Jump to content
The Wifcon Forums and Blogs


  • Posts

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Recent Profile Visitors

3,221 profile views
  1. ji20874, Yes, that would better condense my question. Navy, They wouldn't be 5 additional purchases, they'd be 5 modifications of the same contract. But I understand your point. Retreadfed, Section (e)(1) of the clause read "...advance of placing an subcontract or modification thereof...", hence the question which ji put much more eloquently than I. Modifications are addressed in two places in the clause before (e)(1), both in the definition. The first is the reference to Subpart 2.1 and the second is the reference to "...changes or modifications to purchase orders." I do attribute significance to the specific mention of modifications in (e)(1), especially given that the definition talks about certain modifications being considered "subcontracts". I don't think the Council would be redundant in this case if they didn't intend to call special attention to modifications.
  2. So, then under that logic a contractor could potentially execute a fixed-price subcontract for $155,000, and then modify that subcontract 5 times adding $100,000 each time, and never have to notify the USG. That seems like it's not what the clause is intended to do.
  3. Hey All, Got a question related to the interpretation of FAR 52.244-2 and want to get the sagacious advice of the broader CO community. FAR 52.244-2(e)1) reads "The Contractor shall notify the Contracting Officer reasonably in advance of placing any subcontract or modification thereof for which consent is required under paragraph (, ©, or (d) of this clause, including the following information:" Now, I interpret that to mean that any modification of a subcontract which consent was originally required, requires additional advanced notification. DCMA also interprets it this way (see DCMA-INST 143 Section 2.2.1). Some even go further and say that consent is required for those modifications. I understand that this may be administratively burdensome, but one could tweak the interpretation to say that only all non-administrative modifications to those subcontracts (e.g. any modification that changes scope, price/cost, or period of performance) require the advance notice. I have a contractor (a fairly large one) pushing back on this interpretation. The say: "Once the original consent is received, bilateral fixed price modifications require consent under the same parameters as the original subcontract consent requirements at 52.244-2. It would be impractical and administratively burdensome for COs to have to consent to EVERY single increase in an already approved fixed price subcontract, which is why the FAR defines the requirements for approval of fixed price modifications at the same levels as the original consent requirements, i.e. above $150,000 for. Put another way, the Prime may elect to have a separate fixed price subcontract issued under the small purchase threshold to the same supplier and not require consent per 52.244-2, so issuing a fixed price modification would be no different. The regulatory parameters work out as follows: The definition of “contract” under FAR Subpart 2.1 includes “bilateral modifications”, i.e. modifications signed by both parties. Such modifications meet definition of “contract” under FAR Subpart 2.1 and, therefore, meet the definition of “subcontract” under FAR 52-244-2 (a) for the purpose of consent requirement. As such, the Contracting Officer’s consent is required for subcontracts AND bilateral modifications that are either 1) cost reimbursable, time and materials or labor-hour type of any value, or 2) fixed price AND either exceeds the simplified acquisition threshold (currently set at $150,000) or exceeds 5% of the total estimated price of the prime (See FAR 52.244-2 ©(2)(ii))." As some background, this is a T&M contract and the contractor does not have an approved purchasing system. This is for a particular subcontract (fixed-price over $150,000), but I'm more interested in the larger interpretation. So, what do you all think? PS: Sorry for the fairly long post.
  4. Hey Folks, Is it possible (read legal) to incrementally fund a construction contract with a performance period of less than 6 months? My gut says no since it's non-severable, but I wanted to reach out to the community to get other opinions. I know it's not intelligent to incrementally fund it, but I'm looking for anything which explicitly makes it illegal. Thanks!
  5. Hi All, Is it possible to evaluate past performance on a pass/fail basis in a Part 15 competition (trade-off, not LPTA)? I don't see anything wrong with it as long as it is disclosed in the RFP, but some of our policy folks are queasy about it.
  6. We would be in the process of tracking down the GSA CO and the relevant schedule contract to answer your question. Would it apply even if it isn't included since it's required under 16.506(e)? Thanks for your insight =)
  7. Got a "hypothetical" for you all: Okay, suppose you have a task order with a few option years under a GSA schedule. When it comes time to exercise one of the options, you discover that the schedule has expired and the vendor chose not to renew and is refusing to accept the exercise of the option saying they are unable to do so for the above reason. Ignoring the obvious boo boo, i.e. that the expiration date of the schedule should have been taken into account at the award of the task order, does the Government loose its unilateral right to exercise the option? Is there any recourse? Thanks in advance for your wisdom =)
  8. This is my first post on the WIFCON forums so try not to beat me up too horribly =) I agree that the acquisition corps idea does have a few drawbacks, but I believe that the overall benefit would far outweigh the costs. Organizing a central corps would be a great way to recruit a younger generation into the field given that it would offer a culture more akin to what the millennial generation is looking for in a job i.e. flexibility, mobility, new experiences, etc. It also would allow for the phasing out of bad habits, since a rotating cadre would naturally promulgate best practices, exactly the way major consulting corporations do. The reliance on contractor support could also be reduced as this would give agencies a ?surge? capability. There are internal processes and agency-specific idiosyncrasies that each contracting office possesses which would require revamps to the on boarding and transition process, but these could be handled even by the central office. Other issues would mainly revolve around fees charged, supervision, reporting, etc., but should be minor in nature. In essence, it would be run just like a Booz Allen, McKinsey, or BCG (to include the more stringent performance standards and requirements). The main hurdle will be more cultural and political than anything else as it would inevitably result in the loss of business for some contractors who provide exactly this kind of support and who are also very well connected.
  • Create New...