Jump to content
The Wifcon Forums and Blogs

Matthew Fleharty

  • Content count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

0 Neutral

About Matthew Fleharty

  • Rank
    Silver Member

Profile Information

  • Gender

Recent Profile Visitors

2,952 profile views
  1. Invoicing

    Fair points Vern - I should have read more skeptically given that the article was an opinion piece, also sloppy behavior on my part.
  2. Invoicing

    I'll second Vern's point of order. For those of you who may think that his point of order is nitpicky, read George Orwell's essay Politics and the English Language (attached to this post) and then see if you think differently. Word choice matters. See the following opinion article from the NYTimes just this morning regarding the use of the word "collusion": https://www.nytimes.com/2017/11/02/opinion/collusion-meaning-trump-.html HonorsOrwellPoliticsEnglishLanguage.pdf
  3. System for Award Management (SAM) - Exclusions

    What do you mean by "held accountable for?" Based on your first post and this one, I think you may have a habit of worrying too much. Take a deep breath and read the following FAR excerpts until they're permanently ingrained in your contracting psyche: Don't paralyze yourself over rules that may or may not exist. Research thoroughly, but if you come up empty and your actions are reasonable, based on sound business judgment, and documented, you won't find yourself in trouble (just don't do anything illegal, unethical, or immoral). If someone does try to punish you for such actions, you're probably in the wrong organization to begin with.
  4. Privatization

    Then how can you make statements like: Vern, I have the book on order and I plan to read it while I'm stuck on planes this month flying around to a couple honeymoon destinations. I look forward to engaging in the discussion when I return at the end of the month.
  5. DPAS

    I think you might have gone a bit too far - what if the order was a cost type contract and the Government ran out of money to pay for the effort? Would the contractor(s) still be required to "meet [their] delivery date regardless?" I'd think not, so why would a subcontractor have a requirement to perform in spite of prime contractor's breach of contract? Since a breach of contract can be grounds for termination (none of us, except maybe Fara Fasat, know the terms and conditions of the subcontract), maybe this subcontractor should terminate the current order and then refuse subsequent orders under the authority of 15 USC 700.13( c )(1). Question: why wouldn't your same logic apply to the prime contractor's contractual responsibilities (one of which is timely payment for deliveries)? Your argument is essentially under rated orders, contractors have a requirement to perform contract obligations in spite of whatever hardships may arise - if we accept that premise, the prime has an obligation is to fulfill its promise under the subcontract (payment) while the subs fulfill theirs (delivery). Maybe an argument could/should be made that the prime is the one in violation of 15 USC 700 - by not paying in a timely manner the prime has not given rated orders the "preferential treatment" required by the DPA.
  6. Am I the only one who can read napolik's posts? Why does everyone continue to post key personnel clauses that govern post-award contract administration?
  7. Isn’t that the truth.
  8. A veteran of these forums (and contracting generally) provided some of the best advice I've heard regarding reading/researching the FAR - always start with the "Scope, Applicability, and Definitions" (SAD) sections of any FAR Part or Subpart...otherwise, you may very well end up relying on inapplicable rules.
  9. If you used GSA, why are you looking in FAR Parts 13, 14, and 15 when FAR 8.404(a) states: Maybe you'll find the answer to your question somewhere under FAR Subpart 8.4. Also, this topic should be in a different sub-forum (probably Contract Award Process)...
  10. IDIQ Decision

    From last year's NDAA (the DFARS does not currently reflect these changes):
  11. IDIQ Decision

    Where do you get this idea that the CO is some almighty with unilateral authority to do whatever he/she pleases? The CO is only a CO because he/she has a certificate of appointment from some higher authority - usually in the case of UCAs, that higher authority is also the CO’s clearance authority and the CO has to obtain that individual’s approval prior to definitizing the contract action (per the regulations, local procedures, AND to keep his/her certificate of appointment and job). That clearance authority typically requires field pricing assistance whenever the DFARS PGI says the CO should obtain it. So foregoing field pricing assistance isn’t necessarily a choice the CO can make on his/her own.
  12. IDIQ Decision

    I guess that means the contractor has no responsibility to negotiate in good faith, provide timely counter offers, etc. This is the same garbage I heard once in negotiations: Contractor: "We submitted a proposal with cost and pricing data, so the price is the price." Government: "Well, we analyzed your proposal/data and found these mistakes in your proposal. We also disagree with the analysis in these BoEs. Therefore, we think the fair and reasonable price is actually lower than what you proposed." Contractor: "Well, we put a lot of time into that proposal and we submitted cost and pricing data, so the price is the price." Government: "Well, we would like to discuss our findings, ask some questions, and work towards reaching agreement on what a fair and reasonable price is..." Contractor: "What more do you want from us?! It's all in the proposal and the data. The price is the price." I suspect you know this, but just in case, when a UCA is in place, the two parties have yet to reach an agreement on the full terms and conditions of the contract (that's why it is called an "undefinitized contract action"). Now this is the part where you seem to be on an island with your bandwagon: when two parties have not reached an agreement, both parties have the responsibility to negotiate in good faith until they reach an agreement (or agree to go their separate ways). A CO/PM cannot do that on their own and it is naïve to think otherwise...by it's very nature, an agreement requires a responsible/authorized individual from each party and the CO/PM only represent one of the two parties (think of it as a mathematical equation: Government Concurrence + Contractor Concurrence = Agreement). The qualifying proposal will probably have errors and will certainly have areas that the Government takes exception to - when that happens, if we accept your proposition, the contractor would have no responsibility to engage the Government in discussions over their findings and disagreements. How is that productive? Agreement would be impossible, so...on this island with your bandwagon, it seems contractors would merely submit qualifying proposals and then Contracting Officers, "with the approval of the head of the contracting activity, [would] determine a reasonable price or fee...subject to Contractor appeal as provided in the Disputes clause" (DFARS 252.217-7027( c ))...I'm not sure that's preferable to the status quo, but you've yet to provide a sound argument as to why that would be better than negotiations (even when they experience a delay in reaching agreement) or why prohibiting UCAs in the fourth quarter or holding COs and PMs personally liable are good policies. Just to see if your views are consistent, should members of the contractor's team be held personally liable for failure to submit a qualifying proposal IAW the definitization schedule?
  13. IDIQ Decision

    Because the failure to definitize in accordance with statute is always solely the fault of the COs and PMs... This is the type of reactionary behavior that, if it catches on and snowballs, would result in poor acquisition policy (though I'll gladly eat these words if you provide a sound argument for your "bandwagon").
  14. I don't know why the FAR should not instruct requiring activities...it instructs agencies, HCAs, SPEs, etc. in addition to contracting officers. Someone on that team needs a reminder that the FAR is not merely Contracting's regulation, but the entire Acquisition Team's. In addition to FAR 1.102-4( e ), see FAR 1.102( c ) which defines the Acquisition Team: That aside, I don't think this is a substantive change - if the contracting officer "shall obtain" something, that means some entity will still need to prepare and provide that something...
  15. IDIQ Decision

    Well said Vern.