Jump to content
The Wifcon Forums and Blogs

ALAL

Members
  • Content Count

    15
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

0 Neutral

About ALAL

  • Rank
    New

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Male

Recent Profile Visitors

4,873 profile views
  1. I'm not a contracting officer, and have never been confronted with this question. So, I have not taken a firm position on whether subcontractor bonds are included in the meaning of "bond premiums" in 52.232-5(g). I tend to think they are not included there, but I'm not really sure. I also don't have an opinion about whether subcontractor bonds would be an allowable cost under a cost reimbursement contract. I assume so, but I haven't looked into it, and don't intend to. I just wanted to point out that there was a lot of discussion about bonds, but nobody even mentioned the FAR defin
  2. Don--That is not always true. See FAR 52.202-1, Definitions, specifically item (c). "When a solicitation provision or contract clause uses a word or term that is defined in the Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR), the word or term has the same meaning as the definition in FAR 2.101 in effect at the time the solicitation was issued, unless- * * * (c) The part, subpart, or section of the FAR where the provision or clause is prescribed provides a different meaning . . .." The problem between FAR Part 28 definitions and the payment clause for construction is that the payment clause is pres
  3. I don't think anyone has mentioned one thing that is possibly relevant to this discussion. That is the definition of "Bond" in the FAR (at FAR 28.001). It covers only bonds "executed by a bidder or contractor" and "a second party (the 'surety' or 'sureties') . . .." (Emphasis added.) Therefore, bonds executed by a subcontractor would not be "bonds" for FAR purposes, and presumably not covered by FAR 52.232-5(g).
  4. It has been working for me, from two different computers.
  5. Happy Birthday, and a huge THANK YOU for running this site. It has been extremely valuable to me in terms of learning, keeping up-to-date, and as a quick and easy-to-use research tool. You are doing a true public service.
  6. Vern, you started my work day with a good laugh. Thanks.
  7. Yes, that's generally correct, though Congress did not re-codify all of the U.S. Code, just title 41, which deals with contracts. The law that did this is Public Law 111-350, effective January 4, 2011. It is not yet available on GPOAccess or the Library of Congress site. It is available on Westlaw, if you have access to that. The re-codification is not supposed to make any substantive changes to the law, just organize it better.
  8. I just saw the Jan. 31 pages & FAR update are posted now. https://www.acquisition.gov/far/facframe.html
  9. Thanks, all, for taking the time to respond and for your views.
  10. Don Acq.--I'm curious about something you said. You said, "an offeror's name (something not protected by FOIA) . . .." What is your authority for saying that the name of an unsuccessful offeror is not protected by FOIA? I have seen that there are divergent opinions on the topic, but I have never seen anything definitive. To me, FAR 24.202(a) (41 USC 253b(m) & 10 USC 2305(g)) make it at least arguable that the identies of unsuccessful offerors are protected. But knowledgeable persons whose opinions deserve respect (you and I think Vern at least) think otherwise. (Vern, if I mis-state
  11. Vessel repair is not construction. However, the work may be covered by the Davis-Bacon Act instead of the Service Contract Act. That may be why your colleague thinks that it is construction.
  12. Mr. Edwards-- I think you are technically correct that GAO does not have authority to "sustain a protest because it does not agree with a regulation promulgated by an agency authorized by Congress to implement a statute." However, 31 USC 3554((1) does give GAO authority to determine whether a solicitation or contract action "complies with STATUTE and regulation" (emphasis added). In this case, GAO concluded that the protested action did not comply with statute, regardless of whether it complied with the SBA regulations. That is something the GAO has authority to do.
  13. The FAR does need to be re-written. The basic problem is that the regulations in the FAR, as well as the SBA's regulations in Title 13 of the CFR, as they relate to this question, are not fully in conformance with the statutes as passed by Congress. If a regulation is in conflict with a statute, the statute takes precedence. If you remain confused, you should seek guidance/explanation from your agency counsel and/or your procurement policy office.
  14. Thank you Velhammer. As far as I've been able to find, those have not been published (at least not yet). Do you know otherwise?
  15. Does anyone know if GAO has issued a decision on the request for reconsideration filed by SBA (and the Marine Corps?) in the International Program Group case? This is the case in which GAO and SBA are in disagreement over the priorities, or lack of priorities, among various set-aside programs.
×
×
  • Create New...