Jamaal Valentine

Carl: Depends on what the deobligation is in contracting terms (e.g., partial termination, deductive change, administrative change), right? A mod to decrease funding without decreasing the obligation may be problematic, but it doesn't change the contractor's substantive rights. (e.g., The contractor is still entitled to what the contract states and can get it via claim.) H2H: Here is what 52.212-4(c) Changes, states: "Changes in the terms and conditions of this contract may be made only by written agreement of the parties." (emphasis added) Seems we need to identify what terms and conditions are. Then we need to review how unilateral actions like exercising options, issuing terminations, etc. are proper in light of 52.212-4(c). If these unilateral actions are permitted, it's reasonable to believe administrative changes that don't alter the terms and conditions of the contract in ways that affect the substantive rights of the parties are also permissible.

Prayers and thoughts for a speedy recovery.

If emergencies or unforeseen events interrupt normal receipt of offers by the exact time specified, and time-sensitive factors prevent the Government from changing the specified time, offers are due at the same time on the first work day normal Government operations return. -or- If an emergency or unforeseen event interrupts normal receipt of offers by the office and exact time specified, and prevents change of the time, offers are due at the same time on the first work day normal Government operations return. -or- If normal Government receipt of offers is interrupted by emergency or unforseen events, the offer due date is postponed to the first work day normal Government operations return. -or- If normal Government receipt of offers is interrupted by emergency or unforseen events, the offer due date is changed to the first work day normal Government operations return.

I agree, in part, with ji20874 and C Culham (I didn't want to bias responses); however, I would advise others to contact their agency labor advisors and/or the Department of Labor. For example, see the Air Force Davis-Bacon Desktop Guide for guidance on handling SABER contracts and task orders (p. 13).

Thanks, Carl.

SCENARIO: Unpriced, mutliple-award IDIQs, five year ordering period (no options), and general wage determination was applied to the basic contract at time of award. 40 U.S.C. chapter 31, subchapter IV, Wage Rate Requirements (Construction), formerly known as the Davis-Bacon Act QUESTION: At what point, if ever, do you incorporate any updated Wage Determinations?

Seems that you could bilaterally modify the contract payment terms to incorporate GPC as the method of payment. (see FAR 13.201( b ) and DFARS 213.270 if applicable or for reference) Chapter 7 of the GAO Redbook provides that you would have to comply with the government's obligation rules (e.g., creating and recording). The T&M CLIN (contract) created the obligation so I assume the GPC would have to have adequate funds loaded to cover and record the obligation. I don't think the Third Party (Bank) is obligated ...

Have you seen DoD's proposed rule?

Why is defense contracting so heavily regulated? What happened to improving the professionalism? "DoD is proposing to revise the DFARS to implement section 888(a) of the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) for Fiscal Year (FY) 2017 (Pub. L. 114-328). Section 888(a) requires that competition on DoD contracts not be limited through the use of brand name or equivalent descriptions, or proprietary specifications or standards, in solicitations, unless a justification for such specification is provided and approved in accordance with 10 U.S.C. 2304(f). The requirements of 10 U.S.C. 2304(f) are implemented in Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) sections 6.303 and 6.304, which address the content, format, and approval authorities for justifications for other than full and open competition." https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2018/10/31/2018-23676/defense-federal-acquisition-regulation-supplement-brand-name-or-equal-dfars-case-2017-d040

I may have missed or misunderstood something but, if there is a quasi-default based on FAR part 15 requirements, it would be 'award with discussions': FAR 15.306(a)(3): Award may be made without discussions if the solicitation states that the Government intends to evaluate proposals and make award without discussions. FAR 15.209(a) states: The contracting officer shall insert the provision at 52.215-1, Instructions to Offerors -- Competitive Acquisition, in all competitive solicitations where the Government intends to award a contract without discussions.

Federal solicitations require boilerplate information that lowers readability, but if we are talking 'should' based on opinion: Grade 7-8 seems appropriate. This is based, in part, on the Department of Defense use of Flesch-Kincaid reading ease standards; the Plain Writing Act; and success with plain language contracts in industry. In the Flesch reading-ease test 8th and 9th grade is considered plain English; 10th to 12th is considered fairly difficult to read.

I am not buying that and I hope you aren't either. They are synonymous within the context used here. https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/capable

Matthew: jwomack made is thoughts clear in saying: I wanted the rationale. Why wouldn't you warrant to capability? (I am particularly interested because this belief is what is blocking me from boarding)

I understand this is a common belief, but what is it based upon? What risk? In what ways does risk increase? Even so-called Unlimited Warrant hold Contracting Officers have limited authority. Contracting Officers may bind the Government only to the extent of the authority delegated to them; and no contract shall be entered into unless the contracting officer ensures that all requirements of law, executive orders, regulations, and all other applicable procedures, including clearances and approvals, have been met. The current DAS(C) specifically stated that he doesn't view having more capable people with unlimited warrants than 'necessary' as a risk. In my view, any minimal risk (low severity and likelihood of an event) is offset by the benefit (capability, capacity, human capital considerations). I didn't think you meant it negatively, but I know that kind of thinking leads to separations and turnover. Having a deep bench ready to go should be seen as the prudent thing to do. There have been many occasions where a large enough warrant wasn't around for an action or task.