Jump to content
The Wifcon Forums and Blogs

jdm843

Members
  • Content Count

    34
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

0 Neutral

About jdm843

  • Rank
    New

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Not Telling

Recent Profile Visitors

4,321 profile views
  1. I appreciate that, @justinramani. But I'm not sure you answered my question. Or perhaps I mis-presented it. Part 9 is Contractor Qualifications. Do you mean FAR Subpart 9.1 Responsible Prospective Contractors, because that's where "Contractor Responsibility" is principally addressed? Or Subpart 9.4 Debarment, Suspension, and Ineligibility? Because AFARS 5109.405(d)(1) is where the Army's agency regulation states that "Contracting Officers shall review the SAM Exclusions... immediately prior to... placement of a new purchase or task or delivery order." I ask because I understand the imp
  2. Having worked at three different (Army) contracting offices, my experience has been that, frequently, prior to award of any contract action (new contract, modification, task order, etc.), the Contracting Officer requires that a contractor's SAM registration be validated, not only for exclusions, but also to verify their registration is active. Upon a close read of FAR 4.1103, DFARS 204.1103, FAR 52.204-7 SAM, and FAR 52.204-13 SAM Maintenance, I left wondering if it's necessary to validate SAM registrations prior to issuing existing task orders. FAR 4.1103(a)(3) states the Contracting
  3. @ji20874 thanks for the advice. 52.236-5 is a great clause. But I'm afraid I don't see how that will work for my purpose. Paragraph (a) of that clause states: "The Contractor may, at its option, use any equipment, material, article, or process that, in the judgment of the Contracting Officer, is equal to that named in the specifications, unless otherwise specifically provided in this contract." (Formatting added for emphasis.) My contract will "otherwise specifically provide" that a single product from a specific manufacturer is all that will be accepted. The Government will allow n
  4. @General.Zhukov that's it! I was mis-reading 16.505(a) that a fair opportunity exception was required. but now I see the nuance. It's NOT a fair opportunity exception. Fair opportunity is impertinent in my situation because as far as I know all the IDC contractors have the same access to the brand name manufacturer we're going to specify. Makes perfect sense now. @General.Zhukov totally agree. Thanks a ton for your input. You solved the puzzle for me. I know the FAR has gaping holes here and there, but I knew there had to be something I was missing here. Thanks again!
  5. @Matthew Fleharty I read it. Thanks. The book answer is definitely that FAR Part 6 doesn't apply. Doesn't really answer my nagging suspicion, though.
  6. I'm a Contracting Officer tasked with soliciting for a construction project that involves a brand name specification under the CICA waiver authority under FAR 6.302-1 Only One Responsible Source. The item is a major component of the construction project, but the value of the item is expected NOT to exceed $700k (the total construction project will be much larger). My read of the regs has always been that a 6.302-1 CICA waiver justification must include evidence that a notice of intent was posted to the GPE and interested sources responding to that notice were considered in accordance with FAR
  7. The contractor's REA also cites 52.243-1: "IAW FAR 52.243-1 Changes, I respectfully submit a request for equitable adjustment based upon the impact of the contract changes realized since inception of the contract." Additionally, the contract PWS has a passage that forecasts a certain magnitude of service and that "the overall total may vary +/-10% without an equitable adjustment." One of the fundamental bases of the REA is that the total varied >40% above the initial forecast.
  8. Who makes a scope determination? Isn't that ultimately the PCO's job? There is nothing in the file showing the PCO (or any attorney for that matter) had made any consideration as to whether the modifications were in or out of scope. Yes, all the mods were bilaterally signed and each used either 52.212-4 or 52.243-1 (yes both clauses are in the contract and there is no apparent rationale as to why one was used over the other), which would indicate an in-scope agreement by both the PCO and the contractor, but as I mentioned the Contractor WAS complaining all along that the modifications WERE
  9. I understand. The predecessor most definitely considered them within scope. And no, the contractor did not object via the SF30, but was objecting via separate correspondence. So yes, there is definitely a certain level of naivete on the contractor's part. I expect that if this were to go to claims, the ASBCA or CoFC would consider it all out of scope, however. The customer agency is hesitant to fund the negotiated adjustment, so that's probably where this is headed anyway. I suppose the scope issue is neither here nor there anyway--since he performed anyway, so he's given up his right for
  10. Thanks for your input! RE: Signing modifications. As I stated, the contractor never submitted any price proposal with any SF30 leading up until now, but he was regularly articulating ot the COR and PCO that he was having trouble keeping up with performance requirements under the accelerated contract scenario and that he was experiencing major cost impacts, although he could not quantify them. At each communication, the Government team essentially denied merit to his qualitative assessment, and didn't bother entertaining anything quantitative since he couldn't provide anything costs for
  11. Hello WIFCON! Would love some input here from any knowledgeable folks about this... I am an Army PCO tasked with negotiating a request for equitable adjustment (REA) on a fixed price commercial contract for severable services that I recently inherited from a predecessor PCO. It's $5.6M, five year contract (base + four option years). The initial award was about two years ago--we are currently in the first option year. Shortly after award, during the base year, the Government realized it had vastly underestimated the magnitude and needed additional performance out of the contractor, and so the
  12. Thanks for the input. I'm not sure the Brook Act and fair opportunity are mutually exclusive, however. I.E. fair opportunity doesn't have to consider price when acquiring A-E services under a multiple award IDC. EP 715-1-7, ¶2-8(e) also defines an A-E MATOC as (1) a single announcement that leads to multiple IDC's and (2) a group of contracts for a particular program or specific area with same/similar services. EP 715-1-7, Appx O, Item 16 has a bullet for (1) number of contracts and (2) method used to allocate task orders BOTTOM LINE? For me, all this simply means no matter what arrangement
  13. Would love some input here from any knowledgeable folks about this. If an agency intends to issue a single solicitation for multiple A-E services IDIQ contracts, is that a "multiple award" as defined under FAR 16.505 and does the fair opportunity process apply at the task order level? FAR 16.5 exempts AE IDC's from the statutory multiple award preference, I get that. And the Brooks A-E Act as implemented by FAR 36.6 applies, i get that too. But by logic, if one solicitation results in multiple IDC's it seems that's a "multiple award" situation. And as for Fair Opportunity, I'd think the m
  14. Perhaps I was unclear--I meant that I don't see how a sole source procurement is permissible. HOWEVER there are different interpretations of all this (as one can easily see in this thread) and I've observed 8(a) sole source procedures used for (one step) DB construction contracts--in such cases the DB construction RFP essentially consists of stated design criteria or includes up to a 35% design (usually developed by a separate AE contract). The 8(a) DB construction contractor proposes price using the criteria / 35% design... and I would hope the technical evaluation considers the A-E qualifi
  15. I appreciate all the input! Vern, since you brought it up: the EFARS is obsolete--in 2013 it was replaced by the USACE Acquistion Instruction (UAI). As of the 2014 update the language you referenced that was at EFARS 36.602 (S-101) is gone. However, there are two other pertinent USACE policies: 1) it is mandatory to follow EP 715-1-7 A-E Contracting in USACE when procuring A-E services in the USACE--see Chapter 3, ¶3-15(c ) on page 3-14 which states specifically that a competitive 8(a) procurement for A-E services is permissible but a sole source 8(a) procurement is not. 2) Design-Build Con
×
×
  • Create New...