Jump to content
The Wifcon Forums and Blogs

Matthew Fleharty

Members
  • Content Count

    503
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by Matthew Fleharty

  1. Even if they do what you want, none of that information is a binding promise so it basically amounts to a sales pitch. I don’t think either of us is going to convince the other of our respective positions - basically, you just want the contractor to tell you things that will make you feel good about your decision which I think is distinctly different than getting information that will help you make a better decision.
  2. Why even evaluate approach as a separate factor when you can get the same information more accurately through a past performance and experience evaluation?
  3. I’m with Don on this one - evaluating an approach or plan (particularly since most of them are not promises) is not only wasted time and effort, it actually introduces noise to the decision making process.
  4. What is the source for your definition of "stand-alone contract"?
  5. 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.
  6. 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?
  7. 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.
  8. @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:
  9. Well no wonder everyone is talking past one another on this thread...
  10. 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.
  11. 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).
  12. 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.
  13. 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.
  14. 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
  15. 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...
  16. 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.
  17. 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.
  18. Are you sure that a contractor is entitled to an equitable adjustment? If the Government exercises an option not in accordance with the terms of the contract and the contractor begins performing, can that contractor come back at a later date (but within 30 days) and request an equitable adjustment to the contract? If so, according to what clause?
  19. Based on your latest post, do nothing until you’re in receipt of an Order.
  20. There is nothing cruel or hateful in my remarks @here_2_help
  21. Well there is a Beginner's Forum for that reason - any post outside that section I assume that person should know the basics of contracting. My experiences are anecdotal, but it seems there is a growing tendency to just ask for answers rather than contemplate and critically think. When I see a post that is literally a one sentence question, that screams to me "easy button." The more we cater to that, the more we're going to get those sorts of questions - I think we all should expect more from individuals in this profession.
  22. You want to modify the contract and you didn't think about "consideration?" That's Contracting 101 - "consideration" is found in every single Elements of a Contract list I've ever seen. What I'm seeing more and more on this forum is people aren't thinking - they're just coming here to ask for free advice and for someone else to do their thinking for them. This discussion forum would be much more vibrant and beneficial for all if it wasn't devolving into predominantly simple, half-baked Q&As...
  23. FAR 1.102-4 (e) "The FAR outlines procurement policies and procedures that are used by members of the Acquisition Team. If a policy or procedure, or a particular strategy or practice, is in the best interest of the Government and is not specifically addressed in the FAR, nor prohibited by law (statute or case law), Executive order or other regulation, Government members of the Team should not assume it is prohibited. Rather, absence of direction should be interpreted as permitting the Team to innovate and use sound business judgment that is otherwise consistent with law and within the limits of their authority. Contracting officers should take the lead in encouraging business process innovations and ensuring that business decisions are sound." See FAR 15.201 (e) "RFIs may be used when the Government does not presently intend to award a contract, but wants to obtain price, delivery, other market information, or capabilities for planning purposes. Responses to these notices are not offers and cannot be accepted by the Government to form a binding contract. There is no required format for RFIs." (emphasis added)
×
×
  • Create New...