Jump to content
The Wifcon Forums and Blogs

Deaner

Members
  • Content count

    88
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

0 Neutral

About Deaner

  • Rank
    Copper Member

Recent Profile Visitors

20,523 profile views
  1. SF 1449 Block 29

    I’ve heard arguments both ways that you should leave it blank if soliciting quotes, and that you should put the quote number, the date it was accepted and the items that were accepted. I think the SF1449 uses the terms interchangeably. I would just leave it blank and make sure you have several other indicators that would show the Government and contractor intended to be bound by the contract once signed.
  2. I’ve seen this as a special condition where it requires the contractor to notify the Government anytime their key personnel are changed from what was initially proposed. I don’t know that it’s in the FAR though, and while it doesn't specifically state unavailability, it's something similar in my agency supplement. KEY PERSONNEL (a) The personnel as specified below are considered essential to the work being performed under this contract and may, with the consent of the contracting parties, be changed from time to time during the course of the contract by adding or deleting personnel, as appropriate. (b) Before removing, replacing, or diverting any of the specified individuals, the Contractor shall notify the contracting officer, in writing, before the change becomes effective. The Contractor shall submit information to support the proposed action to enable the contracting officer to evaluate the potential impact of the change on the contract. The Contractor shall not remove or replace personnel under this contract until the Contracting Officer approves the change. The Key Personnel under this Contract are: (specify key personnel) (End of clause)
  3. 2C171/1 is a permissions error code. Did you click the link for the download > didn't work > then signed in to post that it didn't work? If yes i'd guess the issue is it's only available to members given Bob has made sure all members could download the attachment. If what i said was correct, log in and then try to click the link.
  4. Where/ How to start learning?

    There also might be clauses you do not want to be included in your contract that gives a certain degree of rights in data or liability, for example. I’d be cautious about primes giving a blanket set of flow down clauses that might require a sub to do something that the sub shouldn’t have any business doing.
  5. page limitations on proposals

    Have you asked the CO if they'd change it? I once worked for an agency that included similar page limitations as you are describing for all RFQ's they posted, regardless if it was for $100k grounds maintenance or a $20 million construction project. Maybe the CO just includes it out of habit..
  6. When I worked for the VA I had a situation where we awarded 5 IDIQ’s to SDVOSB’s. One of the SDVOSB’s lost their status (survivorship rights ended). An attorney told me we couldn’t use that contract anymore regardless of the language at 13 CFR as a result of the Kindomware decision. I didn’t look into it any further or verify that the reasoning was correct however. If the attorneys reasoning was correct, that's the only exception I could think of.
  7. 13 CFR says something to the effect that you can't use cascading procedures unless you have statutory authority to do so. I'd have to reread it and see exactly what it says about making awards to multiple socio-economic businesses, i just know it's in there somewhere. Based on your above post i don't think this thread will be here much longer so i'm not going to put anymore effort into this answer.
  8. I don't recall seeing a protest under $25mil for DOD where GAO declined to hear it since the NDAA 2017 signing, but there have been protests where GAO specifically mentioned their authority to hear protests within their jurisdictional threshold. See Note 1. http://www.gao.gov/products/D16742#_ftn1 GAO isn't going to wait for the FAR to be updated. Maybe not all that applicable here, but agencies shouldn't wait either when something is authorized but hasn't been included in the FAR.
  9. Multiple Solicitations

    What types of items are you buying?
  10. Multiple Solicitations

    I'm not going to go through all your questions, but it sounds like you need to do more or better market research. If most of what you're buying are commercial items under SAT, you might have the problems you're describing once in a while, but if you're having those issues consistently, you need to look harder at whatever you're buying. Try posting a sources sought notice to both GSA's eBUY and FBO at the same time and see what you get before deciding.
  11. Kickstarter and the GCPC

    It looks like Kickstarters does follow the reach funding goal then get paid model. Below is from there website.
  12. Yes it is, every word of every line... and in some cases of every page.
  13. Kickstarter and the GCPC

    Crowdfunding isn’t all that new, but it didn’t really get big until recently. I’d bet there isn’t anything specific that addresses the use of government credit cards for Crowdfunding projects. The way crowdfunding normally works is when the project meets the funding goal, all the backers will have their credit cards charged, and then the project starts. So in your scenario, the project is funded, the GCPC is charged and then work begins. Would you consider that an authorized advanced payment?
  14. My thought process was 2 fold. What if you needed 100 days of phase in/out services, could you use the clause twice? And could you use it on the last day of the contracts POP to have the incumbent contractor start the phase in/out services for 90 days? I did error in thinking the clause extended the contract for 90 days, but after reading the clause again I don’t think that anymore. I think the way the clause is intended to operate is you use it for the last 90 days (or however long) of the incumbent contractors contract to start the phase in/out services with the successor contractor. Sorry IAMBATMAN, I'm not trying to hijack your thread.
×