Jump to content
The Wifcon Forums and Blogs

Mike_wolff

Members
  • Content count

    60
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

0 Neutral

About Mike_wolff

  • Rank
    Member

Contact Methods

  • Website URL
    http://
  • ICQ
    0

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Male

Recent Profile Visitors

4,986 profile views
  1. Thanks - our conclusion too was that we can't waive the requirement. Thanks for everyone's time in responding.
  2. Mike_wolff

    IFB for Construction Issued Low Bid Under SAT

    I question if you can remove it - without researching further, I would say you can't, because the prescription states that clause is to be inserted when the contract is EXPECTED to exceed $150,000. See 28.102-3(a) below. The fact the bid came in under $150K doesn't change the expected cost, and since some form of payment protection is still required, how much money would be saved? It might not be worth the work to modify and negotiate the change. However, interesting the clause already addresses contracts coming in under at $150K or less. 52.228-15 However, it doesn't say what to do in such a situation - and for construction between $35K and $150K alternative payment protection is required. Did your IFB include 52.228-13 Alternative Payment Protection? If not (and I'm guessing not given your GCE) it's a very interesting issue since the above quoted part of -15 has the "unless the resulting contract price is $150K or less, but doesn't then require -13. 28.102-3 Contract clauses. (a) Insert a clause substantially the same as the clause at 52.228-15, Performance and Payment Bonds—Construction, in solicitations and contracts for construction that contain a requirement for performance and payment bonds if the resultant contract is expected to exceed $150,000.
  3. First there will have to be a huge investment in the IT budget. We still don't even have an electronic offer system in my service - to go to full AI it will take that and a LOT more. The biggest hurdle would be on best value tradeoff decisions, but there's ways (some for better, some for worse) you could automate that as well.
  4. Right, just some some form of payment protection. I was hoping to find a waiver to ANY form of payment protection for work between $35-150K.
  5. I'm looking for a way to waive the payment protection requirement required in 28.102-1(b), for work at a domestic, government-owned property. We have emergency repairs needed and don't want to delay the work waiting for a contractor to get payment protection (although I know in many cases a payment bond might take only 1-3 days to get, we want to streamline this as much as possible). Since I've posted the above, my legal counsel has said they have found no way to waive this requirement. I'm hoping someone might be able to say otherwise.
  6. Does anyone know if there is a waiver process to the payment protection requirements in 28.102-1(b) (please see below). 28.102-1(a) references a waiver option, but (b) doesn't appear to, but given the small dollar amount I find it hard to believe there isn't one. I'm still researching this and my legal office is my next stop, but was hoping someone here might have a quick answer - thanks!!! Mike 28.102-1 General. (a) 40 U.S.C. chapter 31, subchapter III, Bonds (formerly known as the Miller Act), requires performance and payment bonds for any construction contract exceeding $150,000, except that this requirement may be waived— (1) By the contracting officer for as much of the work as is to be performed in a foreign country upon finding that it is impracticable for the contractor to furnish such bond; or (2) As otherwise authorized by the Bonds statute or other law. (b)(1) Pursuant to 40 U.S.C. 3132, for construction contracts greater than $35,000, but not greater than $150,000, the contracting officer shall select two or more of the following payment protections, giving particular consideration to inclusion of an irrevocable letter of credit as one of the selected alternatives:
  7. Mike_wolff

    Wifcon.com: My Legacy; My Albatross

    Bob - I missed this post last year, so Happy 16th to Wifcon! Thank you VERY much for running this site - I echo what has been said above, this site is invaluable to the federal contracting community.
  8. We are having a similar discussion in my agency right now, and I find that a common point of confusion is the difference between SOLICITING without funds being currently available, and AWARDING without funds being currently available. 52.232-18 applies to contracts awarded without funds being available, not a solicitation being issued without funds being available. I'm not aware of anything that prohibits issuing a solicitation without funds being available. I know it is not preferred, but as long as you put potential offerors on notice that funds are not currently available, and the solicitation may be cancelled without an award, I don't see how that is prohibited. If someone is aware of a law, reg, or court decision that says otherwise please let me know as this is a hot topic. Thanks!
  9. Mike_wolff

    What are you reading?

    More Guns, Less Crime by John Lott, Jr. (3rd Edition) An excellent statistical analysis of various gun laws, both restrictive and permissive, and their resultant impact on crime.
  10. Mike_wolff

    Contract Modification Within Scope?

    One of the areas you should consider is "whether the change could have been anticipated by offerors." ("Administration of Government Contracts," 4th Ed, page 386.)
  11. Mike_wolff

    Conflict of Interest

    I was at the Nash & Cibinic Report Roundtable a couple of weeks ago and one of the presenters (I believe it was Marcia Madsen, but it may have been someone else) mentioned that there was a recent surprising court decision regarding conflict of interest with a major defense contractor, and that the decision was surprising because the contractor was speaking to the Government as an industry rep, but apparently that was the only contractor the Gov did market research with and the court concluded that the contractor was prohibited from competing on the procurement they gave comments on. I may have the facts off a little on this, but does that ring a bell for anyone? If so, would you be able to provide the name of the court case? Thanks in advance! Mike
  12. Mike_wolff

    Administering BPAs, exercising "options"

    Just so you know, in the opinion of many GAO is off-base on their "BPA is not a contract" when that BPA is done against a GSA Schedule. See this discussion here: http://www.wifcon.com/discussion/index.php...pic=258&hl=
  13. Mike_wolff

    "You're not supporting the warfighter".

    "Never wrestle with a pig - you'll both get dirty but only the pig will love it." That being said, in a case where you may have not already done so, I think it's important to explain why you are doing what you are doing, and in the vast majority of cases I've been involved with where someone wanted us to buy something the wrong way, I've been able to find a correct way to accomplish the same - or even better - result.
  14. Joel, I'm not sure if you're are speaking to a general audience with the above post, or if you think I'm trying to be one of the people fitting square pegs into round holes, but let me assure you that I definitely am not. Sadly, COs usually do have to follow (although not blindly - often our eyes are bulging at the stupidity) "dumb" rules - because they are usually based in law. No one has given any CO the right to ignore laws or regs they think are dumb. There are a lot of "dumb" rules Contracting Officers have to follow. We can - and do - work to change them, but just like one man's pork is another man's job program, one man's "dumb" is another man's great idea, so actually getting them changed is rare. This IDIQ issue is a perfect example. I know that it's been written about in N&CR many times, but nothing happens. Performance-based contracting is another one - it's pushed repeatedly but even OFPP has stated (I don't have the memo in front of me so I'm paraphrasing) that they can't prove that it actually works. Mike
  15. Vern and Joel, Thanks much for the renewed discussion on this issue. I believe it has confirmed my understanding that we do need to have binding unit prices established in the base contract that are used in the competition of future task orders. That always seemed relatively clear to me except that the proliferation of contracts that do not comply with that that started to make me doubt my understanding. I do also agree that it may not make sense in many ways to have such a requirement (although in other ways it does), since when does federal procurement laws and regs have to make sense in order to be required to be followed. Mike
×