Jump to content
The Wifcon Forums and Blogs

Todd Davis

  • Content count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

0 Neutral

About Todd Davis

  • Rank
    Bronze Member

Profile Information

  • Gender

Recent Profile Visitors

4,534 profile views
  1. The USDA has a key personnel clause. The prescription states: "The contracting officer shall insert a clause substantially the same as the clause at 452.237-74, Key Personnel, in contracts if contract performance requires identification of the contractor’s key personnel." The clause reads: KEY PERSONNEL (FEB 1988) (a) The Contractor shall assign to this contract the following key personnel: __________________ (b) During the first ninety (90) days of performance, the Contractor shall make no substitutions of key personnel unless the substitution is necessitated by illness, death, or termination of employment. The Contractor shall notify the Contracting Officer within 15 calendar days after the occurrence of any of these events and provide the information required by paragraph (c) below. After the initial 90-day period, the Contractor shall submit the information required by paragraph (c) to the Contracting Officer at least 15 days prior to making any permanent substitutions. (c) The Contractor shall provide a detailed explanation of the circumstances necessitating the proposed substitutions, complete resumes for the proposed substitutes, and any additional information requested by the Contracting Officer. Proposed substitutes should have comparable qualifications to those of the persons being replaced. The Contracting Officer will notify the Contractor within 15 calendar days after receipt of all required information of the decision on substitutions. The contract will be modified to reflect any approved changes of key personnel. (End of Clause)
  2. It now works for me. I was logged in as a member before and after. Whatever was changed worked.
  3. SF 1449 Block 29

    Unless an agency has issued policy or guidance on the matter (FAR 53.212), I would suggest the following. Block 29 only applies when the government is accepting an offer from a offeror to form a binding contract. If the CO is instead issuing an offer to purchase (purchase order) to a vendor, the CO should simply complete Blocks 31a, b and c, then send the purchase order to the vendor. If the CO wants written confirmation of the vendor's acceptance of the purchase order, he or she can check Block 28 request the vendor sign the document and complete Blocks 30a, b, and c. While Block 28 states the contractor is "required" to sign the document, I don't see how they could be required to accept an offer to purchase from the government, even if they submitted a quote. Alternatively, if the CO is not concerned with obtaining written acceptance, he or she can rely on the expectation that the contractor will perform. Tender of performance creates a binding contract. When performance is partial or in part, the question of when a contract is formed is less certain. Boards have found in that substantial performance creates a binding contract, while intiation or partial performance may or may not based on the circumstances (ASBCA No. 33732, Amplitronics, Inc.). I believe the reason that Block 27 states both contract and purchase order, is because those clauses apply regardless of whether the form is used to create a contract by accepting an offer from a vendor or the issuance of an offer to purchase (purchase order) issued by the government. Block 29, on the other hand, is only used to accept a vendor's offer to form a contract when the CO signs the document. Block 29 is not used to issue a purchase order.
  4. I'm having the same issue as edwardscpfd. Also gives the error code 2C171/1.
  5. There are different teams on the Federal Acquisition Regulatory Council, one of which is the acquisition finance team. The link to the list of teams in broken in the link I provided, so I cannot tell specifically what they are responsible for. They are tasked with different activities in a recent list of open FAR cases. I did find GSA points of contact list for the different teams, including the acquisition finance team. The current FAR cases they are tasked with drafting proposed rules for include issues related to sureties, taxes, incremental funding on fixed price contracts, and performance-based payments.
  6. I agree with the prior comments. Other examples of the FAR instructing individuals other than COs include: - Requirements of "planners" regarding acquisition plans (Subpart 7.1). - Technical and requirements personnel being responsible for providing and certifying as accurate and complete data supporting their recommendation for other than full and open competition (FAR 6.303-1) - Advocates for Competition (Subpart 6.5) - Procurement integrity requirements (Subpart 3.1) - The evaluation team and source selection authority (Subpart 15.3)
  7. A Problem within Soliciations - IDIQs

    Same here. To me, having access to resources like those, knowing how to find what is needed, and being able to comprehend the material is essential. I call my Nash and Cibinic books, the books that make me look smart.
  8. Multiple-Year Funding

    I agree with Vern and Napolik's conclusion and rationale. It is consistent with the guidance we provide to COs within our agency regarding the use of multi-year funds for severable services. "The above authority (FAR 32.703-3(b)) for severable services specifically applies to contracts funded by annual (single year) appropriations. If a contract is funded by multi-year funds, those funds are only available to fund severable services during their period of availability. For example, if FY 17/18 funds are used, those funds may pay for severable services between 10/1/2016 and 9/30/2018."
  9. Types of orders

    I second what Vern said. In my "early" days of contracting (mid 90s), I managed decentralized BPAs where those appointed by the CO as ordering officials placed calls and ordered supplies or services permitted under the BPA. No paper order was issued. The ordering official would keep a call register/log documenting the calls made and would send to the CO monthly. Upon receipt of the log and an invoice from the contractor, the CO would approve the invoice for payment.
  10. Cost Monitoring Plans

    I previously worked for a division of GE for a few years. While the division I worked for wasn't a "tech" company and it did not have Federal contracts, we did have people who's primary job was to be a cost productivity manager. Folks in manufacturing, engineering, and sourcing would work with that person on projects to reduce the cost of the product we sold. Projects were discussed, valued, and if appropriate pursued and monitored to completion. If fact, we reported on those projects on a routine basis to top executives in our division. Had that division of GE sold the product to the government, it would have been easy to roll information regarding those efforts into a report. While companies have different priorities and resources, I'm surprised someone didn't track the savings in some manner, even if it was a minor part of their job. Otherwise, how would they know the value of the improvement they made or if it was worth the cost/benefit. I would think that top management would want to know the benefit of the efforts being made or which cost saving projects to pursue over others.
  11. From the limited information provided, it is not clear if this is a free trial period as part of a contract or not. You might want to check out GAO Red Book, Chapter 6, Section C (The Antideficiency Act), 3 (Voluntary Services Prohibition) and see if that helps you. Also, if the requirement is something that would otherwise be subject to competition, you might want to consider whether or not testing one firms product and not another's provides an unfair competitive advantage. The FAR does discuss pre-award testing at Subpart 11.8, but I'm not sure if it applies to your situation or not.
  12. Advice for New Professionals

    Read, read, and read some more (books, regulations, policy, GAO decisions, board decisions, court opinions, Wifcon, etc.). Too many folks don't read or read completely. When reading, read what the policy/regulation says and not what you or a customer want it to say. Don't believe everything your told. Ask lots of questions and for supporting rationale and references to policy and regulation with the answers you receive. Ask different individuals the same question when appropriate to benefit from different views. Take advantage of opportunities to gain diverse hands on experience. Be able to admit it when wrong and learn from it. Improve your clear and critical thinking skills. Don't try to get promoted too quickly. I've seen folks jump from lower graded positions to GS-13, 14+ with relatively limited experience. As a result, they are not able to adequately support the organization they work for and folks that rely on them for guidance and the organization suffers for it.
  13. www.farsite.hill.af.mil

    While it can't hurt to make the change on the next modification, I don't think it is a necessity. Both the provision and clause that include the hyperlink state "Upon request, the Contracting Officer will make their full text available" and that the clause or provision may be accessed at the link. So, if the link does not work, the alternative is to ask the CO for the full text, upon which the CO will likely instead give requestor an updated link.
  14. Small Business Set Aside Under $150k Subcontracting with Large Business

    Thanks Don. That makes sense since the prescription for the subcontracting limitation clause 52.219-14 states that it is not used for small business set asides not expected to exceed $150K. Not sure why the FAR wouldn't state the nonmanufacturer rule does not apply for small business set aside actions not exceeding the $150K. I know the FAR make reference to 13 CFR Part 121. Since the OP comment said their action is a small business set aside, then I agree the nonmanufacturer rule does not apply. Having said that, the exception seems to apply to small business set asides only and not to the other types of set asides under FAR Part 19. I believe this is why the prescription is different for 52.219-14 when it comes to 8a procurements and why the subcontracting limitations and nonmanufacturer rule applicability is addressed in the other set aside clauses. The prescription for these other set aside clauses are not dollar threshold dependent. Do you see it the same way, or am I missing something?
  15. Small Business Set Aside Under $150k Subcontracting with Large Business

    I agree with Don with respect to a small business set-aside based on the prescription for clause 52.219-14. However, if your procuring an end product you'll want to ensure compliance with the non-manufacturer rule (FAR 19.102(f)). While it may not apply to your situation, I would add that if you are setting aside a requirement for 8a there is not a dollar value related to the prescription of clause 52.219-14. Also, the HUBZone, WOSB, and SDVOSB set aside clauses include subcontracting limitations which do not have dollar thresholds in the prescription.