jwomack

Since when were the obligation of funds “recorded” on a contract? I thought the contract obligates the funds and only serves as supporting documentary evidence to justify recording the obligation.

H2H, So when acquiring professional services, we no longer need to evaluate the cost of travel since it "isn't significant in comparison to the hourly billings"? What if one offeror could successfully perform with no travel costs while a competitor would require $25,000 in travel costs? Just because the cost may be insignficant in comparison to hourly billings, that doesn't mean it is an insignficant cost factor. Consistency - I can think of numerous scenarios in which consistency of contractor personnel would/should be irrelevant. You mention tradeoffs. I didn't see anything in the orginal question stating tradeoff analysis was being performed. Nor that consistency was more important that cost. My "focus" was only on travel costs because that is what the original question was about. Your points are well taken and may apply in many scenarios, but maybe a bit myopic.

Some offerors may be able to travel at a lower cost than others. For example, a contractor with one office in the middle of nowhere would have higher travel costs than a contractor with multiple offices located throughout the US near major airports. Amending the solicitation and providing some realistic sample travel locations for evaluation may be your best option. Of course this won't matter if cost is a relatively unimportant evaluation factor.

FAR 37.602 "A Performance Work Statement (PWS) may…result from a Statement of Objectives (SOO) prepared by the Government where the offeror proposes the PWS.” So does this mean that a SOO cannot be used for GSA orders?

The Government’s concession that the ADA violation was, in fact, attributable to a Government action. Of course this contradicts the Court’s perspective as cited in (Note 1) of post 19, above.

Vern, It wasn’t my logic nor way of thinking. I was merely trying to follow your (and apparently the Court’s) logic chain that, as you have acknowledged, is paradoxical – a. CO violates the ADA by obligating funds that didn’t exist. b. Government is not bound by the unauthorized obligation and determines the contract void ab initio (Note 1). c. The contract is void, meaning the contract never existed as far as the Government is concerned. d. Since the contract never existed, then there was no obligation. e. Since there was no obligation, the CO cannot be found guilty of obligating funds that didn’t exist. (Note 1) DC Court of Appeals, Williams v. District of Columbia, No. 03-CV-1271 “In light of the principles now codified at 31 U.S.C. § 1341, the Supreme Court of the United States and other federal courts have explicitly and repeatedly held that all contracts for future payments of money, in advance of or in excess of existing appropriations, are void ab initio.  Hercules Inc. v. United States, 516 U.S. 417, 427, 116 S.Ct. 981, 134 L.Ed.2d 47 (1996);  Goodyear Tire & Rubber Co. v. United States, 276 U.S. 287, 66 Ct.Cl. 764, 48 S.Ct. 306, 72 L.Ed. 575 (1928);  Leiter v. United States, 271 U.S. 204, 46 S.Ct. 477, 70 L.Ed. 906 (1926);  see, e.g., E.I. du Pont de Nemours & Co. v. United States, 365 F.3d 1367, 1374 (Fed.Cir.2004);  RCS Enters. v. United States, 57 Fed.Cl. 590, 594 (2003).” As much as it pains me to, in light of (Note 1) above, I must concede that my "I believe an ADA violation has no bearing on whether or not a binding government-contractor relationship was established" may have actually been a half-baked assessment.

So the ADA can only be violated if the contractor has been paid? Talk about a half-baked response. What's that based on? The PDF link you provided only illustrates that ADAs occur. The ADA does not speak solely to making expenditures; it also speaks to authorizing expenditures and obligations. And if you have nothing to say about something, why the comment? You trying to run us newbies off? Bully.

If an ADA violation is not binding on the government (implied by #4), then how could the ADA ever be violated (per #2)? On what basis would a violator be imprisoned (per #2) if the unfunded action was not binding on the government (per #4)? While a CO may be punished for violating the ADA, I believe an ADA violation has no bearing on whether or not a binding government-contractor relationship was established. To the OP’s question, the contractor does not need to worry about the administrative issue of funding unless contingent funding (e.g., 52.232-18, or something similar) is explicitly mentioned in the contract.

I’ll give you the same answer you’ll become quite familiar with whenever you start taking the resident DAU classes – it depends. In this case, it depends primarily on personal motivation and your ability to combine logic, law, and common business sense. Small, non-complex purchases – 6 to 12 months. There’s a reason why a lot of GS-1102 intern programs last two or three years. At that point, you should be relatively comfortable but won’t be a well-rounded expert by any means.

(8) Take a passive approach and ignore the CO’s request. While this will frustrate the CO, he/she will ultimately not be able to press the issue any further.

Perhaps this 9/19/11 decision B-321640 brings a new spin: “An agency must consider both the Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) and appropriations law principles when determining its guaranteed minimum quantity.” And “While it is true that task orders must be funded with appropriations available at the time of the issuance of the task order, it is also true that a bona fide need must exist for the amounts obligated as the guaranteed minimum.”

A post-closing extension for the reasons stated by the OP would seem to be for the sole purpose of providing preferential treatment for a favored contractor. A review of FAR 3.101-1 may be worthwhile: "Government business shall be conducted in a manner above reproach and, except as authorized by statute or regulation, with complete impartiality and with preferential treatment for none...The general rule is to avoid strictly any conflict of interest or even the appearance of a conflict of interest in Government-contractor relationships."

No, it's in Gibberish.

If the contractor expected something more definitive then they should have negotiated a contract instead of a BPA. With no intent to extend the term of the BPA (unless you?re intending on extending it beyond the 10 years), what purpose would the clause serve?

Fraud is frowned upon and is an easy way to get you debarred. FAR 9.406-2, Causes for Debarment. "The debarring official may debar? (a) A contractor for a conviction of or civil judgment for -- (1) Commission of fraud or a criminal offense in connection with -- (i) Obtaining; (ii) Attempting to obtain; or (iii) Performing a public contract or subcontract." If you don't think it's fraud, then call it a lack of business integrity. That can get you debarred as well (FAR 9.406-2(a)(5)).

Contractors also use economies of scale, especially for positions such as Program Managers. For example, the first contract actually takes 30 hours per week to perform (not 40 as a government estimate may reflect). A second, related job may only consume an additional 15 - 20 hours since the infrastructure and/or other variable costs/efforts wouldn't need to be replicated.

One year

I am comfortable saying the CLINs are inseparable (0001 would be useless if I didn?t also order 0002) and that I should use current money for both CLINs regardless of the time of year. Not sure I follow how CLIN 0002 could be for 12 months since I wouldn?t be able to start that CLIN until I?m two months into the contract (awaiting CLIN 0001?s completion). If CLIN 0002 ran for 12 months, the total contract length would then be 14 months, and would seemingly be in violation of FAR 32.703-3(b ). I would like to make 0002 run for 12 months without a subsequent contract modification if someone could enlighten me on a way around, or provide a different interpretation of, FAR 32.703-3.

Civilian agency. One year money. CLIN 0001 = Nonseverable installation that takes 2 months to complete. CLIN 0002 = Severable maintenance service. This CLIN cannot begin until the completion of CLIN 0001. What is the longest period of performance CLIN 0002 may run (without issuing contract modifications)? 10 months? 12 months? FAR 32.703-3(b ) says ??if the period of contract awarded, option exercised, or order placed does not exceed one year?. This makes me believe the longest POP possible for CLIN 0002 would be 10 months.

I counted five periods in your quote. Wouldn't that make it five sentences, not one?

For CPARS reporting requirements, see FAR 42.1502© and (d).

Maybe your money folks are considering the travel to have been a contingent liability in which a bona fide need never materialized. Red Book, 7-56.

I recommend having your policy officer explain why those clauses are in 52.212-5. Also, why would you ask the contractor to verify that type of clause information? That is the GSA contracting officer's responsibility.