Jump to content

Jacques

Members
  • Posts

    620
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by Jacques

  1. 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.
  2. 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."
  3. 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.
  4. 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.
  5. It is on the DPC class deviations page you listed. Just search for “Revision 2” if it isn’t standing out.
  6. 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.
  7. 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.
  8. 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.
  9. 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.
  10. 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).
  11. 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.
  12. It applies to the CLIN, which is where you list the estimated cost, fixed fee, and total.
  13. I think for most contracts the phrase ends up meaning without any type of premium pay, like hazardous duty, overtime, shift differential, etc.
  14. For DoD, see here: https://www.acq.osd.mil/dpap/policy/policyvault/Class_Deviation_2020-O0013.pdf
  15. Whether the small business plan is purely a "responsibility item" depends on the language of your solicitation. It sounds like your solicitation isn't treating it purely as a responsibility matter, but obviously that depends on the language of the solicitation when read as a whole.
  16. Research pointer: For some reason, the FAR uses the words, "telecommuting" and "telecommute" rather than "teleworking" or "telework."
  17. Well-stated @formerfed. If we kept simplified procedures simple, to include proposals and evaluation criteria, even a complete explanation wouldn't take much effort. While there are simplified procedures for awarding contracts, there is no simplified procedure for handling a protest. With few exceptions, the same protest rules apply regardless of the contract's dollar value. Here's a way to look at it: The "brief explanation" (for FAR Subpart 8.4 and FAR 13.106-3(d)), like the debriefing for Part 15, is not the last step in the source selection process, it is the first step in the bid protest process. Just to be clear, I'm not advocating any particular level of detail. I'm suggesting that the considerations a PCO looks to in deciding the level of detail of an explanation are the same considerations a PCO would look to in deciding the level of detail (beyond the minimum) of a debriefing.
  18. It does depend, and it really depends on the same factors you would consider in providing more than the minimum in a debriefing. I don't want a contracting officer to underestimate the extent to which he or she can impact whether a disappointed offeror protests. Often a good debriefing can prevent protests. Even when that doesn't occur, sometimes a good debriefing can get the disappointed offeror on the clock on a potential protest ground, preventing the piecemeal presentation of allegations later. In either case, you save yourself time later. The effort to defend some of these protests far exceed the effort of a carefully considered explanation of the basis for award. While the debriefing is never a proper ground for a protest, I'm quite sure folks have protested because of the debriefing they received, for instance, they thought the Government was hiding something (like the failure to follow proper procedures). While the dollar value of these actions (where no debriefing is required) are often low enough that rational disappointed offerors don't bother to protest, one need only look at the Latvian Connections LLC line of decisions to realize not everyone behaves as a economically rational actor.
  19. Generally true. Sorry for being semantic, but there are still circumstances where a CoC might be required. However, by evaluating past performance as other than pass/fail, and giving a neutral where there is no relevant past performance, where a neutral would be eligible for award, your past performance evaluation would not amount to a responsibility determination.
  20. I take your post immediately above to mean my second option: "Are you asking how to get the award to the contractor?" Based on the limited facts presented so far, here's my guess. While it won't surprise me if someone disagrees, I think this is a funding action and block 13b is appropriate. If you don't like that, check block 13a and cite to your award fee clause. Regardless, there's no reason this needs to be bilateral.
  21. Any contracting officer that releases a solicitation where a cost reimbursement contract will be awarded on an LPTA basis should lose their warrant. EDIT: I found the quote I was looking for! To quote Mr. Edwards: http://www.wifcon.com/discussion/index.php?/topic/103-economical-lpta/page/2/&tab=comments
×
×
  • Create New...