mm6ch

Hmmmm. Not sure I agree. The ability to think logically, in my opinion, is developed early in life and has very little to do with choosing a liberal arts degree as your field of study when almost 20 years old.

Advice requested for the following ratification issue... Unauthorized commitment occurred for commercial services above micro-purchase threshold. The Government Agency began the process to ratify IAW FAR 1.602-3. The ratification process required significant fact gathering causing delays. The Contractor became frustrated with these delays and sent an email stating that they no longer wished to pursue the matter and considered it closed. In other words, they did not wish to be compensated for the work performed. After this email the contractor became unresponsive to government emails and phone calls. Our Judge Advocate advised we request a “Release of Claims” from the contractor to make certain they do make a claim against the government including interest at some future point in time. The contracting officer disagrees with processing a “Release of Claims” believing it to be unnecessary because there is no contract against which to apply the Release of Claims clause: FAR 52.212-4 (Alternate I) (i)(7) FAR 4.804-2 (a) The contractor subsequently did not renew their registration in the SAM so even if ratification was processed the contractor would not have the ability to be made whole without being registered in SAM. FAR 4.1102 Concern/Questions: Could the vendor at a future point in time make a claim and the government be held liable for the work performed including interest? Would a release of claims make certain this does not happen? Would it be necessary considering the email and the fact that the vendor is no longer registered in SAM? Or should we close the issue? What am I missing? Are there any other solutions?

Formerfed nailed it in post #9. I too see contracting turning into an automated career on the execution side of things and COs/CSs taking on more of the role as acquisition advisor, i.e. just guiding coworkers through the "acquistion maze". I've worked at an AF Systems Center, Base Level (USAF), in the IC, and in a contingency environment over my 10yr career. I enjoy the career much more than I did 5yrs ago primarily because I came across this website. The worst thing that happened to me was DAU. The training actually turned me off to Contracting during my first 5yrs. I believe, we force feed bad training in the first 5yrs which kills retention of 1102s. Reading WIFCON blog posts, daily review of protest results, combing through Nash and Cibinic Reports made publically available, and topically reading the Nash and Cibinic books has taught me infinitely more than DAU ever has or could. I'm gonna go off on a tangent here: As I have read numerous times on WIFCON, we need better training to energize new 1102s or the career is doomed. We won't have enough competent folks to teach the generation behind us (do we now?). I really think you have to have a particular mind set to enjoy reading and analyzing procurement regulation, case law, and books. It takes time, is tedious, and requires deep diving on topics which, from what I have read, is the opposite of how my generation consumes information via the internet. So, I think bad training mixed with generational social changes, together, may undermine the field of contracting. To answer the poster's question, I would second the comment in post #12:

What is the thought process for the statement in bold below? I've never understood why the full amount must be obligated at time of contract award. What's the rationale? With budgets being doled out is such a piecemeal fashion nowadays, to me it seems incrementally funding a CLIN/Contract would be reasonable. Thanks, "AFI 65-601 Vol 1, 4.61. Service Contracts Crossing Fiscal Years. The FY 98 National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) (P.L. 105-85) (Codified in 10 U.S.C. 2410A) allows ―for procurement of severable services for a period that begins in one fiscal year and ends in the next fiscal year if (without regard to any option to extend the period of the contract) the contract period does not exceed one year. The total cost of the services to be provided over the 12- month period must be reflected in the contract and that amount must be obligated when the contract is signed. The FY 2004 NDAA (P.L. 108-136), Section 1005 further amended 10 U.S.C. 2410A. In addition to authorizing severable service contracts for a 12-month period crossing fiscal years, it now authorizes 12-month contracts crossing fiscal years for leasing of ―real or personal property, including maintenance of such property when contracted for as part of the lease agreement."

Quite simply the best site for federal contracting...period...the end. Don't sell yourself short...this is an AMAZING LEGACY. Thank you, thank you, thank you, thank you!

http://www.federaltimes.com/article/20130604/DEPARTMENTS01/306040007/DOJ-warns-fallout-Army-KBR-contract-dispute What are your thoughts on how this will change closeout procedures, if at all? Is the DOJ correct? Could a ruling in favor of KBR have cascading affects on "tens of thousands of federal contracts."

To reiterate what everyone has said...ask the TEP and/or the TEP chair for a better explanation of the Deficiency. If Project and Program Manager are not clearly distiguished in the RFP and their explanation is not satisfactory then throw out their opinion and come up with a more reasonable one (if you're the CO....you sound like the CO)...documenting your reason for the change. However, when you use the words ornery and exactitude its sounds like you have a personal problem with the TEP. Finally, it's your decision to open discussions not the TEP. Sounds like your holding yourself hostage to the Tech Panel.

I hear a lot of this type of "complaining/quitting" regarding the government contracting career field in this discussion forum and in the office. At the same time, some of the more thoughtful and/or experienced people on this forum seem to thoroughly enjoy this profession so it made me think, why? Then, I heard this quote the other day on the radio. I think it's appropriate to this discussion: "The most impractical advice in the world...follow your dreams I say, follow your effort...if you're working at it, you're gonna get good at it, and if you're good at it you're gonna like it and if you like it you're eventually gonna be great at it." REALITY CHECK: Most people never work in their dream profession. In this career, "working at it" is a long process and most people don't work at it. That involves a lot of reading and so they never get good at government contracting and in turn hate their job. My advice, you can keep bouncing around until you find that "dream job" or you can dig in, open the books, learn, enjoy and be great at it. When I mean learn, don't rely exclusively on DAU. You will learn more through your own effort and reading. Everyone's situation is different, but if you're in the game you might as well work at it, enjoy it, and be great at it. OR, you can always keep searching for that perfect job.

Has anyone out there been apart of an Agency that obtained Contracting Authority for the first time? What is the process by which an Agency requests and receives Contracting Authority (links, guidance, etc)? What were some of the hiccups along the way? Advantanges/Disadvantages? Typical things new Contracting Activities screw up? What would your ideal "shell" of a Contracting Office look like? Thanks

The letter from GAO now leads me to believe that the augmentation of a service could be considered a logical follow-on. Furthermore, FAR 6.302-1(a)((2)(ii) and (iii) talks to the duplication of cost in the event It seems reasonable that one could state the potential gains in awarding a new task order through competition, IAW FAR 16.5, are less than the Government effort required by the government to solicit, evaluate and award the task order, i.e. the duplication of cost. Side bar: I mean, a cost-benefit analysis would probably bear this out if you really wanted to get deep into the numbers with respect to the cost to the Government of drafting the RFP documentation in addition to the cost of an evaluation team of approx. 5 govies sequestered for a month or two. The Merriam Webster definition and the interpretation of "next-step in a progression", while not inconsequential, holds less weight than the GAO letter and the definition in FAR 6.302-1(a)((2)(ii) and (iii) in my opinion. Follow-on to me means...next step in a process, but looking objectively at the information provided in the previous post, it seems to me reasonable that augmentation of a service could fit within that definition as well.

I am not the contracting officer. Your structure was helpful...thank you. If any work not covered by the changes clause is considered out-of-scope, then this work would require a new task order competition because it's out of scope & no exception applies. I have discussed this issue with a few COs and received conflicting guidance regarding the "scope" issue. The "rub" seems to be that some CO's use 10% as a "rule of thumb" for in/out of scope determination regardless of contract value. Now for another question. If the requirement were for professional services, how would this change this guidance, if at all? I misread Alt III initially with an "and" vs. an "or" in between "architecture-engineering or other professional services"...I read architure-engineering and immediately disgarded ALT III. I believe these would be "other professional services" as defined in FAR 2.101( . We are talking about training support for a field that is technical/engineering in nature. The IDIQ contains both FAR 52.243-1 ALT I and ALT III. Am I interpreting "other professional services" correctly and would that change the determination if so?

The work (training support services) is currently being provided under a task order that was competed amongst the IDIQ awardees IAW with the fair opportunity process. This task order has a base period that expires February 2014 and two additional 1 year options. The added work is the same type of work however, the quantity of the service would be an increase in LOE and $ of approx. 10% of the contract value. That said, this does not appear to be a logical follow-on nor does it appear to fall within the other exceptions in FAR 16.505( b )( 2 )( i ).

Thank you

Up front: Here is a situation I walked into at a new assignment. I’m getting conflicting guidance. The contract contains FAR 52.243-1 Alt I. Scenario: A Firm Fixed Price Task Order was awarded under a Multiple Award IDIQ Contract for ~$80M for a wide range of services one of which is training support. Four months later a new requirement for more of the same training support arises within our office. The IGCE for the new work is $7M. Question, what is the proper approach: Compete this work and award a new task order under FAR 16.5. Modify the work onto the existing task order without a J&A? Bilateral mod, in-scope change. Same type of work, eventhough the quantity change is rather large (~10% of basic contract value) Modify the work onto the existing task order, however a J&A is required. Bilateral mod, out-of-scope change as work was not contemplated at time of award. Post IAW 16.505 ( B )(2)(ii)(D). Again, the contract contains FAR 52.243-1. However, the added work doesn’t seem to fall within the changes described in Alt I. On an aside, are all changes outside those enumerated in FAR 52.243-1 (whatever ALT) considered out of scope? Guidance Received: 1. The work is out of scope. Either: a. conduct a new competition under the IDIQ IAW FAR 16.505( B )(1) or b. a J&A is needed and will be posted IAW 16.505( B )(2)(ii)(D) if you are going to modify this work onto the existing task order. However, this could cause the initial award to be protested. Offerors may have contemplated proposing on the work if these changes were included with the initial solicitation or the award determination may have been different if these requirements were included. 2. The work is in-scope. You should not release a new task order under this IDIQ for Training and Support. This work should be modified onto the existing task order. We cannot have two task orders for the same requirement under this IDIQ. We already have a task order for this work and the new requirement is within the scope of that contract. The new work should be modified under the existing task order. If we don’t take this approach, the awardee (of the $80M) could protest the release of this requirement and claim they were awarded this scope of work and are entitled to the work released under the new task order. The guidance in #2 confused me. To me that sounds like a Requirements Contract IAW 16.502(a). In my opinion, the change is out of scope and a new TO competition should be conducted, however when I received the guidance in #2 I started second guessing myself. Thanks P.S. I can't edit out these damn smiley faces...smile = b...my apologies.

Question: What type of appropriation is typically used for an A&AS service that is supporting a Research and Development effort. There are elements of the PWS that are O&M in nature however, the proponderance of the tasks are R&D and the overraching objective of the PWS is one that leans towards Research and Development. I've received conflicting advice; some believe O&M is the only appropriation that should be used for A&AS services. Finally, would the O&M activities be a necessary expense of the larger R&D effort...or am I out in left field trying to apply the Necessary Expense doctrine in this situation. On an aside, while researching this topic I ran across paragraph #2 below in the 2012 Fiscal Law Deskbook. Could someone provide a brief expanation for the Election Doctrine and/or situations where they have applied it. Any advice? Thank you ------- FMR. Volume 2B Chapter 5-5 #1- Para. G. Budget Activity 6, RDT&E Management Support. This budget activity includes research, development, test and evaluation efforts and funds to sustain and/or modernize the installations or operations required for general research, development, test and evaluation. Test ranges, military construction, maintenance support of laboratories, operation and maintenance of test aircraft and ships, and studies and analyses in support of the RDT&E program are funded in this budget activity. Costs of laboratory personnel, either in-house or contractor operated, would be assigned to appropriate projects or as a line item in the Basic Research, Applied Research, or ATD program areas, as appropriate. Military construction costs directly related to major development programs are included. #2- FISCAL LAW DESKBOOK 2012- Pg 27 Election Doctrine: The GAO’s Election Doctrine states that if two or more appropriations are equally available, then the agency may choose which appropriation to use. Once the agency chooses a certain appropriation for that type of acquisition, however, the agency must continue to use the same appropriations for all acquisitions of that type – i.e., once the agency makes its choice of appropriation, they are bound by that choice. See section V.B. below for further discussion.

Starts August 28th. What do you think? How do you think it will compare to similar degree programs and vs the gwu llm? I think it's great and opens up the quality of gwu procurement expertise to a larger group. Seems like a win win to me. http://atthecenterofitall.business.gwu.edu/2012/07/30/the-george-washington-university-school-of-business-and-law-school-launch-new-joint-master-of-science-in-government-contracts-degree-program/ Curriculum: http://business.gwu.edu/msgc/program/

After receiving a question regarding "Right of First Refusal" from a customer, I decided to look into this topic at Wifcon. The situation raised in the linked Wifcon thread also sums up my situation. After doing some research, I noticed Executive Order 13495, Nondisplacement of Qualified Workers Under Service Contracts, January 30, 2009 has yet to be incorporated into the FAR and is still an outstanding FAR case (see link 2). Are there reasons why it takes 3 plus years for an EO/NDAA section to be incorporated into the FAR? Are there political reasons or is it really that difficult to implement? What is the typical timeline to get an EO and/or NDAA section implemented into the FAR? 1. http://www.wifcon.com/discussion/index.php?showtopic=199 2. http://www.acq.osd.mil/dpap/dars/opencases/farcasenum/far.pdf

Yes, I noticed the other thread after posting this topic. Strict consistency in the DoD context will obviously not be possible...so point taken Vern. However, if the intent of congress is to limit the growth of spending by DoD for contracted services for the same or similar requirements in FY 12 and 13 in excess of $10M and we are given broad flexibility to implement (as it seems the memo allows by its vagueness), then I believe consistency can be achieved given that broad goal. Flexibility and subjectivity can be a positive. If Congress is pushing for CO's to go back to the negotiating table for same or similar services then that is what you must do using 2010 rates as a general starting point for negotiations. My apologies for duplicate threads. Thanks

USA003691-12-DPAP Does anyone have any idea how this Class Deviation will be implemented with any level of consistancy across the DoD? What are your thoughts on capping rates for new (FY12 & FY13) contracted services at FY10 levels? You can google the DPAP memo # above or click this link: www.acq.osd.mil/dpap/policy/policyvault/USA003691-12-DPAP.pdf

So I'm assuming you need a J.D. to apply to the LL.M. program in Government Procurement Law at GWU?