Jump to content
The Wifcon Forums and Blogs

REA'n Maker

  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

0 Neutral

About REA'n Maker

  • Rank

Profile Information

  • Gender
  • Location

Recent Profile Visitors

2,471 profile views
  1. So when you contract with a dedicated carrier for Transportation Services (IAW FAR 47) you "acquire a tangible item" (the truck), ergo, a supply? “Service contract” means a contract that directly engages the time and effort of a contractor whose primary purpose is to perform an identifiable task rather than to furnish an end item of supply. Primary purpose: provide a backhoe for a specified period of time.
  2. Is the point of this question that the MPT is $3500, the GPC may be used for procurments under the MPT, but the GPC limitation for actions subject to the SCA is only $2500? If this thread was about proper use of the GPC, that would be relevant; however, as it relates to the question of whether an equipment rental is a supply or service, it doesn't seem relevant. I'm not following the meaning of GPC rules and MPT thresholds "differing". They are two different things.
  3. Not this reader. My opinion is that you are making artificial distinctions between "obligating" (or is it "funding"?) and "recording" (or is it "obligating"), based on a process time lag that may be milliseconds or...never... Are you suggesting that people are making awards without fund cites?
  4. Many, many agencies have local clauses that require CO approval of press releases related to contract awards, as well as the contractor use of agency seals, etc. I'm not aware of any FAR/Agency level clauses that restrict press releases. My advice would be to be very careful not to miss a local clause buried in the BOA or an individual order.
  5. The SCA doesn't apply to professional consulting services either, i.e., SCA applicability has nothing to do with the GPC rules.
  6. If the price is expressed in terms of a period of performance, it's not a supply. You are paying for the rights to use the item for a specified period of time (a service), not 'acquiring a tangible item' (a supply). No one would ever classify 'data rights' as a supply simply because data is tangible. I'm not sure why it has to be 'treated as a supply' simply because SCA is not applicable. SCA is not applicable because labor is not involved. That's like saying database subscriptions should be 'treated as a supply for purposes of SCA applicability' Regarding leases, a lessor pays rent on a lease for a conveyance of property, which is the legal process of transferring property from one owner to another (in this context, for a specified period). If you rent a backhoe and it seizes because someone forgot to put oil in it, it's not your problem. If you lease a backhoe and it seizes because someone forgot to put oil in it, it is your problem.
  7. If the government doesn't end up with government-accountable property, it's a service; in this case, the use of a piece of equipment for a specified period of time after which the government has no further claim. Ownership stays with the renter. If you rented the backhoe but never used it, it would cost the same, correct? Don't conflate the acquisition (rental) with the item (backhoe). You're not getting a backhoe; you're getting use of it for a time. SCA/Walsh-Healy weren't part of the OP's scenario. GSA certainly thinks rental is a service:
  8. Looks like a BOA to me https://www.acquisition.gov/content/part-16-types-contracts#i1103595
  9. This sounds like a terrible idea. Why waste time with an RFQ at all? If you know the hours, why not just give it to the guy with the lowest rates? Providing an 'estimate' in a LH procurement is gaming the process enough as it is, but mandating hours and asking for a rate proposal to determine an award using taxpayer dollars is just asking for a smack down. All it takes is a protest to put the whole thing out into the public sphere.
  10. Commerciality, level of competition, dollar thresholds, supplier power, and CO discretion are also relevant to this discussion.
  11. As a practical matter, I believe that a review of the SOW and the associated market research would be the starting point towards answering that question.
  12. The question is a tad vague, wouldn't you say? constitute [ kon-sti-toot, -tyoot ] verb (used with object), con·sti·tut·ed, con·sti·tut·ing. to compose; form:mortar constituted of lime and sand. to appoint to an office or function; make or create:He was constituted treasurer. to establish (laws, an institution, etc.). to give legal form to (an assembly, court, etc.). to create or be tantamount to:Imports constitute a challenge to local goods. Archaic. to set or place. “Option” means a unilateral right in a contract by which, for a specified time, the Government may elect to purchase additional supplies or services called for by the contract, or may elect to extend the term of the contract.
  13. Are you saying that you trade off "travel" with "qualifications"? As Joel summarizes above, the best you could evaluate travel is a yardstick/JTR approach to ensure consistency, so why use it as a criteria? One guy proposes bus travel and the other guy proposes air travel. Do you really want to get into a trade off analysis of those two approaches? To what end?
  14. In the acquisition world, isn't an apportionment synonymous with a commitment (i.e., appropriations are apportioned into discrete commitments)?
  15. Add me to the list of readers not believing the word "funding" is meaningful in the procurement realm. It is merely short-hand customers use to describe budgeting, commitment, obligation, expenditure, and/or disbursement. When someone has an "unfunded requirement", it means a project with no funding component identified. Sponsors fund; customers fund; Congress funds. Procurement starts with a commitment of funds, not "funding". Now; let's discuss the meaning* of the term "allotted funds" as used in 52.232-22 -- Limitation of Funds.... (* NOT "definition")
  • Create New...