Jump to content
The Wifcon Forums and Blogs

uva383

Members
  • Content Count

    36
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

0 Neutral

About uva383

  • Rank
    New
  • Birthday 05/17/1985

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Male
  • Location
    Washington, DC

Recent Profile Visitors

2,978 profile views
  1. Correct, as long as they do not conflict with the parent IDIQ. Often it is necessary to add additional terms and conditions at the TO/DO level as they are specific to the work in the order where the parent IDIQ was more broad in nature to allow flexibility. if the holder(s) of the parent IDIQ believe there is a conflict in the terms between the parent and an order. It should first point it out to the PCO, then if not resolved satisfactorily to the IDIQ ombudsman. It shouldn’t need to go higher than that to get the issue resolved, but if it does then a filing a protest may be necessary.
  2. Neil, I believe that 52.216-18(b) addresses your concerns about a change in an order that conflicts with a term in the parent IDIQ. MCP, see the same paragraph of the above referenced clause. Assuming this clause is in the IDIQ, it invokes all terms and conditions (including all clauses) in the parent IDIQ in all orders placed under the contract. Therefore you need not reference the same clauses in the resulting delivery order
  3. Oh ok misread that. Sps uses word as the text formatting. I would clear all the style formatting in the document and then set it how you want. To remove styles using the “Clear Formatting” command, select the text from which you want to remove the style. Then click the “More” button in the “Styles” button group of the “Home” tab in the Ribbon. Then choose the “Clear Formatting” command from the list of menu options
  4. Set the paragraphs setting to double space. Should work to add spacing. I have that issue every time they issue an update in SPS.
  5. I work in a Navy STRL contracting office and we do this all the time. we use an informational CLIN with prices SLINs to allocate hours by funding (WC, RDT&E, O&M, OPN, SCN, etc.) and work via Technical Instructions. We use a holding SLIN to hold the unallocated LOE and costs and then decrement this SLIN as TIs and funds are provided. We’ve had multiple DASN reviews and they haven’t taken exception to this approach.
  6. So I’ve been following this thread for some time and no one seems to have raised this aspect of potential unintended consequences. According to the DPAP memo, a company which is habitually late in complying with the 5 day sweep policy is exhibiting signs of a defective estimating system and may be grounds for review. many of the top DOD contractors have approved estimating systems, and in my experience, the presence of such a system usually positively affects management ratings in competitive proposals as well as cost realism adjustments. It seems as though a large contractor is stuck between the risk of missing something in its sweep and having to defend against a defective pricing claim, or possibly the loss of confidence in its estimating system which can be a competitive advantage in a competitive award. Given that many of these same companies have products and services they sole source to various DOD agencies while competing for other lines of business, this policy appears to be quite heavy handed to me. It’s almost like DPAP is threatening give me a certificate in five days or face possible downgrade of one of your business systems and thereby potentially lose future business.
  7. I would prefer to keep all three venues, but narrow the scope of what can be protested at each venue. I would also limit the number of supplemental protests that can be filed as its been my experience that protesters often file on one issue, and then through the use of supplemental protests either continue to file additional claims, no matter how outlandish with the hopes that the agency will relent and just take corrective action rather than continue to respond to additional supplemental protests. I would propose that for matters relating to the analysis of proposals or if an Offeror disagreed with how the agency handled its proposal individually, that it should be limited to protesting only to the agency. For matters where the agency was bias between multiple Offerors, GAO should be the venue, and for matters relating the agency's interpretation of statues, the COFC.
  8. In a multiple award idiq contract, is compliance with the vets 4212 reporting requirements of FAR 52.222-38 done at the idiq level at time of award and flow down to all orders or would an offeror need to represent in each order. Also would the PCO need to verify compliance with the VETS reporting prior to awarding each order?
  9. Does your contract have a level of effort (LOE) clause? Typically CPFF term type contracts have a clause that specifies how the fixed fee is handled when the full LOE is not delivered. If you don't have an LOE clause, how was the fee to be invoiced l? Based on a flat rate per hour delivered? As a percentage of the invoice? I would suggest you contact your PCO to determine what to do if your full LOE isn't going to be delivered.
  10. Matthew, Thank you for providing that information. Vern, I have reviewed all 8 comments currently present. I completely agree with the issue that this FAR rule attempts to address, KOs are risk adverse and do not communicate with Industry in an effective manner, nor do they know the rules when engaging with Industry prior to the issuance of an RFP. That being said, I completely disagree that we need an amendment to the FAR to address this issue, as Mr. Nash and you point out, many of my fellow KOs and Contract Specialists are unaware of the guidance that has already been put out which addresses and resolves many of the things that Industry states we already should be doing. Additionally, these same folks are unaware of the guidance already contained in FAR Parts 1, 10 and 15 regarding this subject and I don't see where clarifying information needs to be provided because it doesn't solve the underlying problem. This discussion reminds me of a situation I once experienced where my CCO wanted me to have one of our attorneys present in the room when I was conducting 1v1 market research sessions with potential 8a vendors for in depth discussions regarding Capability Statements received in response to an RFI I released in FBO to ensure that the same questions were asked to each potential vendor in case an angry vendor decided to protest should they should have selected and allege favoritism. I provided copies of the OPFF Mythbusters memo, and tried to explain to my Chief that I did not need to ask the same questions, and that asking the same list of questions to each vendor was of no help, as we already did that as part of the RFI. Now the Program Office wanted to discuss specifics contained within the Capability Statements and that asking the same set of questions to each vendor may in fact lead to the very protest that the Chief was afraid of as it could result in one vendor's trade secrets being disclosed to a competitor. I do not see where the proposed amendment would address or solve the problem in this situation, which is the lack of understanding and fear surrounding market research and engaging with Industry as it seems that most KOs are so afraid of a potential protest that we do the minimum amount necessary to check a box, and move onto the next step. IMO the best solution to the problem is to state what types "exchanges of information" should not occur, or better define what the line is when these "exchanges of information" between Gov't and Industry begin to give one member of Industry a competitive advantage as this appears to be the underlying fear that keeps KOs and Specialists from engaging with Industry and its the lack of understanding when the conversation shifts from one of "market research" to where a potential vendor is now specifically guiding the development of the requirement in a manner that gives them a potential competitive advantage and when the FAR states that the information needs to be shared with all potential vendors. I do not believe that this needs to be a rule, but rather a policy memo that is published by OFPP and then passed along through by each Agency. I also believe that KOs should be reminded that the FAR specifically states at 1.102-2(c)(3) that all contractors and prospective contracts need to be treated fairly, but not equally. All too often I hear you have to treat everyone equally, to which I constantly remind folks, the FAR does not say that, it says fair, but fair is not equal.
  11. Vern, No. I tried to look in regulations.gov at any comments that have been posted but all I can see is that it looks like one comment was received and I've not been able to figure out how to view it. Admittedly it could be operator error that is preventing me from reviewing the comment. In the past the only way I've been able to figure out how to read comments associated with a rule is to wait until the final rule has been published to review any comments received.
  12. Oh boy... a rule to say it's ok to engage with industry... it's stuff like this that makes me wonder what really goes on in those sessions and who thinks we need a rule for everything or what agency said it wasn't ok to contact industry. I thought the OFPP myth buster memos settled that years ago.
  13. Don, Question as I'm using your matrix to review a solicitation one of my specialists put together and I think I may have found an error but am not 100% sure because both your matrix and the DON commercial item matrix appear to have the same issue. Your matrix states that 252.216-7006 is not authorized for Commercial Items (CI), but DFARS 216.506(a) states to use this clause in solicitations and contracts lieu of FAR 52.216-18. According to FAR 12.301(e)(1), the clauses prescribed in 16.506 (of which 52.216-18 is one) are authorized for CI ID/IQ contracts. So based on the prescription in DFARS 216.506(a) to use 252.216-7006 in lieu of 52.216-18, wouldn't 252.216-7006 be authorized for use in CIs?
  14. I have a related question to this topic. Background: Prime contract ended in June of 16. Prime contract contains Jun 2013 version of 52.216-7, allowable cost and payment. Prime submits notice to the Govt of excess current funds available for deobligation in the amount of 100k after its retainer for rate settlements. Government agrees issues bilateral modification to deobligate agreed upon excess funds a month later and obligates funds under follow-on effort. After FY, prime contacts PCO and states that they made a mistake in their excess funds calculation as they received an invoice from one of their CPFF SubKtrs for $15k for travel reimbursement that was not included in the primes original spend plan but was approved travel that occurred during the final year of the contract. Prime also states during conversation with PCO that they [the Prime] have not settled this subcontract with the SubKTR at this time. Question: Under the allowable cost and payment clause, is the government required to provide an increment of funds (either prior year (if available) or current year funds) as the $15k unexpected travel exceeds the retainer for rate adjustments, or should the Govt wait until DCAA and DCMA complete contract closeout and the contractor submits its final invoice before providing this increment in case there are other costs that are in excess of the retainer that arise during contract audit and settlement?
  15. Not sure about all the particulars of your requirement or not so I can't say for certain if the provision 52.222-46 would apply, but if it didn't, you may want to still fold some of that verbiage into a management plan evaluation to determine if the offeror's compensation program reflects a clear understanding of the requirements and then in execution hold the KTR to delivering the caliber of personnel that you're looking for.
×
×
  • Create New...