apsofacto

C Culham beat me to it!  That is always the first place I go when these questions come up.

I usually think of passages like this form (Overseas Lease Group, Inc., B-402111, January 19, 2010) (emphasis added):

Quote

In determining whether a modification triggers the competition requirements in the Competition In Contracting Act of 1984, 10 U.S.C. sect. 2304(a)(1)(A), we look to whether there is a material difference between the modified contract and the contract that was originally awarded. Engineering & Prof’l Servs, Inc., supra, at 4. Evidence of a material difference between the modification and the original contract is found by examining changes in the type of work, performance period, and costs between the contract as awarded and as modified. Atlantic Coast Contracting, Inc., supra, at 4. Here, the record is clear that the purpose and nature of the original contract were not changed by the modification.

I'm in the habit of putting a statement in new contracts like 'The purpose of this Contract is [broad statement]' for this very purpose.  Hope that is a good habit, I think it helps put all proposers on notice what kind of changes could occur.

Sounds like Fear's cost, schedule and type of work do not change much, so it sounds encouraging from the description.

Still on team Drabkin. 

Has anyone switched sides since the thread began? 

16 hours ago, Searching for Answers said:

This results in repeated small delivery orders being issued over and over throughout the course of the period.

Is this bad, though?

I smell a price realism analysis.  Did the solicitation use the word "realism" anywhere? 

Hi, Joel,

Rent seeking, or good idea?  Or both?

I noticed there was an entry about reverse auctions for construction work.  We are required by state law to solicit construction via sealed bidding, so reverse auctions are not so outlandish from my perspective.  My perspective could be warped, though.

15 hours ago, Retreadfed said:

I suspect this is done to avoid having to do a D&F justifying the use of a T&M contract

Has this D&F become harder to write over the years?  I don't remember it being too much of an obstacle, there was copious parroting of FAR 16.601.c.  I know the Obama Administration wanted less T&M.

We have a policy of no supervisor/subordinate relationships on our technical evaluation panels.  I'm not aware of a requirement in law for that, and I don't think it was an actual problem before.  We make policy by crackpot complaint, though, and that's how that rule was established.  If there is more meaningful guidance on this issue I'd like to hear it as well.  Thanks, sjst1!

I hope its not the one with the cannibal hipsters.  That's when I quit watching.

If they gave an assumed contract start date in the solicitation, perhaps they'd assume that date to be correct when evaluating your sliding scale?  Don't know if you'd get a consistent result across the whole Government.

I think this is the GAO protest the article references:

http://www.wifcon.com/cgen/412746.pdf

The article states the GAO did not have a complete administrative record when they generated this decision. The following CoFC decisions are here:

http://www.wifcon.com/cofc/16-784.pdf

https://ecf.cofc.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/show_public_doc?2016cv0784-113-0

Thanks as always to Bob for curating these decisions for us.

On ‎3‎/‎27‎/‎2017 at 3:00 PM, rsenn said:

Interesting thought that you set forth.  Blow one, submit complete garbage, for a price of one dollar.  It is the low priced proposal, but is rejected as technically unacceptable.  Then ask for a debriefing to explore the boundaries of technically acceptable.

I don't think you want your company associated with garbage! 

Thanks to Ji and Vern for resolving!  Works better that way. 

This is now much shorter, but may still meet Jon's needs:

Quote

The Government authorizes and consents to all use and manufacture, in performing this contract or any subcontract at any tier, of any invention described in and covered by a United States patent embodied in the structure or composition of any article the delivery of which is accepted by the Government under this contract; or used in machinery, tools, or methods whose use necessarily results from compliance by the Contractor or a subcontractor with specifications or written provisions forming a part of this contract or specific written instructions given by the Contracting Officer directing the manner of performance.

Best of luck, Jon!

I think we discussed in another thread about how these breakdown structures can conceal how complicated a sentence can be.  My eyes cross a little when I read this:

Quote

 

52.227-1  Authorization and Consent (Dec 2007)

(a) The Government authorizes and consents to all use and manufacture, in performing this contract or any subcontract at any tier, of any invention described in and covered by a United States patent—

(1) Embodied in the structure or composition of any article the delivery of which is accepted by the Government under this contract; or

(2) Used in machinery, tools, or methods whose use necessarily results from compliance by the Contractor or a subcontractor with (i) specifications or written provisions forming a part of this contract or (ii) specific written instructions given by the Contracting Officer directing the manner of performance[.] the entire liability to the Government for infringement of a United States patent shall be determined solely by the provisions of the indemnity clause, if any, included in this contract or any subcontract hereunder (including any lower-tier subcontract), and the Government assumes liability for all other infringement to the extent of the authorization and consent hereinabove granted.

 . . .

 

 

I emphasized and bracketed a period which I frankly do not understand.  Are they not capitalizing the following word by mistake?  I'll assume not for now. UPDATE: another online FAR has this as a comma, not a period.

In sentence form (as opposed to breakdown form) it looks much worse:

Quote

The Government authorizes and consents to all use and manufacture, in performing this contract or any subcontract at any tier, of any invention described in and covered by a United States patent embodied in the structure or composition of any article the delivery of which is accepted by the Government under this contract; or used in machinery, tools, or methods whose use necessarily results from compliance by the Contractor or a subcontractor with specifications or written provisions forming a part of this contract or specific written instructions given by the Contracting Officer directing the manner of performance[.] the entire liability to the Government for infringement of a United States patent shall be determined solely by the provisions of the indemnity clause, if any, included in this contract or any subcontract hereunder (including any lower-tier subcontract), and the Government assumes liability for all other infringement to the extent of the authorization and consent hereinabove granted.

Noun: Verb: Direct Object::

The Government: authorizes and consents to: all use and manufacture of any invention

Is that right?

46 minutes ago, jonmjohnson said:

 I am looking for run-on sentences taken from FAR that appear as they are actually paragraphs.  LONG sentences that are constructed fairly complicatedly.

There appear to be some gems in this oldie:

I

I usually try to solve that issue with a parenthesis:

Quote

I invited Vern, Bob (who is Vern's friend), and Don to the St. Patrick's Day party.

Georgetown Law School provides this on their web site- I think it is pretty good:

https://www.law.georgetown.edu/academics/academic-programs/legal-writing-scholarship/writing-center/upload/punctuationtips.pdf

(Full disclosure, I'm and inveterate ellipsis abuser . . .)

This case is in the news.

This is about interpreting a state law, but gives support to the pro-Oxford Comma crowd.

Another complex list gone bad. To paraphrase Boy George: 'Comma comma comma comma comma-chameleon'

If you have an order lined up, or reasonable expectation of one, I'd steer clear of the Requirements contracts. 

Also, seconding Vern, the whole contract (past the minimum) is optional.  Unless you find the process at FAR 17.207 enjoyable, options in these contracts serve no purpose.  If you are cursed with a management which thinks options are a budget control tool as I am, you may be stuck with it, though.

2 hours ago, Gordon Shumway said:

Sad! #MakeContractingGreatAgain

Bigly, Gordon.  Bigly.

What is the deliverable under the resultant contract?  Having some trouble understanding the Government's requirement.

I noticed that the breakdown is great if you have to cite a piece of it at the other party.

Thanks also  Don for that article.  It stands to reason, I guess, that spoiling the category of a list with an item outside the category screws everything up.  I can see this creeping into any document created by committee.

I too have a joke with a list: Cannot post here.  Will PM.

Thanks- breakdown describes this much better.  I wish I could take full credit for the hot messness, partial credit goes to the National Defense Authorization Act!

If my project officer generated that content, I would send back something like this:

Quote

Task 1.  The Contractor shall rebuild all Defective Engines.  Defective Engines are engines marked with a red tag, included on the Rebuild Report or designated as such by the Foreman or Assistant Foreman.  The Contractor shall use Original Equipment Manufacturer Parts to rebuild these Defective Engines unless the Contractor obtains a waiver from the manufacturer, or the Foreman or Assistant Foreman approves an alternate part.

Still improvement to be made I'm sure, but better. Not exactly sure why the breakdown format conceals (somewhat) these problems.  I think we assume each element of the breakdown is a non-divisible unit, which isn't true.

Thanks as always, Vern!

This is not a contest, just a question about how to interpret lists which has been on my mind.

I rely on complex lists to convey complex ideas with multiple conditions.  Here is an example which I think is a bad one:

Quote

 

1. Task 1.  The Contractor shall rebuild engines that are (a) marked with a red tag, included on the Rebuild Report, or as verbally instructed by the Foreman or Assistant Foreman-

   1. using Original Equipment Manufacturer (OEM) Parts unless:

      1. the Contractor obtains a waiver from the manufacturer; or

      2. the Foreman or Assistant Foreman approves an alternative part.

 

This example is patterned after a legislative passage I was having a hard time with here.  Does the format of a list affect how the passage is interpreted?  Here it is as a paragraph:

Quote

Task 1. The Contractor shall rebuild engines that are marked with a red tag, included on the Rebuild Report, or as verbally instructed by the Foreman or Assistant Foreman using Original Equipment Manufacturer (OEM) Parts unless the Contractor obtains a waiver from the manufacturer, or the Foreman or Assistant Foreman approves an alternative part.

The passage is a *hot mess* as a paragraph.  For example, does the requirement to repair with OEM parts apply to the red tag and Rebuild Report engines?  Or just to the ones verbally directed?  There are a lot of ambiguities here.

It seems so much clearer as a list! 

Question: Does the list format resolve ambiguities of this nature?  Or is it just a format which is a hell of a lot easier to read, but conceals these problems?

19 hours ago, here_2_help said:

One last question: If no funding has been appropriated, and there is no minimum amount, why is this a contract?

Pure speculation: It could be a "Requirements" contract a la FA16.503 where the consideration is the promise that the Gov't will fulfill all requirement through Sig Sauer. 

I did not see a "Contract Type" clause at the link Bob Antonio provided, so I'm curious how one would tell for sure.  I am unfamiliar with DOD solicitations, though, so this might be more of a "beginner" type question.  I may have just scrolled past an missed it.

On ‎1‎/‎11‎/‎2017 at 11:17 AM, Vern Edwards said:

Vendor rating, as described at that website, is not the same as competitive proposal evaluation

Absolute agreement!  Proposals cannot be evaluated in that way.