Jump to content
The Wifcon Forums and Blogs


  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

0 Neutral

About jwomack

  • Rank

Profile Information

  • Gender

Recent Profile Visitors

9,595 profile views
  1. Gaining “peace of mind” due to ineptness, i.e., the inability to properly interpret how options work, does not equate to the Government receiving consideration. You need new attorney friends and a better professional group if this is the advice they're giving you.
  2. Safe? Or are you giving up Government rights already established in the contract? If you’re giving up rights, what are you receiving as consideration in return from the contractor? What authority do you have to give away something that already belongs to the Government?
  3. Yes. An option is whatever it is defined to be elsewhere in the contract. I would assume these things to be severable then...unless a pre-award meeting of the minds implied differently.
  4. Sounds like you want others to do your research, does it not?
  5. I'm saying I would consider total cost to the Government when determining what's in the government's best interest. Some contractors offer lower than FTR/JTR rates, e.g., as a percentage like 10% below FTR/JTR. Some contractors won't need to travel if they have a large footprint. If the Government says "we'll pay JTR" then there's no incentive for contractors to do anything to reduce or even eliminate some travel costs.
  6. Ask the budget official certifying the funds as available for use. Part of that person's burden when certifying funds is to make sure the time/purpose/amount tests are satisfied.
  7. "Cancelled" would imply the Schedule's terms and conditions were never binding. If an order was placed under the Schedule then I don't believe the Schedule could be cancelled. Terminated, yes, in which case the Schedule's terms and conditions would survive per FAR clause 52.216-22(d) which should be in the Schedule contract.
  8. That's what tradeoff analysis is for.
  9. Then what's the purpose of 52.216-22(d) which is mandatory for all IDIQ contracts? Doesn't it ensure the subordinate task order remains subordinate and doesn't become a stand alone entity? "Any order issued during the effective period of this contract and not completed within that period shall be completed by the Contractor within the time specified in the order. The contract shall govern the Contractor’s and Government’s rights and obligations with respect to that order to the same extent as if the order were completed during the contract’s effective period; provided, that the Contractor shall not be required to make any deliveries under this contract after _______________ [insert date]."
  10. Should they match? Not required unless the base contract says it is. Can they match? Yes. And doing so could provide clarity as to what's being ordered. Trying to match on a task order, though, may be difficult or impossible if the TO is fairly complex.
  11. It's up to the agency issuing the warrant. FAR 1.602-1(a). "Contracting officers have authority to enter into, administer, or terminate contracts and make related determinations and findings...Contracting officers shall receive from the appointing authority (see 1.603-1) clear instructions in writing regarding the limits of their authority."
  12. A2: If it was required for every mod it would be so stated in Part 43.
  13. The contract’s “minimum guarantee” was satisfied upon award/acceptance of the TO. You don’t have to satisfy that requirement twice.
  14. 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.
  • Create New...