sackanator

That answers that one. Kinda weird why they would do that.

notice in the Federal Register -- unsolicited recommendations. I haven't, wanted to verify in here that I wasn't crazy first before doing anything else.

Following guidance for subdivisions for sequence. FAR 1.105-2(b) (2) Subdivisions below the section or subsection level consist of parenthetical alpha numerics using the following sequence: (a)(1)(i)(A)(1)(i) FAR 10.002 goes to paragraph (e) like below...., then goes to another Subsection. (e) The head of the agency shall document the results of market research in a manner appropriate to the size and complexity of the acquisition. 10.003 Contract clause. -------------------------------------------------- Looking at DFARS again. DFARS 210.002 "Procedures" (e)(i) Based off FAR .105-2(b) shouldn't DFARS paragraph be (e)(1) instead of (e)(i)? Is it just me or are there quite a few mistakes in this supplemental sub-part?

Using Acquisition.gov and pulling up the FAR and DFARS. DFARS states the following 210.001 Policy.(c)(2) In addition to the notification requirements at FAR 10.001(c)(2)(i) and (ii), see 205.205-70 for the bundling notification publication requirement. Bold and underline for emphasis. FAR Part 10.001 Policy. (c) If an agency contemplates consolidation or bundling, the agency— (1) When performing market research, should consult with the agency small business specialist and the local Small Business Administration procurement center representative (PCR). If a PCR is not assigned, see 19.402(a); and (2) Shall notify any affected incumbent small business concerns of the Government's intention to bundle the requirement and how small business concerns may contact the appropriate Small Business Administration procurement center representative (see 7.107-5(a)). (d) See 10.003 for the requirement for a prime contractor to perform market research in contracts in excess of $6 million, other than contracts for the acquisition of commercial products or commercial services (section 826 of Pub. L. 110-181). The subparagraphs (i) and (ii) don't exist. I thought sometimes that acquisitions.gov is off or has small corrections in places but then verified with the eCFR title 48 chapter 1 "FAR" and chapter 2 "DFARS" and they are the same. How does one go about letting the site know that their publication is incorrect? Also DFARS 210.001(a)(ii) doesn't seem to match with the FAR section.

When I issued the Delivery Order I didn't include that statement, that's would be the only thing that would make me think that it wasn't a proper rated order.

Had the DFAR version of the clause 252.216-7006 ORDERING (no longer exists) (b) All delivery orders or task orders are subject to the terms and conditions of this contract. In the event of conflict between a delivery order or task order and this contract, the contract shall control. So, basically yes. Thanks Vern.

So after going to CHESS to look at the contract I now have to use a hypothetical since the specific contract that started this conversation does not have 52.211-15 but block 13a-b on the 1449 are filled in affirming that it is a rated order. (think they were burning the midnight oil on these since one of them list DO-A6 "Ammunition" as the program). Whether its still a rated order without the clause could be an interesting side discussion but the question would still remain, if the IDC is rated, would the delivery orders be rated as well?

Yes, thought I re-read my post enough times to catch those kind of mistakes

Does a delivery order with a DPAS rating flow down to all delivery order used against it? For this example the Army Computer Hardware Enterprise Software and Solutions (CHESS) program has several IDIQs under Army Desktop and Mobile Computing-3 (ADMC-3). AFARS 39 requires we use the CHESS for ordering our IT equipment. From what I have seen all the IDC contracts under the ADMC-3 are DPAS rated. I assume that all orders off any of the base contracts would be considered a DPAS rated order under DOA7. I have looked over provided material from previous threads related to DPAS and nothing says unequivocally that the DPAS rating flows down with the Delivery Order but it seems strongly implied. Two of the most prominent examples 1- https://www.bis.doc.gov/index.php/documents/other-areas/strategic-industries-and-economic-security/1615-dpas-training-slides/file slide 40 states "•A ‘‘requirements contract,” ‘‘basic ordering agreement,” ‘‘prime vendor contract,” or similar procurement document bearing a priority rating may contain no specific delivery date or dates and may provide for the furnishing of items from time-to-time or within a stated period against specific purchase orders, such as ‘‘calls,” ‘‘requisitions,’’ and ‘‘delivery orders.’’ -- sub bullet then states "These purchase orders must specify a required delivery date or dates and are to be considered as rated as of the date of their receipt by the supplier and not as of the date of the original procurement document." To me indicates the delivery order defines the delivery date of the DPAS rated base, why add in the DPAS rating to the Delivery Order/Call. 2- DoD 4400.1-M C3.2.1. Procuring Activities SHALL assign a priority rating to all defense contracts and purchase orders, except ... (leaving out the exception language) so if we are required to assign a priority rating and its in the base contract why wouldn't it be in the delivery orders. Further down in the same policy it does state concerning computers C3.2.2. l. Procuring Activities shall assign priority ratings only when the computer system and/or peripheral equipment will be integral to an end item that is necessary for: C3.2.2.1. l. Strategic or tactical military operations. C3.2.2. l .2. Logistics support of military operations. Summary Reason asking is vendor stated that she received guidance from the CHESS program that delivery orders had to individually have the DPAS rating. I am not sure why you would have a rating in the base contract and then have to put them in all the delivery orders when DoD 4400.1 and 15 CFR 700 seem to state that you shall use the DPAS rating (baring that none of the exceptions apply).

The way this one works is the rates for the disciplines is negotiated as fully burdened. Each task order is then issued as a Firm FIxed Price based on the labor hours required for each discipline (plus other additional costs such as DVD's, prints and travel). So for example the A&E for a project proposes 6 hours for Senior Electrical Engineer and 7 hours for Electrical Engineer IV. The Government determines that more work could be done by the Electrical Engineer IV and negotiates the A&E down to Senior Electrical Engineer 4 hours and Electrical Engineer IV at 8 hours (also reducing the total hours for Electrical Engineer required). Its not a Labor Hours because we don't pay for the hours, they are only used as part of the negotiation for the total price. I've only touched A&E working in NGB so this is the process I am familiar with.

After this thread I can't really see any good reason, the concern was if negotiating rates was a scope change, if is was a scope change would the Brooks Act effect dealing with the current awardee to where we would have to reach out to the other vendors that we held discussions with. I believe those concerns have reasonably been addressed. I get a sense that forwarding established pricing/rates into the (-8) isn't completely settled or not all agencies are on board, our policy folks in Bureau seem to lean more towards they don't flow and requests that they be priced. Even though this is an IDIQ, options were established (again not how I would have done it). The way the rates are specified is by option year/period, could I then use option year 1 rates for my (-8) period. A reasonable person would assume that you use the latter rates but the way the clause is phrased one may take that literal sense of the term and make an argument for doing such. Tried to respond all day and this was the first time I could log in.

After this thread I can't really see any good reason, the concern was if negotiating rates was a scope change, if is was a scope change would the Brooks Act effect dealing with the current awardee to where we would have to reach out to the other vendors that we held discussions with. I believe those concerns have reasonably been addressed. Seems that forwarding established pricing/rates into the (-8) isn't completely settled, our policy folks in Bureau tend to lean more towards they don't flow. Even though this is an IDIQ, options were established (again not how I would have done it). The way the rates are specified is by option year/period, could I then use option year 1 rates for my (-8) period. A reasonable person would assume that you use the latter rates but the way the clause is phrased one may take that literal sense of the term and make an argument for doing such.

After this thread I can't really see any good reason, the concern was if negotiating rates was a scope change, if is was a scope change would the Brooks Act effect dealing with the current awardee to where we would have to reach out to the other vendors that we held discussions with. I believe those concerns have reasonably been addressed.

At least to the extent where I incorrectly represent the facts right. Are there any good books/material that provide historical content to certain FAR/DFARS sections other than going back in time through all the Federal Registers (which is hard to navigate for me) and Federal Acquisition Circular. This would help on something I've been kicking around doing, a training session on Clause/Provisions. We all know where 52.204-(24-26) come from but not the intent/reason behind a lot of the other ones. While providing feed back to Contract Specialist for awards I KO I always provide comments and FAR references on why I am requiring the changes/corrections.

At least to the extent where I incorrectly represent the facts right. Are there any good books/material that provide historical content to certain FAR/DFARS sections other than going back in time through all the Federal Registers (which is hard to navigate for me) and Federal Acquisition Circular. This would help on something I've been kicking around doing, a training session on Clause/Provisions. We all know where 52.204-(24-26) come from but not the intent/reason behind a lot of the other ones. While providing feed back to Contract Specialist for awards I KO I always provide comments and FAR references on why I am requiring the changes/corrections.