Jamaal Valentine

If they didn't before, DoD clearly intends for this clause to apply to all solicitations and contracts now. http://www.acq.osd.mil/dpap/policy/policyvault/USA000187-16-DPAP.pdf I wanted to use the applicable DFARS Part, subpart, section, prescription, and clause for training and came across this thread. Previously, during clause selection I skipped the prescription because the scope appeared to be inapplicable. I have to wonder if clause selection will require more work (reading) now.

Where would this tool be located?

ji20874: Are you saying that a deductive change to a separately priced item at it's firm fixed price is a no-cost settlement?

Vern is the winner! LindaK would have taken home gold, but the use of 'may' indicated contractor discretion. Whynot's offering was solid, and could win a protest if it's proven that statements to contractors are passed on to it's employees or agents. Joel's submission was missing the 'who'. Carl's statement seemingly permits some types of alcohol and gambling. I question the winning change from fraternize to socialize. Overall, this reminded me of work. I was given a solicitation that someone else created and included an ambiguous requirement and evaluation scheme (select the best clarification without knowing the intent of the original statement). ***** "Under no circumstances shall the Contractor consume alcohol, gamble or fraternize with Agency employees while on site." - ORIGINAL STATEMENT ***** "The Contractor shall not consume alcohol, gamble, or fraternize at the Agency." - Whynot ***** "The Contractor shall ensure that its employees and the employees of subcontractors at any tier do not consume alcoholic beverages, gamble, or socialize with Government personnel at the work site." - Vern ***** '"Do not consume alcoholic beverages, gamble, or socialize with Government personnel at the work site."' - Joel ***** "In the performance of this contract the following are prohibited from taking place on the government work site and/or government owned property: Consumption of alcoholic liquor; Games of chance in any form, and/or; Socialize or form a friendship with any personnel of the contracting Agency." - C Culham ***** "Contractor/subcontractor personnel may not engage in any of the following behaviors at a government work site: Alcohol consumption; Gambling; Non-professional contact or relationships with Government personnel." -LindaK

Hurry, voting will end soon! I think our judge (Bob) should be able to have some fun too...I'd like to see a submission or some commentary to aid in a decision.

I'm counting three attempts at restating "Under no circumstances shall the Contractor consume alcohol, gamble or fraternize with Agency employees while on site." Unfortunately, Bob withdrew his submission - I'll check my car's lug nuts, before heading to lunch, as a cautionary measure. "The Contractor shall not consume alcohol, gamble, or fraternize at the Agency." - Whynot "The Contractor shall ensure that its employees and the employees of subcontractors at any tier do not consume alcoholic beverages, gamble, or socialize with Government personnel at the work site." - Vern '"Do not consume alcoholic beverages, gamble, or socialize with Government personnel at the work site."' - Joel

Game on. Typical contracting, the unqualified gets to judge the doers.

1. Yes, routinely. 2. Yes, occasionally. (Local "higher ups" routinely support) 3. Personally, it's easier to be human. It's easy to be me (curious human) and hard to be someone or something I'm not (automaton awaiting orders or set on a predetermined path).

The book I was originally looking for is Bryan A. Garner's, Legal Writing in Plain English 2d Edition: A Text with Exercises (Chicago Guides to Writing, Editing, and Publishing). I will check out some of these other texts as my wallet and/or wife permit.

Thinking and writing skills can be learned. Writing to Win: The Legal Writer, is a inexpensive training tool and a good read. I stumbled upon it while searching for a different book on persuasive writing that includes tests and exercises. I'm glad I found it...it's reinforcing some feedback I received to think clearly and organize your thoughts, simplify prose, write clearly and simply as succintly as possible (for your reader, not yourself), eliminate uneccessary adverbs and adjectives (use strong verbs), etc. http://www.amazon.com/Writing-Win-The-Legal-Writer/dp/0307888711

The book Writing to Win highlights a court ruling that bad writing in government documents violates the due process clause of the fourteenth amendment. The court ordered the agency to rewrite review letters because they were "incomprehensible" and contained "insufficient and misleading information". David v. Heckler, 591 F. Supp. 1033 (E.D.N.Y. 1984) United States District Court Imagine if such a ruling was made on the quality and comprehensiveness of government contract documents... If we could only get a Plain Writing Act, and a Paperwork Reduction Act to help!

Greg: Are you trying to determine what is/is not an unauthorized disclosure? Have you read FAR 2.101 "Source selection information" and FAR 3.104? Once you familiarize yourself with that you should be able to assess if you have an issue providing documents to your PM.

sbm1102: What is the argument for requesting offerors to determine what the key positions are, if any? Sounds ripe for unintended consequences and unpredictable results. You say you've seen it both ways. Can you provide an example, reference, or link? I'd like to see how it is being implemented in practice. If you don't have specific personnel qualification requirements (key personnel/positions) you could probably live without that particular factor/sub-factor. Have you considered if, when, and why key personnel evaluations are necessary? What is the objective of key personnel evaluation? What offeror information is necessary to achieve or accomplish the objective? Which of the two choices you provided best fulfills the above?

I should have included the citation in my post. Here it is - Contract Attorney Deskbook, 2014, Volume II, Chapter 19 (Page 19-6 [22]). I am actually having trouble pasting text and links into my posts since the recent Wifcon change over. Here is what happens: this HTML class. Value is

The Contract Attorney's Deskbook says obtaining funding for reprocurement is difficult and may make that remedy impractical. You might get money back to the US Treasury, but your agency getting it back is unlikely in my experience.

SBA delegates authority "...to enter into [sign on SBA's behalf] 8(a) prime contracts, and its authority....to award [sign on SBA's behalf] performance of those contracts to eligible 8(a) Program participants." "However, the SBA remains the prime contractor on all 8(a) contracts..." "The SBA delegates only the authority to sign contracts on its behalf."

Was this question presented to the contracting office? What did they say?

Vern: My guess - to avoid suffering through the clearance approval process again. Often times, exercising options doesn't require the same level of reviews as new awards, yes, including task orders.

Vern: Not sure which contract you are referencing so I'll assume we are talking about an IDIQ in general terms. I believe an IDIQ expires when all of the contractual obligations have been fulfilled (deliverables) or passed (exercised options, option notifications, etc.) in accordance with the contract terms and conditions. I do not believe a ordering period, contract completion date, or delivery date is necessarily synonymous with expiration.

Negotiating the changes into task order 1's option may be quicker than my next alternative, which is letting the task orders expire and issuing a new task order with the newly revised statement of work. It shouldn't necessarily be quicker, but unfortunately reality is such that it likely will be.

Is this a single award IDIQ? If so, you'll have more flexibility in my opinion. Based on what you provided, task order 1 is expiring before task order 2 services are going to be assumed so that's good. You have an option available, but options have to be executed in strict accordance with the contract terms. You'll probably need to consider how the original task order 1 was awarded and how pricing could be affected - based on workload estimates, personnel serviced, etc. It sounds commercial and 52.212-4 requires changes, of this nature, to be accomplished through supplemental agreement. Is it possible to negotiate new terms to include the additional workload into the option(s) now?

Jason: Out of everything you typed you only asked a single, unanswerable, question. Who knows what you've learned or understood besides you? I think you are doing yourself a disservice and would have a better chance at getting worthwhile feedback if you ask a specific question. I think you bring up a legitimate issue. What do you mean by effective date (contract effective date, ordering period, etc)? DFARS 252.216-7006, Ordering specifies the IDIQ ordering period. 52.216-22 details how orders issued during, but extending past the effective [ordering] period will be governed.

I agree with ji20874 in general with regard to cost risk, but can see instances where H2H's comments would be valid. Admittedly, I have a nominal amount of working experience with T&M and cost reimbursement type contracts. As I see it, both T&M and cost reimbursement contract types are only used when uncertainties in contract performance don't permit costs to be estimated with sufficient accuracy to use a fixed-price contract. Both have a cost ceiling that the contractor may not exceed (except at its own risk). Both require government surveillance because neither provides positive profit incentive to the contractor for cost control or labor efficiency. The huge difference I see between the two is a T&M contract has profit baked into every labor hour, which could put an enormous cost risk on the Government (or contractor if they don't price well)... The contractor gets paid for effort not outcome - the longer performance continues the more risk the Government or contractor assumes, depending on pricing. A contractor with a T&M contract would be rewarded with additional profit or losses if it is inefficient. Cost reimbursement contracts don't offer such a, positive or negative, profit incentive.

Pursuant to the paragraph provided: 1 - No, SBA remains the prime, but the 8(a) is awarded performance 2 - SBA is the prime as discussed above 3 - SBA

I just Googled 'contracting officer warrant' and a 'new contracting officer warrant' is defined in OFPP Policy Letter 05-01 as a warrant issued for the first time at a department or agency. I wonder when and why the term warrant came about...It's undisputed that it is in widespread common usage. Anyway, I found this quizzical short read on Contracting Officer [Warrant] Authority: http://www.navigant.com/~/media/WWW/Site/Insights/Construction/Did%20you%20Hear%20What%20Happened.ashx