Jacques

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.

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."

And jackal is spelled with two "A"s, right?

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.

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.

It is on the DPC class deviations page you listed. Just search for “Revision 2” if it isn’t standing out.

OUSD(A&S)/DPC Memo, 9 Dec 21

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.

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.

Deleted.

Both the injunction coming out of the Eastern District of Kentucky and the injunction coming out of the Southern District of Georgia enjoin enforcing the clause.

From this morning's Early Bird: Vaccine mandate for federal contractors blocked in 3 states (Kentucky, Tennessee and Ohio) The preliminary injunction is linked here.

I think the "economy and efficiency" reference relates to the fact that the FAR and DFARS deviations are intended to implement an Executive Order, and the president's authority to "prescribe policies and directives" (40 U.S.C. 121(a)) under the Federal Property and Administrative Services Act is grounded on that Act's goal of "to provide the Federal Government with an economical and efficient system." 40 U.S.C. 101. See generally, Congressional Research Service, Presidential Authority to Impose Requirements on Federal Contractors, June 14, 2011 (R41866).

I agree with Don's comment above if the contracting officer doesn't have knowledge of the excusable delay. If the contractor has requested a time extension, I worry that a cure notice or show cause notice without a resolution of (or acknowlegment of) the time extension request would be interpreted as a denial of the request. See generally, Nash & Cibinic, Administration of Government Contracts (3d Ed. 1995), at 452 (or, if you have a more recent edition, look under Changes chapter, Constructive Changes, Types of Constructive Changes, Acceleration). If there's a pending request for a time extension and you don't think the contractor has demonstrated excusable delay, I encourage you to include in any notice that the Government needs additional facts to make a decision on the request for a time extension.

It applies to the CLIN, which is where you list the estimated cost, fixed fee, and total.