j_dude77

Ok. Just making sure I was not loosing it. Our attorney told me that changing the title of a contract/subcontract is a change in scope. I was just floored when I heard that.

Joel, Yes. These are subcontracts. They awarded a new subcontract with the same title as the old. The new subcontract was being confused with the old, so they changed the title.

Have you ever considered that changing the title of a contract was a change in scope? Let me dive right into the situation. We have a contract with the clause 52.244-2 "Consent to Subcontract". Contractor issued a subcontract, let's call it 'green m&m'. This contract expired last year. When the contractor re-competed this requirement, they made some changes to the original green m&m SOW. A new contract was awarded with the title of green m&m. About a year down the road, the contractor and subcontract mutually agree to change the title to 'brown m&m' to more accurately reflect the current SOW. I was told that changing the title of a contract is a change in scope. Remember, the SOW didn't change, just the title. I understand the whole prime/sub privy issue. Am I just dumb? I think this is the most asinine thing I have heard so far in my career as an 1102.

Let me say I never took CON 170, I took CON 217 and 218. From what I have been told CON 218 became 170 and 270. I am not sure how much of actual cost reimbursement topics you touched on except the math part. Do not be afraid to take the position. Everyone seems to think that cost type contracts are this mythical thing that only a rare few can do. You should pick up real quick the differences.

Just older terms still lingering.

Vern, No one said I could not. I was just asked if it was possible. Matthew, I am aware of the EDWOSB NAICS requirements. I appreciate everyone's input.

This question is just for knowledge. I want to establish a multiple award IDIQ. I want to set it aside so that only 8(a), HUBZone, SDVOSB and EDWOSB can compete for awards. Is there anything preventing me from establishing this type of set-aside? I had someone ask me if this is possible, and I believe it is. I could not find anything in the regulations that says you cannot.

The Prince - Niccolo Machiavelli

Read the opening post too quick. He is asking about wrapping up every factor into one overall rating, I have never seen an agency regulation requiring that.

Some agencies do require a 'rolled-up' rating in each factor. This is straight from the Army Source Selection Supplement ASM3. Step Six: Assign Ratings for Non-Cost Evaluation Factors When Using the Tradeoff Process -- At this point, the evaluators may or may not individually assign ratings to each evaluation factor or subfactor for which they are responsible. At a minimum, each evaluation group must convene to discuss the offeror’s proposal. The purpose of the discussion is to share their views on the offeror’s strengths, weaknesses, deficiencies, risks and uncertainties related to their assigned evaluation factor(s)/ subfactor(s) and to reach a final rating for each factor and subfactor using the Adjectival Rating(s) identified in the SSP. In exceptional cases where the evaluators are unable to reach an agreement without unreasonably delaying the source selection process, the evaluation report shall include the majority conclusion and the dissenting view(s), in the form of a minority opinion, with supporting rationale which must be briefed to the SSA. Consensus requires a meeting of the minds on the assigned rating and associated deficiencies, strengths, weaknesses, uncertainties and risks. A simple averaging of the individual evaluation results does not constitute consensus. This is from the DoD Source Selection Guide. 3.2.1 SSEB Initial Evaluation. Following the initial round of evaluations, the SSEB Chairperson will consolidate the inputs from each of the evaluation teams into an SSEB report for presentation to the SSA. The PCO and the SSEB Chairperson shall ensure that proposals are evaluated solely against the criteria contained in the solicitation and no comparative analysis of proposals was conducted by SSEB members unless clearly stated in the SSP or otherwise directed by the SSA. All evaluation records and narratives shall be reviewed by the PCO, Legal Counsel, and the SSEB Chairperson for completeness and compliance with the solicitation. In the event that the SSEB members are not able to come to a consensus opinion on the evaluation of a particular proposal, the SSEB Chairperson will document the basis of any disagreement and raise it to the SSAC Chairperson, or if no SSAC, to the SSA to resolve. We also used this method at NASA, however I do not recall any NASA regulations which stated we had to do 'roll-ups'.

Sorry it took so long to reply. To clarify, yes we are asking for the associated working papers. The audit and working papers is only one part of the evaluation. We are also asking for narratives and questionnaires. The technical folks biggest concern is that many firms are confusing contract audits with financial audits. This became evident during market research. Either way the issue has been settled at a level much higher than me. As an aside, other agencies have released RFPs evaluating the audits and working papers under past performance. Just have to do what I can with what I am given. Again appreciate all the input.

It appears to be a simple grant. Is this a reasonable conclusion based on the above information? My opinion contract. you said ' The entities who fund fund future prospective employees while giving them real world problems to work on, and at the same time gets the benefit of some targeted research overseen by SMEs in the field.' Entity benefits, not the general public. If you said they released the research to the public, then grant.

We are looking to award a contract utilizing a past performance trade-off method. So just price and past performance. We are asking contractors to submit samples of work (audit reports) that they have previously performed to be evaluated under past performance. The attorneys who have reviewed the evaluation criteria keep saying that we cannot review work samples under past performance because this should be technical. My answer to them is yes we can evaluate it under past performance since it demonstrates the quality of work done by the contractor. It was my understanding that the FAR gives contracting officers wide latitude when it comes to what and how to evaluate, as long as we state it. Am I missing something here? Can someone point me to documentation/decisions that would support this? I have read numerous GAO decision and white papers, but no specifically address what can be considered past performance. Unfortunately I can't tell the attorneys to piss off.

The short answer is yes you have to post an award notice. You have to post an award notice. It is over the SAT ($150K). Authority 5.301(B )(6) & 2.101. “Simplified acquisition threshold” means $150,000, except for acquisitions of supplies or services that, as determined by the head of the agency, are to be used to support a contingency operation or to facilitate defense against or recovery from nuclear, biological, chemical, or radiological attack (41 U.S.C. 1903), the term means—(1) $300,000 for any contract to be awarded and performed, or purchase to be made, inside the United States; and (2) $1 million for any contract to be awarded and performed, or purchase to be made, outside the United States. FAR 13.5 only allows you to use SAP procedures for commercial items <$6.5M, it does not raise the SAT to $6.5M. See 13.500(a) I agree that a BPA is not a contract, however it is still considered a contract action. If you think a BPA is not a contract action answer this question. Do you have to complete a contract action report in FPDS for a BPA? See FAR 4.601.

Yes we did. We did not accept a general 'we will bond them' letter. They were more detailed than that. If we had any issues with what was in the letters, a quick phone call cleared it up. I guess the better question would be; why would a bonding company give a letter to a Government agency stating that they would issue bonds to the contractor, only to not issue the contractor a bond if they were awarded an order under the MATOC?

Unfortunately Mr. Edwards, you have confirmed what I already knew. I like to call this Wild West contracting; where anything goes as long as it looks good.

I just wanted to post this scenario to see what others think. A PM sends a contract template (nothing filled in, with may clauses that would not apply to the acquisition), stating that this is the standard terms and conditions for contracting with the government agency. The PM asked the contractor to review and let them know if they have any issues with the standard Ts&Cs. PM was told not to send things like this to contractors before certain procedures had been followed. In this case this would be a sole-source procurement. No notice had been posted to FBO, no J&A approved, and no NF1787 had been approved. Due to this being a sole source procurement, management states that it is ok to send this to a contractor before a notice has been posted to FBO, a J&A, and NF1787 approved. I disagree. I feel this is the beginning of negotations. See FAR 5.201, 6.303-1. Our agancy regulation states: The completed form (NF1787) shall be submitted and reviewed by the center small business specialist and SBA Procurement Center Representative (PCR) before synopsis in FEDBiz Ops in accordance with FAR 5.201. For those requirements that are exempted from synopsis in accordance with FAR 5.202 the coordination shall be submitted and reviewed prior to the release of the solicitation or offering of the requirement to the SBA under the 8(a) program.

When we set up MATOC for construction, we required letters from bonding companies be included in an offeror's proposal stating the offerors bonding capacity. When we issued task orders, we did not concern ourselves with bid bonds, only performance and payment bonds. I do agree with Vern, that bid bonds are pointless in a negotiated procurement. I guess in the construction world, it is so ingrained that it is automatic and no one thinks about it. On a few occasions, I've had companies submit bid bonds when we did not even ask for them.

Sandi78, I do not know which agency you work for in DoD. I worked with the ACOE and we had CORs that used CORT (when it was implemented) on our construction contracts. Maybe DoD is just solidifying this requirement?

From Part 2 “Construction” means construction, alteration, or repair (including dredging, excavating, and painting) of buildings, structures, or other real property. For purposes of this definition, the terms “buildings, structures, or other real property” include, but are not limited to, improvements of all types, such as bridges, dams, plants, highways, parkways, streets, subways, tunnels, sewers, mains, power lines, cemeteries, pumping stations, railways, airport facilities, terminals, docks, piers, wharves, ways, lighthouses, buoys, jetties, breakwaters, levees, canals, and channels. Construction does not include the manufacture, production, furnishing, construction, alteration, repair, processing, or assembling of vessels, aircraft, or other kinds of personal property (except that for use in Subpart 22.5, see definition at 22.502). From Part 37 “Service contract” means a contract that directly engages the time and effort of a contractor whose primary purpose is to perform an identifiable task rather than to furnish an end item of supply. A service contract may be either a nonpersonal or personal contract. Pretty much sums it up for me. Not a service. P.S. The Site Visit clause for construction is 52.236-27.

Appreciate the responses. I have brought this and several other issues with this rider to management's attention.

The agency I currently work for is setting up BPAs/IDIQs for software licenses and maintenance. For every contract/BPA they attached a rider (508 compliance, VPATs,). I have an issue with several parts of this rider, but one part in particular. They state in this rider that the order of precedence is 1) Federal Law 2) the FAR 3) this agreement 4) the Rider 5) The Manufacturer's EULA. My issue is with the clause 52.212-4 and the order of precedence. I consider this rider an attachment. If there was a disagreement between the manufacturer's EULA and the rider, I am of the opinion that the rider is stating that the contract would prevail before the rider. If this is the case, and 52.212-4 was never tailored to change the order of precedence, would the manufacturer's EULA trump the rider?

I agree with here_2_help. They are not pass-through charges.

KTR = short for contractor. DoD term.

If it is a service, but exempt from the SCA, I document the file. Although there are not many occassions that I run across anymore where this is the case.