Jump to content
The Wifcon Forums and Blogs

Matthew Fleharty

  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

0 Neutral

About Matthew Fleharty

  • Rank
    Contributing Member

Profile Information

  • Gender

Recent Profile Visitors

4,244 profile views
  1. What is the source for your definition of "stand-alone contract"?
  2. A former member of this forum was kind enough to give me some sage advice once: when the answer isn’t clear cut, interpret the regulation in a manner that gives you the most latitude/power.
  3. Have you considered that the word "or" is disjunctive so that the "through another government agency" qualifier does not apply to the "from a specific source" language?
  4. FAR 5.202(a)(4) reads "from a specific source" which means it only applies to sole source actions, not competitive ones - they don't have to follow the same rules/procedures. I agree w/ Confused1102 and Don and have nothing new to add to either of their explanations.
  5. @Retreadfed Your posts are confusing this issue - I think you're either missing or ignoring the information provided by the OP and the piecemeal posting plus the pseudo hypothetical debate you're having with joel is not providing coherent information or advice for the OP. Emphasis added above - how did you arrive at this conclusion? The contractor listed the incorrect bond percentage of 4%...why are you considering that "accurate" cost or pricing data? I think you need to reread the OP's clarifying post:
  6. Well no wonder everyone is talking past one another on this thread...
  7. What are you trying to say here? Clearly the contractor's cost or pricing data was not accurate as they erroneously used 4% instead of 0.4% for the bond percentage.
  8. Why do you find (1) and (2) questionable? If I understand the scenario: On (1), the bond percentage did impact the proposed/negotiated price so it is cost or pricing data...aka a fact that one would reasonably expect to affect price negotiations significantly (the bond percentage is factual and verifiable which is how the contractor discovered it as a mistake). The OP stated that the contractor provided a certificate of current cost or pricing data. On (2) the correct bond percentage was available to the contractor before the agreement on price (they used 4% instead of 0.4% because of a typo). Did I miss something? Read 15.502 "Applicability" - while the subpart technically applies to competitive proposals it goes on to read "the procedures in...15.508...with reasonable modification, should be followed for sole source acquisitions..." (Note: this is a crucial habit to learn - ALWAYS read the Scope, Applicability and Definitions [SAD] of any FAR Part/Subpart first). I think the question at hand is, what do you think the right way to approach this situation is? If the contractor was forthcoming with identifying the mistake and earnestly wants to rectify it, I don't know of a rule or regulation that prohibits you from doing so; however, if the contractor identified is not cooperating, I think you could make an argument for defective pricing to either encourage them to cooperate or else... I would opt for the former vs either of the latter...a defective pricing battle is no way to start a contractual relationship (but if it is necessary, the Contracting Officer has an obligation to recoup the excess amount).
  9. Odds are @NenaLenz is (or advises/represents) the supplier of the prosthetic that physician put on the prescription, but didn't receive the purchase order.
  10. Because the form asks for one and due to poor workforce education programs, some reviewer is going to mark up the organization during an inspection for not citing an authority or citing the wrong authority (in his/her opinion). That may seem silly, but it's the reality in many organizations which is why someone started this thread in the first place - they don't want to make a mistake.
  11. Emphasis added - Vern's blog is no longer available...if it was, there was a nice post about how the FAR applies to contractors/subcontractors only when incorporated via provisions/clauses (with some exceptions). Absent that, here is an NCMA article about the issue: http://www.wifcon.com/analy/Christoph LLC_Does the FAR Apply to Fed Contractors_NCMA Oct2017.pdf
  12. This is a great example of confirmation bias - when you go searching for the answer you want, rather than the answer that is right, you're bound to find it...
  13. Yes and many often do, particularly in contingency environments. The "check and balance" is the certificate of appointment. If a CO needs a CS to make sure that the CO doesn't do anything improper, something is seriously wrong.
  14. You should know your people better than anyone here on the WIFCON forums. No one here can accurately answer that question for you (unless your BD people happen to be posters on this forum). Leadership, education, feedback, incentives, accountability, etc. These answers and any others you may receive here are just going to be generic hypotheses out of a leadership/management playbook.
  • Create New...