• Content count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

0 Neutral

About MadamSki

  • Rank
    Copper Member
  1. There are a couple of horses here. To which horse do you refer? The horse about "where the gov is forcing (by regualtion) requirements that cannot be met"? Or the discussion in general?
  2. Yes, I thought of that, too. And a number of others. Which brings us to the next step: getting the insurance. In order to get Public and Passenger Liability Insurance, the insurer needs to know how many flights (missions), length of flights (missions), number of passengers, how long must they be insured, etc. We will never have that information in advance. The contractor cannot possiblly get a reasonable cost (key word reasonable) for this insurance. What experience is out there for a situation where the gov is forcing (by regualtion) requirements that cannot be met?
  3. I see said the blind man. YES. They augment organic mechanics in the modification, maintenance and repair of aircraft (and other systems, as well). The clause makes perfect sense if the modification, maintenance and repair were cost reimbursable. But it is FFP. The only cost reimbursable is contractor aquired parts (to use in modification, maintenance and repair) and it isn't used very often. If I simplify this, as you guys always help me to do (thank you): The requirment says the clause is needed when: "When aircraft are used in connection with performing the contract [referring to cost reimbursable]". The word "connection" is bothersome. The parts the contractor orders are for aircraft. Does that qualify as a "connection" do you think?
  4. The requirement is for manpower augmentation. Government provides tools, test equipment, etc. The contract will consist of FFP; fixed labor rates for T and M; and Cost Reimbursable for contractor aquired parts and tdy travel. Is this what you were asking?
  5. Perhaps "confusion" was a better word than "conflict". My brain is better now. I think my bandwagon was loaded because the only cost reimbursement (historical) is less than 100,000 annual on parts and the rest is travel. When I weigh the cost of the insurance for an unknown period of time, for an unknown number of missions, for an unknown number of passengers it just didn't make any sense. I try not to bother you guys until I am so wrapped around the pole I am in circles. And I sincerly thank you for keeping it simple.
  6. Background: RFP contract types are FFP, T and M, and Cost Reimbursable for CAP/CAS and transportation ONLY. FAR 28.307-2(d) [insurance Under CR Contracts] Aircraft public and passenger liability. When aircraft are used in connection with performing the contract [referring to cost reimbursable] the CO shall require aircraft public and passenger liability insurance. RFP includes FAR 252.228-7001, Ground and Flight Risk (Jun 2010) 252.228-7001© Government as self-insurer. Subject to the conditions in paragraph (d) of this clause, the Government self-insures and assumes the risk of damage to, or loss or destruction of aircraft “in the open,” during “operation,” and in “flight,” except as may be specifically provided in the Schedule as an exception to this clause. The Contractor shall not be liable to the Government for such damage, loss, or destruction beyond the Contractor’s share of loss amount under the Government’s self-insurance. The contract effort is manpower augmentation. No contractor tools, or manuals, etc. And rarely is CAP/CAS used. Transportation yes, CAP/CAS no. The government is not at increased risk that would require public and passenger liability. The only reason the liability requirement is included is "FAR said to". In my brain, these two clauses conflict. Has anyone had any history with this?
  7. That's right! We have been so caught up at set aside at the task order level, that the MAC just got caught up with it. I know that didn't make sense, so let me try again: When people are seeking the opionions, they are combining what is to be done at the task order level, and what is to be done at the MAC award. And since they are all up in a huff anyway, they are missing the very important point that the decision to set aside is done before, not after. Let me tell you, (since you don't where I am) our SB office is pushing the AFTER. I am very grateful that you took the time to re-calibrate my thought patterns on both issues
  8. My Friend's tuimmy was queasy because if she were still a contractor, based on the direction the conversations were going, she would file an immediate protest. Yes, it is a real source selection, and the higher the dollar, the faster "stuff" pops up. All sorts of great ideas. Thank you, you have given me what I need. While I have you, and if you have the time, I would like to ask your opnion regarding the Rule of Two: Multiple award IDIQ with two competition pools, SB Setaside pool and a Full and Open Pool. IFF we receive two reasonable acceptable bids from Small Businesses that meet the requirements for the Full and Open Pool, must the Full and Open be changed to a set aside? I understand the rule at task order level, and have legal quasi opinions, that of course don't agree. New insights/thoughts would be awesome if u have the time.
  9. "I have this friend..." who is in a source selection. Her policy people suggested a proposal elimination strategy termed: "Quick Cut". Where if a proposal does not meet a specific element up front, it is not further evaluated. For example (yes this is an unrealistic example): The proposal is for bird pevention services. The RFP states that if a proposal does not include shooting the birds, it shall not be further evaluated and it shall be considered unacceptable. This element shall be evaluated before any other subfactor, blah lah. It makes mt friend's tummy queezy just thinking about it. Has anyone heard of this before?