.gif)
Matthew Fleharty
-
Posts
563 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Blogs
Events
Store
Breaking News
Posts posted by Matthew Fleharty
-
-
14 minutes ago, CSJas said:
Can COs work on their own?
Yes and many often do, particularly in contingency environments.
14 minutes ago, CSJas said:I do know that this could be a bad idea because there should be checks and balances in place for ethical reasons.
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.
-
1 hour ago, rsenn said:
Why do they resist negotiating something more defined and enforceable?
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).
1 hour ago, rsenn said:What will it take to change their behavior?
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.
-
2 hours ago, Retreadfed said:
If the current POP expires before you get funds obligated for the option, do you expect the contractor to continue working?
ji is generally correct in what he has stated, however, if the option is not exercised in accordance with the terms of the contract, the contractor is entitled to an equitable adjustment to the contract. Thus, you may get the option, but not at the price you thought.
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?
-
6 hours ago, mrahel said:
What are my next steps, if any?
Based on your latest post, do nothing until you’re in receipt of an Order.
-
42 minutes ago, here_2_help said:
Do you deny you eat pears?
I plead the Fifth 😉
-
There is nothing cruel or hateful in my remarks @here_2_help
-
28 minutes ago, here_2_help said:
Matthew Fleharty,
While you're not wrong, I think you don't take into account that not everybody here has had CON training. Perhaps we can think of this forum as an opportunity to give out some knowledge (to the extent we have any) and learn 'em up.
Also, please consider changing your user name to "VERN JUNIOR"
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.
-
18 minutes ago, Jo Brown said:
I hadn't thought about the "consideration" part. This is a 10 year contract and we are at the 5th year where the caps come into play from year 5 on out. We would like to be able to ask them to remove the caps so we can adjust them accordingly due to inflation, etc., I don't know what consideration we could offer, most the clins are FFP.
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...
-
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."
10 minutes ago, Joe2713 said:Which brings up another question: If the contracting activity 'accepts' a RFI response from a supplier who did not meet timeliness, size limitations/other instructions, etc., and that same supplier offers and is awarded a contract per an RFQ/RFP developed through RFI responses received from multiple suppliers, including said supplier that didn't follow instructions, could this suggest a prejudice in the evaluation process and open the government to a bid protest?
Thank you for considering the information in this long winded question.
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)
-
25 minutes ago, Don Mansfield said:
I think you are making overly broad conclusions about the 1102 series based on limited experience.
Don's correct. In this case, a sample size of 1.
-
2 hours ago, Jamaal Valentine said:
I am not sure why you are limiting your thinking about options. Anchoring is powerful, but so is personal incredulity.
Since you asked, this is certainly one area where you erred @Jamaal Valentine. I wish you well thinking about this issue, but I'm through here.
-
@Jamaal Valentine don’t escalate your commitment on this one. The two examples you provide don’t work and I have no idea what you may think fits into “etc.” Absent another example this discussion is only going to get more confusing and send readers down the wrong rabbit hole.
A fundamental principle concerning options is that they are exercised in strict accordance with the terms and conditions of the contract (so no changes and, therefore, no applicability of 52.212-4(c)). I have no idea what you’re talking about when you mention options governed by 52.212-4(c) via tailoring, but if you have an example you should provide it...
As for terminations, your last point is merely that people may disagree as to whether an action is a partial termination (governed by it’s own respective authority, not 52.212-4(c)) or a change (governed by 52.212-4(c)). I don’t see how that adds substantively to the discussion and I think trying to conflate the two will only serve to confuse people.
Anchoring is a powerful bias, but you must fight it.
-
On 12/15/2018 at 8:39 PM, Jamaal Valentine said:
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.
Jamaal, I don’t think that’s the right discussion to have. Are options and terminations governed by 52.212-4(c)?
-
On 12/3/2018 at 5:54 PM, Don Mansfield said:
Thanks, Matthew. Now when are you going to do my new Problem of the Day?
Looks like someone beat me to it, I’ll try to be quicker on the next one. You know I enjoy them 😁
-
21 hours ago, Lionel Hutz said:
Giving KOs warrants but not adequate experience and training to maintain capability commensurate to the warrant and then asking them to step in when needed increases risk to the agency.
Lionel, I think you’re putting the cart before the horse...my position, and I think Jamaal’s (though I’ll let him speak for himself) is that if a person has adequate experience and training why does it drive increased risk to give that individual a warrant commensurate with that person’s abilities?
-
The answer is context dependent. Some requirements and specifications for systems (think aircraft or spacecraft design or quantum computing) require terminology that will naturally reduce readability - I don’t think it is reasonable to assume the Government should write those solicitations at a Grade 7-8 reading level.
Ultimately, the Government should strive to be an attractive business partner and readability of solicitations is certainly part of that; however, I think one standard to rule them all would have second and third order effects that could reduce the accuracy of a solicitation in an attempt to enhance accessibility.
-
@jwomack Your anecdotes don't match the assertion you made. The explanation you provided is about warranting (or giving too high of a warrant to) unqualified individuals...that's a different discussion than warranting qualified individuals above "what's necessary."
-
12 hours ago, jwomack said:
Issuing warrants above what’s necessary increases risk to the agency.
This is a claim without any adequate support (factual or logical). Care to elaborate?
-
What's the law/rule they cited? Or did they cite one? If so, can you provide it here?
-
3 hours ago, Corduroy Frog said:
SBA is telling the owner that she must pay herself more than absolutely anyone who works in her company and gets a W-2.
Has the SBA cited a rule for this? There are CEOs in the commercial world that earn $1 salaries:
-
Here we go again with one of @PepeTheFrog's favorite talking points...Next up, negotiation = deception...
-
Almost, you just have to be careful to enunciate.
What about HRFRP (Highest Rated w/ Fair and Reasonable Price)?
For some reason four to five letters seems like the limit unless it spells a word...
-
I've used HTRRP (Highest Technically Rated, Reasonable Price)...it flows a bit better than HTRFRP and still gets the "reasonable price" component in there (whereas HTR, by itself, does not).
-
32 minutes ago, MileHighAcq said:
here's what I wanted to say above:
To clarify, you're saying it's acceptable for a buyer to get competitive bids, and in an LPTA environment, simply order the bids by price, start with the lowest price and award to the first technically acceptable offer they come across without looking at the other bids at all? From a technical standpoint, this could ensure that the buyer gets a technically acceptable product, but from a price perspective, how could the buyer be sure that the price is the lowest price without having received at least one other technically acceptable bid?
The point of my "inapt" analogy is that the process you describe could ensure that you get a technically acceptable product, but not that you got it at the lowest price.
Short of engaging in discussions/negotiations (which is a completely different topic) how would assessing higher priced proposals for their technical acceptability result in awarding a contract for a lower price than the Lowest Priced Technically Acceptable offer?
Out of Scope Period of Performance Extension
in Contract Administration
Posted
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...