• Content count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

0 Neutral

About jtolli

  • Rank
    Copper Member
  • Birthday 06/03/1961

Contact Methods

  • ICQ 0

Profile Information

  • Gender Male
  • Location San Antonio
  1. It depends on the specific software. Some (most) software licenses are perpetual. Some software licenses are term licenses.
  2. Key Personnel in Solicitations

    Key personnel language in a PWS drives me crazy. Some of the things the customer puts in would seem to be unenforceable. It just so happens I got a new requirement in today that I am looking at. Here are some excerpts for key personnel. "Substitutions of proposed Key Personnel shall not be allowed for one-year after award, except under extreme circumstances." "Replacement of Key Personnel can be accomplished under the following circumstances: Death Serious, prolonged illness, the onset of which post-dates the contractor’s submission of that Key Person’s resume to the government. In the case of a Key person who was a Contractor employee when the Contractor submitted his or her resume to the government, the Key Person leaves the Contractor’s employment for reasons other than retirement and does not commence work for a subcontractor on this contract or for the contractor after a hiatus." "Failure to replace a Key Person pursuant to this clause and without a break in performance of the labor category at issue is a basis for default termination, as are Key Personnel proposed not performing this contract (e.g., the Offeror is unable to hire one or more of the Key Personnel it proposed). Offerors are responsible for conducting due diligence to ensure that Key Personnel proposed will perform on this contract should the Offeror receive the award. Offerors may propose Key Personnel who they do not employ at the time the offer is submitted, but failure of such proposed Key Personnel to commence work on this contract will be deemed a prima facie showing of the Offeror’s lack of adequate due diligence and reflect poorly on business integrity and responsibility."
  3. DFAS- Contractor Owed Interest

    I "think" the calculation is done by DFAS, it may even be automated I don't know. I do know that the contracting office does not do it. I also "think" it is paid automatically. This is based on what I have seen in payment systems, after an invoice with interest has been paid out. In todays world of IT, I would think that is all automated.
  4. Government uses contractors SOW

    I think it's important tonote if the "contractor" who is preparing the SOW is doing it under an existing contract. See Viereck, B-237726, March 20, 1990. "The organizational conflict of interest provisions on which the Army relies are intended to assure that the government receives unbiased advice when it employs a firm --"the contractor"-- to prepare specification used in the competitive procurement of items. Viereck, however, was not hired by the government to prepare the specifications here."
  5. Official FAR Site

    illzoni, The only reason I caught those differences is because there was some debate at my agency as to whether a Limited Source(s) Justification should be labeled a "Limited Source Justification" or "Limited Sources Justification". Yeah, I know it is minor, and there are much bigger things to worry about, but it was just something that came up one day, and I discovered the difference between the two websites. It does make you wonder if there are other differences however, and if maybe they may be more significant. I know of no one who uses the acquisition.gov website for FAR research, and everyone I know uses the Air Force site. Even when I went to DAU training, they gave us the reference to the Air Force site.
  6. Official FAR Site

    I don't know if I would call them discrepancies, but I have noticed differences. For example, compare FAR 8.405-6. On the Air Force site it is titled, "Limited Sources". On the acquisition.gov site it is titled, "Limiting Sources". Similarly, see FAR 8.405-6©(2)(i) which, on the Air Force site, says, "...and specific identification of the document as a “Limited Source Justification.”" On the acqusition.gov site it reads, "...and specific identification of the document as a “Limited-Sources Justification.”". Those are just a couple of small variances I have noted. I like the Air Force site better, as the font is larger, which is easier on my old eyes.
  7. Thanks for the input Jacques. Based on the research I did, I could find nothing that prohibited restricting a prime from also being a sub to another prime in their proposal. But you did bring to light some interesting information with FAR Subpart 9.6. You bring up a good question regarding, "Can a sub team with multiple primes?" I also asked myself that same question yesterday. While doing my research I did find some GAO case law regarding subs teaming with multiple primes. These cases generally involved the requirement for Certificate of Independent Price Determination (FAR 52.203-2), and allegations of price collusion. I think Don asked the question that gets right to the point; What would be your justification for including the restrictive provision? My recommendation to my boss was that we not do it, unless we have some valid reason to do so, which I do not know about.
  8. Thanks for the input Retreadfed. This requirement is for IT support services. We expect ro receive numerous proposals, so I do not expect that we will receive a proposal from a vendor as a prime, who would also be the sub on a large number of the other proposals. Therefore adequate price competition should not be an issue. I asked my boss why would we want to prohibit a vendor from submitting as a prime, and also be a sub on a different vendor's proposal, and her response was , "why would we not want to prohibit it?"; find some justification to prohibit it.
  9. Thanks Joel. We have thought about the conflict of interest issue, but isn't that a contractor issue for them to sort out, versus something the government needs to be concerned with?
  10. I have been tasked with doing research to determine why it is beneficial to the government to prohibit a vendor from submitting a proposal as a prime contractor, and also being a subcontractor to a different prime (or primes) who submits a proposal. This would be for a single-award IDIQ contract. I can't imagine what the downside is of having a vendor do this. Any thoughts?
  11. Authorities Delegated to COR

    If I was a COR and I saw a contractor employee doing something that could cause injury to themselves or others, I would tell them to stop work, and then contact the CO. Whether that is permissable or not I would worry about later. I wouldn't allow policies and procedures to stand between me, and doing what is right. Doing the right thing is sometimes more important than doing things right. I acutally had this happen many years ago where I witnessed contractor employees on a contract (not construction) I was COR for, working in a confined space without having the proper prootective equipment, or the equipment to test the combined space for hazards. I verbally ordered the employees to to stop work and get out of the manhole until they were later told differently. They did get out, and I went and informed the CO immediately of what I had done. He agreed with my course of action, and issued an "official" stop work order in writing.
  12. FAR 13.104(b)

    As I understand the scenario as presented by JDYoung, and I have seen people do this before, you have a requirement for an item and you ask vendors who you know don't sell that item if they will give you a quote, of course the vendor tells you that they don't sell the item, so you ask them to send you a "no bid" or "no quote", and you then consider that "no bid" as a quote. Here is a specific example. You have a brand name requirement for a Dell lap top. You get a quote from Dell for the lap top. You then go to 2 other vendors who ypu already know are not Dell authorized resellers, and do not sell Dell lap tops. You ask them to send you a "no bid", and then say you solicited from 3 vendors, and only got one quote.
  13. Contractor Manpower Reporting

    CMRA = Contractor Manpower Reporting Application. The CMRA is a web based application developed by the Army in order to collect data on services that they contract for. Section 807 of the National Defense Authorization Act of 2008 required DoD to provide an annual inventory of contracted services to congress. The other services were using FPDS data to develop their inventory. More recently DoD has gone to standardized systems accross the board. They are calling this the enterprise CMRA (eCMRA). In reality it is the same web based application that the Army developed, now being used by the other services.
  14. Contractor Manpower Reporting

    Sounds like you are a contractor. I work for the Government, and have been using the CMRA for a few years. Have you tried e-mailing the CMRA help desk? Here is what I can tell you based on my experience. I don't believe you can create any sort of "enterprise" login for the CMRA. One of the limitations I noticed with CMRA, at least on the Government side, is that once an individual (COR) "claims" a contract, then only that individual can view the specifics of that contract. There is no way to transfer the contract to anyone else. So if the person who claimed the contract moves to a new job, then their replacement is out of luck as far as using the CMRA to do any research on that contract. I would imagine their are similar limitations for those individuals with a contractor or subcontractor role in the application. As for your questions regarding administering components, contracting organization, etc., are you referring to the NDAA Elements section? If so, that is not the contractors responsibility to complete, so you need not worry about it. As stated on the CMRA Contract Details screen, "Note: COR/COTRs and Contracting Officers are responsible for entering NDAA data. Contractors are not responsible for this data.". I am not surprised that you have got little to no information from the contracting office, in my experience contracting officers and specialists know very little about the CMRA as they typically don't use it. You would be better off asking the COR for the contract, as COR's do the bulk of the data input and review on the Government side. But I will also say that many COR's don't fully understand the CMRA, and in my experience many don't use it at all. As for training, I have not heard of any such training, and to be honest don't see a need for training, it is a pretty straight forward system to use.
  15. Funny or tragic? Part I

    In my experience a lot of people tend to confuse the various justification documents and formats from different parts (6, 8, 16) of the FAR. The Army's Computer Hardware Enterprise Software and Solutions (CHESS) program contracts are also Part 16 contracts, but the ordering guides instructs you to prepare justifications using the FAR Part 8 format. I just ran across a question on the Ask A Professor site when an individual asked about preparing Class Brand Name Justifications for Part 8 buys, and the answer given was that it is possible in accordance with FAR Part 6. Here is a link to that particular Q&A: https://dap.dau.mil/aap/pages/qdetails.aspx?cgiSubjectAreaID=3&cgiQuestionID=120988