Jump to content
The Wifcon Forums and Blogs


  • Posts

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Profile Information

  • Gender

Recent Profile Visitors

9,528 profile views
  1. I didn’t have much luck in my search. A recent version of the SASS template appears in a Robins user guide accessible at https://www.robins.af.mil/Portals/59/documents/ent_acq_branch/AFD-130222-120.pdf?ver=2016-07-12-100630-883
  2. Forgive me if I'm missing it, but I don't see a reference to a clause in your original post. (I see the disjunctive "or cause to be submitted" and "or cause submission of" language in FAR 15.404-3(c)(1) and (c)(2) respectively, but I couldn't find that language in a provision or clause.) Some additional factual context would be helpful as well, especially the applicability of TINA to your anticipated subcontract, and the procuring agency. For instance, for the DoD contracts, DFARS PGI 215.404-3(a) is relevant to your issue.
  3. You have a particular solicitation in mind. Is it set aside for small businesses under a NAICS code whose size standard you don't qualify as small? If so, don't submit a proposal. If the solicitation isn't set aside (or you qualify as small under the NAICS code listed in the solicitation), I don't understand why you can't rely on your annual reps & certs. I believe ANNUAL representations and certifications came about after the provision on small business certification, which is probably why paragraph (c)(1) reads in the binary, "on-off" way that it does. (When the provision was originally drafted, the provision only applied to a single solicitation.) The fact that (c)(1) doesn't really account for annual reps doesn't change the fact that the list of NAICS codes and the vendor's representation of size status relative to those NAICS codes is listed right there in the completed provision. The provision, when read as a whole, does not amount to a representation that the vendor universally qualifies as small. In other words, I think you CAN rely on the annual representations rather than filling out on a solicitation-by-solicitation basis. If I were you, I still would not submit bids, proposals or quotations for contracts that have been set aside for small business if you don't qualify as small under the NAICS code listed in the solicitation. (If you do, protest the set aside prior to deadline for receipt of proposals.)
  4. The topic of the thread states, "no longer a small business," but then the body of your post indicates for at least one of the NAICS listed in your submission, you are. The completed provision in your annual reps & certs at FAR 52.212-3, immediately before (c)(1) lists out all the NAICS codes you've included and whether you qualify as a small business under a given NAICS code's size standard. No one is going to be misled. As a mechanical matter, I encourage you to take a look at the "Entity Registration Checklist" linked at the following FSD.gov Q&A. Page 11 of the checklist notes:
  5. You seem to be describing a matter of contract administration. If your contract is part of a multiple award vehicle, I would encourage you to take a look at Vanquish Worldwide, LLC v. U.S., 147 Fed. Cl. 390 (2020), and the cases collected there (like Bannum, Inc. v. U.S., 80 Fed. Cl. 239 (2008)).
  6. I believe E. Huttenbauer & Son, Inc., B-258018.3, Mar. 20, 1995, 95-1 CPD ¶ 248, stands for the proposition that, if responsibility-type concerns lead an agency to not exercise an option, it is not required to follow the certificate of competency requirements in FAR Subpart 19.6. I do not believe the decision stands for the premise that you cite, that is, "Contracting Officers should not be performing responsibility determinations with exercise of options" (or that responsibility-type concerns cannot inform the decision whether to exercise an option). EDIT: Acknowledging there is no requirement to conduct a responsibility determination prior to exercising an option is not the same thing as PROHIBITING considering responsibility-type concerns in deciding whether to exercise. I'm glad to see you acknowledge the clause at FAR 52.204-13 and DFARS 217.207(c)(1).
  7. I suspect the person testifying believed (or believes) Alpha contracting is an “acceptable process.” Depending on your agency, your mileage may vary. Air Force Materiel Command, for instance, currently seems to interpret the requirement at FAR 15.406-1(b) for a prenegotiation objective before the negotiation of any pricing action as requiring traditional pricing and has structured its business clearance rules accordingly.
  8. If what you mean by "alpha contracting" is "alpha pricing," and the acquisition involves the DoD, please be mindful of DCAA's memo, "Discontinuance of DCAA Participation in Integrated Product Teams" dated August 4, 2008, and DCAA Contract Audit Manual, ¶ 4-103b: "However, auditors are reminded that DCAA does not participate in meetings established to discuss proposal development, or review or provide input on draft proposals, which is a common practice for members of integrated product teams (IPTs)." See also CAM ¶ 2-106a: "DCAA does not provide nonaudit services to the entities we audit and the discussion in GAGAS 3.64 – 3.106 is not applicable to DCAA. DCAA does, however provide advisory services to our customers, which could cause impairment to independence, or give the appearance of an impairment. To avoid these risks of impairment to independence, auditors will not participate as team members of Integrated Product Teams (IPT), which typically involve teaming with the contractor to develop a proposal."
  9. I agree, as there are health and religious accommodation exceptions available to Government employees, and it only applies to contract performance at the Government worksite. The cases are Allied Materials & Equip. Co. v. United States, 215 Ct. Cl. 406, 410, 569 F.2d 562, 564 (1978) and Green Mgmt. Corp. v. United States, 42 Fed. Cl. 411, 430 (1998). The "readdressable" aspect seems to be a factor in assessing whether the change results in a new and substantially different undertaking.
  10. There are some cases that talk about cardinal changes in terms of 'modifications which are so fundamental that they cannot be redressed within the contract by an equitable adjustment to the contract price.' Even in the absence of the preliminary injunctions, I hope no contracting officer unilaterally modifies a contract to require vaccinations. While the Pfizer and Moderna vaccines seem safe and effective, those who disagree and are faced with the choice of either taking a vaccine of losing their contract would certainly argue that a price adjustment doesn't answer the mail.
  11. It is on the DPC class deviations page you listed. Just search for “Revision 2” if it isn’t standing out.
  12. Might DCAA Contract Audit Manual sections 6-410.4 & 6.410.5 be relevant to your question? Chapter 6 of the CAM is linked here.
  13. It sounds like you're asking whether rent can be treated as material, where the total rent charge from your landlord supports more than one cost center. I thought G&A had to be included in the labor rates on a T&M contract. Hopefully I'm misunderstanding.
  • Create New...