j_dude77

No.

Those are the two questions that you asked. Answer 1 = No. Answer 2 = Yes. 8.404, 8.405, 8.405-1, 8.405-2. To get into the weeds. I would revisit FAR 12.102( b ) and 12.203. You use Part 13, 14, or 15 in conjuction with Part 12 (because Part 12 does not have any) for policies and procedures for solicitation, evaluation, and award. FAR Part 8 has its own policies and procedures for solicitation, evaluation, and award. 8.405 tells you how to place FSS orders. That is why you do not use procedures from Parts 13, 14, or 15 in Part 8. As C Culham has already stated, you are placing an order against an existing contract.

I am in the same boat as the original poster. My previous agency cited the clause in the contract that allowed the modification. My current agency cites 43.103(a) "mutual agreement of the parties". I am of the opnion that 43.103(a) does not give authority to do anything, it is afterall an explaination.

I would like to say that one of the most important things you can do is, ask questions. Announcements have a POC; I would contact that person to see if they could put you in touch with someone in the contracting shop. When you ask questions it is important to pay attention to how it is answered. If the answer is unclear or does not give you enough information, ask them to be more specific or ask the question in a different way. The most important thing that I have learned is; don’t assume anything. That is why you need to get answers that thoroughly satisfy you. I like to find out as much information as I can before applying for a position. Besides some of the obvious, some other questions I like answered are: What types of procurements are handled in your office (R&D, Construction, ect.)? What types of procurements would I be handling? What are some of the different types of items that are purchased? Ask for examples. Those questions will give me a general idea of whether I would like the work or not. They also answer other questions like, would the opportunity be available to work on different types of procurements. I was fortunate in having contacts in the agency that I went to work for before accepting a position. I was able to have many of those questions answered before I applied. One thing I will warn you about is word-of-mouth. You have to be careful with that. You may be speaking with someone that is just not happy where they are, and will say it is miserable. If you speak to another person they may love it there. On the flip-side, everyone has told me that there is one agency locally to avoid like the plague. Usually when one or two people say it is a bad place; I take it with a grain of salt but when everyone you meet says it is bad, there has to be some truth there. Also try and pay attention to how often announcements for the same positions are advertised.

Thanks for all the replies.

How extensive is the technical effort to implement the change in data sources? The data is transferred through an existing satellite feed (like Direct TV). They would just sent the upgraded data packet through the feed instead of the current one. If very little is involved, then I would ask the naysayers what is the point of issuing a new contract to obtain the information? I think there is a disconnect with the terminology they use. They do not want me to issue a new contract for the specific upgrade. The phrase I keep hearing is, "that does not fall into the original scope of the contract". Do they want you to delete the current information from the instant contract? Keep obtaining it and then obtain global data, too? They just want to replace the national data with global data. No change will be made to quantities or period of performance. There is a price increase though. Try to justify a separate sole source out-of-scope mod? They have not told me that. Although, I am sure they would use 6.302-1.

Thanks for the reference and answer. I read the pages you referred to before asking the question and read them again. I agree that this would be considered an in-scope change. The debate began around whether the modification would have to be synopsised. My arguement was that the modification did not need to be, due to it not being a "contract action" according to FAR 5.001. Unfortunately it seems that the prevailling perception in my shop is that any change to the original contract constitutes an out-of-scope change. I do tire of the answer to a contracting question being, "because we have always done it this way".

Here is the scenario. The government has procured a data package that feeds information directly to a monitoring center. The monitoring center uses this information for prediction analysis. This package contains 20+ distinct types of information. The government wants to upgrade one of the types of information to provide global data, as opposed to national data. Would you consider this change in the contract to be within scope?

The short answer is no. See 29 CFR 541 Subpart D ? 541.303 Teachers. (a) The term ?employee employed in a bona fide professional capacity? in section 13(a)(1) of the Act also means any employee with a primary duty of teaching, tutoring, instructing or lecturing in the activity of imparting knowledge and who is employed and engaged in this activity as a teacher in an educational establishment by which the employee is employed. The term ?educational establishment? is defined in ?541.204( B ). ( B ) Exempt teachers include, but are not limited to: Regular academic teachers; teachers of kindergarten or nursery school pupils; teachers of gifted or disabled children; teachers of skilled and semi-skilled trades and occupations; teachers engaged in automobile driving instruction; aircraft flight instructors; home economics teachers; and vocal or instrumental music instructors. Those faculty members who are engaged as teachers but also spend a considerable amount of their time in extracurricular activities such as coaching athletic teams or acting as moderators or advisors in such areas as drama, speech, debate or journalism are engaged in teaching. Such activities are a recognized part of the schools' responsibility in contributing to the educational development of the student. ( c ) The possession of an elementary or secondary teacher's certificate provides a clear means of identifying the individuals contemplated as being within the scope of the exemption for teaching professionals. Teachers who possess a teaching certificate qualify for the exemption regardless of the terminology ( e.g., permanent, conditional, standard, provisional, temporary, emergency, or unlimited) used by the State to refer to different kinds of certificates. However, private schools and public schools are not uniform in requiring a certificate for employment as an elementary or secondary school teacher, and a teacher's certificate is not generally necessary for employment in institutions of higher education or other educational establishments. Therefore, a teacher who is not certified may be considered for exemption, provided that such individual is employed as a teacher by the employing school or school system. (d) The requirements of ?541.300 and Subpart G (salary requirements) of this part do not apply to the teaching professionals described in this section.

Interesting read. I guess it boils down to the university one attends, and the aptitude and attitude of the individual. Just for fun I went back and compared the curriculum from the university that a few of my family members attended, and the one that I attended. Talk about a difference in the foundation courses. Some of the courses I was required to take regardless of major include: Sociology, Logic, Philosophy, Psychology, and Public Speaking to name a few. The foundation courses at the university that I attended averaged two years to complete; it seems that the other university begins their business courses much earlier in the curriculum due to a lower foundation course requirement. Another interesting point brought up in the article, is the teaming arrangements in business classes. I can see where this would be a disadvantage, constantly specializing in one area of a project, but it is also the most common method of identifying possible and or solving current problems. Don and Cajun both bring up some other interesting points. I have worked with one contract specialist that is a liberal arts major, she is an excellent specialist. On the flip side, I have worked with some specialists that have law degrees and they are the epitome of 'lost in the sauce'. Regardless of the degree, an individual that has attained a higher education should, at a minimum, be able to research and interpret information, come to their own conclusion, and express themselves well both written and orally. If an institution cannot provide those basics, then they should not be in the business of teaching. Vern, my answer to your question would be yes. In the end you are hiring a person, not a degree.

Vern, you are correct. I keep forgetting we are talking legaleeze. You "ought" to use the SF 1449.

The last sentence says the SF 1449 is not mandatory below the SAT, but you should use it. The procedures at 12.603 are being used. FAR12.603b does not specify a dollar threshold, it states that when using the combined synopsis/solicitation method, the SF 1449 will not be used for the solicitation.

FAR 12.603b When using the combined synopsis/solicitation procedure, the SF 1449 is not used for issuing the solicitation. To the original question one agency i worked at used the see block 31c method. We would also use period of performance start and end dates.

Vern PM sent. Thanks again for any information you can provide. The requirement I have is for mandatory occupational safety training. If an operator does not have this trianing they cannot operate the equipment. The training includes a written and practical examination that must be passed in order to receive recertification. I found this information on DOL's website. The Act covers contracts and any bid specifications in excess of $2,500, whether negotiated or advertised, entered into by federal and District of Columbia agencies where the principal purpose of the contract is to furnish services in the U.S. through the use of service employees. The definition of a service employee includes any employee engaged in performing services on a covered contract other than a bona fide executive, administrative, or professional employee who meets the exemption criteria set forth in 29 CFR Part 541. 29 CFR ? 541.303b Exempt teachers include, but are not limited to: teachers of skilled and semi-skilled trades and occupations. My question is, does the SCA apply to this. Either way, any additional guidance or reference information on the SCA would still be appreciated.

A general treatise would be a good start. Would like to find something dealing with common pitfalls, and how to avoid them. If there are any references dealing with other specific areas, that would help. I have found lots of material covering PBA, but that is only one part of Service Contracting.

Does anyone know if there are any good references that deal strictly with Service Contracting.

Thanks, I just noticed that also.

I appreciate the information. I will speak with my legal department about it and go from there.

Thanks.

Would like to read some of these, since they are so frequently cited. Would my legal department be a good starting point? Just realized i put it backwards in the subject. Nash & Cibinic Report.

Thanks again. FAC 2005-48 on the acquisition.gov page only has the replacement pages for Item IV. This is what I am waiting for them to post. Unless otherwise specified, all Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) and other directive material contained in FAC 2005-48 is effective December 30, 2010, except for Items I, II, and III, which are effective January 31, 2011. I sent them and email asking when the replacement pages for those items will be posted. Let's see if I get a response.

Thanks Vern. I was looking for the actual FAR replacement pages. The ones that you use to update a hard copy, the FAC looseleafs. The FAC said they would be released on 31 January, but they are still not there. I will see if I can contact them and find out what is happening.

Just want to know if there is anyone out there that has gotten their hands on the 30 Day Pages for this FAC. The ones that modify the FAR for items I, II, III. It was supposed to be released on 31 January.

Thanks for the info. I will definately remember that, so that I can add that to resources new contractors can use.

Situation. Interested party managed to get access to the contracting office. They found the specialist named on the solicitation and said they were new to federal contracting and began asking her many questions about what to do, how to do it, could I get this or that. After about five minutes of this, they began talking in circles. I told the interested party, that there are many books and references out there that could answer their questions, and suggested that they look at some. When I said this, the other specialist looked at me like I just ripped a kitten's head off in front of her. Later the specialist told me that I should not have said that. Question: Is telling an interested party to do their own research wrong, or should i have endured the pow-pow outside my cube for another 10 minutes?