE through the goodness of his/her heart wants to engender more competition for Company ABC's widgets which are sold by RESELLER ONE and so he/she convinces RESELLER TWO and RESELLER THREE to compete against him/her on GSA?

This is a very interesting statement. I suppose perspective is the issue. I agree that the amount of investment needed to produce and deliver an item or service does not necessarily decrease, if the price paid for that item or service decreases. Further, I support the notion that a price ceiling might have the effect of creating shortages or deteriorated quality, while price floors might have the opposite effect. However, I read nothing in the subject memoranda that sets a ceiling on the price paid for a given service. I did not see a price control put into effect. Rather I read the implementation of a law setting a ceiling/limit on the aggregate amount available for obligation with guidance for objectives and approval levels. Nothing in this is a price control. It is a budget control (i.e., the Government may only spend up to X dollars in the aggregate) for the purchaser to follow when going to market. Will a limit on the aggregate amount available for obligation reduce the amount available to be paid to the entire potential pool of obligees? Certainly. Will a limit on the aggregate amount available for obligation reduce the quality or quantity of services acquired? Perhaps. Then again, buyers and sellers can often arrive at creative solutions to perceived problems.

I was not a participant in any discussions with the author's of either the June 3 or June 6 memos. I do recognize, however, that both memoranda equate to cost cutting measures. Simply put, DoD activities are to endeavor to spend less when it comes to contracting for services. Most of us "hapless" contracting folks should have seen such directives coming down the pike the first time the word "sequestration" was used in 2011. Why do people construe that the meaning to be ascribed is a government mandate that it will not pay anymore despite what may be a fair and reasonable price? When did re-examining needs and descoping become taboo terms? For that matter, in an economy that is barely growing and has high levels of unemployment, how does anyone continue an existing contract without thinking seriously about recompetition in lieu of exercising an option containing price escalation?

Thanks bob7947.

The June 6, 2012 DPAP Memorandum (DARS Tracking Number: 2012-O0008) either (A) sought to rewrite the Act of Congress but did not have the requisite 218 votes in the House and 51 votes in the senate; OR ( that the drafter of the Memorandum sought to clarify those contracts to which the directive will actually apply. As far as further interpretation is concerned, I think you need to read the June 6, 2012 DPAP Memorandum in context with the June 3, 2012 DSD Memorandum - "Guidance for Limitation on Aggregate Annual Amount Available for Contracted Services". The June 6 document deals specifically with limits for contracts above $10 Million. First, it focuses on such contracts that contain negotiated factors (labor and overhead) by establishing a ceiling for the negotiation objective. This does not mean that it places a cap on what is finally negotiated. Second, it confirms the June 3 document and focuses on ALL contracts above $10 Million, by requiring approval for any service exceeding 2010 spending levels. The June 3 document and its "Attachment 1" goes a bit further in dictating guidance to the DoD acquisition workforce relative to in-sourcing and budgetary restrictions for contracted services. While I'm aware that these Memoranda have been circulated to at least some in the contracting workforce, I am disappointed that every budget / resource management person with whom I have made inquiry, have been unaware of these documents.

ACQ_4: Adding an option to extend the term of the contract, when no such option was included at the time the contract was negotiated seems a bit odd. If the contract had resulted from a synopsized solicitation, would you be making such a change to the performance period? Have you considered SBA approval for a replacement contract with the 8(a) firm? It might be more work, but you could then include your option to extend in the initial solicitation and award documents. Also, I note you stated that by adding your options, you will be increasing your overall award to $4 Million. Is it $4 Million even, or will the modified contract exceed $4 Million? You might want to review FAR 19.805-1 as it relates to competitive 8(a).

On what seems a very frequent basis, folks within the acquisition community are bombarded with new rules, regulations and policies. However, FAR 1.102-2( B ) speaks to the matter of minimizing administrative operating costs. "(1) In order to ensure that maximum efficiency is obtained, rules, regulations, and policies should be promulgated only when their benefits clearly exceed the costs of their development, implementation, administration, and enforcement. This applies to internal administrative processes, including reviews, and to rules and procedures applied to the contractor community." While I recognize the non-mandatory nature of the operative "should", I am curious as to whether anyone believes this provision relegated to nothing more than some inconsequential page filler. If SO or if NOT, why?

Cheers to everyone posting on this topic! The nail has been hit on the proverbial head. Words have meaning! And, I think Don and Vern are alluding to the most important part when it comes to Government items. Read the appropriate Act, statute, regulation, etc. and look at how it does or does not define the term, that is your guiding light and the venacular that the drafters should be presumed to have intended. If the law defines a thing/person/activity as a subcontractor as it relates to one set of circumstances, but defines that same thing/person/activity as a subgrantee or subrecipient under other sets of circumstances, and another part of law requires that things be done relative to sub-contractors and is silent on the issue of subgrantees, then those things ought not to be done with respect to subgrantees. Expressio Unius Est Exclusio Alterius!

I think it is great that everyone is a proponent of streamlining acquisition processes. Might things take half the time? Sure. Will they take less time depends on the personnel assigned and the level of oversight, higher level reviews, and general statutory and/or regulatory compliance issues mandated for the particular project. I'm happy to support a work smarter approach as soon as congressional, administration and/or agency officials pay more than lip service and allow it to be possible.

Did a warranted contracting officer make the agreement to split the costs? Did the funding document and invoice come in after someone else made the agreement on behalf of the Agency? The answers to these questions could change the idea of ratification into one of definitization.

I recognize this is off topic, but I've seen many instances where people operate under the misconception that Federal reguations are somehow not laws. I even recall one of my DAU CON 100 professors preaching this. The Constitution is the supreme law of the United States. Acts of Congress (i.e., legislation in the form of Bills that are passed by both Houses and signed by the President or passed on veto overide) are law. Federal regulations are law, if properly promulgated pursuant to an authority granted by an Act of Congress. Accordingly, the Code of Federal Regulations, and as a consequence, the FAR are law.

I would caution you to have your agency legal counsel look at the proposed arrangement and ask them to opine on whether there might be any issues under Antideficiency Act. Would any part of your Industry Day constitute an impermissible voluntary service? or, be a gratuitous service that could be perceived as an improper augmentation of an appropriation?

Is a replacement escalator really needed? Have you considered replacing the escalator with a set of stairs? Maintenance costs would likely be a heck of a lot lower, plus you'd get the added benefits of: (a) lowering the energy costs for the facility; ( B ) a streamlined contract without a lot of line items for the options that could be eliminated; and © meet that mantra being pushed for Cost Consciousness!

I have two observations relative to this post: (1) Did you respond to the Assessing Official's cite regarding funding levels? You have that right within 30 days of receiving the CPARS draft and your contractor response should be considered by both the Assessing Official and the Reviewing Official. (2) You bring up an excellent point. When did SATISFACTORY become an abhorrent word? While I embrace the notion that all contractors should strive for excellence and that EXCELLENT or OUTSTANDING rating in everything they do, I also am a firm believer in the principle that if everyone is special, no one is special. A satisfactory rating is supposed to mean, both to you and any person reviewing your past performance, that you performed in accordance with the contract. This is a good thing. Excellent / Outstanding and Very Good / Above Average are ratings in CPARS, ACASS & CCASS that should be used to note activity that exceeds expectations. If you deliver the right product at the right time, construct the building you were supposed to construct on schedule, or just simply perform in accordance with your contract, you should be rated Satisfactory. Source selection boards and contracting officers should consider Satisfactory a GO for Past Performance.

You should check directly with GWU's admissions office. All law schools do not operate the same, and all degree programs are not the same. Some law schools have LLM programs to which BA / BS degree holders may directly apply. While other institutions trully consider the LLM as a step above and require that the JD be earned first.