Jump to content
The Wifcon Forums and Blogs

jwomack

Members
  • Content Count

    218
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

0 Neutral

About jwomack

  • Rank
    Member

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Male

Recent Profile Visitors

9,499 profile views
  1. A2: If it was required for every mod it would be so stated in Part 43.
  2. The contract’s “minimum guarantee” was satisfied upon award/acceptance of the TO. You don’t have to satisfy that requirement twice.
  3. Just pick one. The reason one is picked over another doesn’t need to be rationalized beyond what was announced in the solicitation (LPTA). To that end, as Joel implied, turning an LPTA into a trade-off (like intentionally selecting based on business size) is improper unless you provided for that in the solicitation.
  4. Not that you asked me, but focusing on the OP’s question (2 citations or not) here’s what I would cite. This assumes the red/white/blue are severable: 52.212-4(l) (partial termination) for the reduced quantity of white. This gives me contractual assurance that I’ll get the white items. And 1.602-1 for the new red and blue items. This citation helps to illustrate this aspect is outside the scope of the contract and is only an offer. --- If only 1.602-1 (or similar) is cited and you ask for bilateral signature, it could be implied or interpreted that you’re giving the contractor a choice regarding the white items.
  5. You can and probably should if you want to be clear as to what's going on.
  6. No. Two signatures don’t always indicate the mod required bilateral signatures to be binding. Sometimes contractors sign when they don't need to or weren’t asked to…presumably as a gesture to show they received the mod and don't have a problem with it. Also, selecting 13C requires completion of a fill-in. “This supplemental agreement is entered into pursuant to authority of: ________”. Leaving the fill-in blank wouldn't make sense. On the other hand, if 13A-D were not selected and 13E "is required to sign" is selected then it would be self-evident that bilateral signatures were required.
  7. I don’t think 52.212-4(c) is an “authority” but see no harm in citing it as it helps demonstrate the mod was subject to bilateral approval. If I felt it was necessary to cite a true authority it would be 1.602-1.
  8. Not only is there nothing wrong with it, I’d say it’s mandatory if you/your agency has determined that citing an authority is warranted in the first place. Authority not cited – Doesn’t change the validity of the mod. Authority cited – Doesn’t change the validity of the mod. But it could help the parties understand what’s going on. So if you’re going to cite an authority, why wouldn’t you cite all applicable authorities?
  9. The others are, at least mostly, to advertise task/delivery orders under existing contracts. I think Fedconnect is just a tool that interfaces with FBO. It'd be nice if they'd move E-Buy there as well since it's another GSA product. --- From https://beta.sam.gov/ - What is beta.SAM.gov GSA is merging ten "legacy" award sites into one system. Learn More.
  10. Because you continue working with them on their terms. Your willingness to walk away if they don’t.
  11. No. If your agency has a contractual obligation to pay for services then the obligated amount has to be reserved for the future payment of the obligation. Changing a contract's method of payment (e.g., EFT vs Purchase Card) doesn't change this.
  12. It depends on how desperate the agency is and what their alternatives are.
  13. I'm not suggesting total risk avoidance. Just that risk must be considered.
  14. Ever worked in a small contracting office with limited COs who work for someone who is not a CO and doesn't understand federal contracting? Typical scenario - Office needs a CO to buy basic supplies via placing GSA orders. A GS-7 in some random career field is given minimal training so they can receive a warrant and place orders as a collateral duty. The office who needs the CO convinces the warrant-issuing office to give the newly trained person a warrant. A more competent CO in the office who normally handles more difficult acquisitions leaves. The office is now down to one CO...the one who barely knows how to place GSA orders. There's still a need to make the more complex (sometimes Part 15) acquisitions. Who do you think the CO's boss is going to assign the acquisition work to? The sole, incompetent CO in the office who has an unlimited warrant (because the warrant-issuing office didn't recognize the risk associated with giving this incompetent CO a warrant above his/her capabilities)? Or to another office with more competent COs?
×
×
  • Create New...