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

The recent visitors block is disabled and is not being shown to other users.

  1. This whole case is very obtuse - the contractor is not saying that the government actually did anything to harm them under the terms of the contract, but that the government owed them money under the terms of an accounting standards clause that had nothing to do with actual performance ("a failure to intervene in a qui tam action"). It also introduces the concept of an FFP being immutable regardless of circumstance. I had an REA filed against one of my contracts back in the early 90's, but it was related to a defective data package provided as GFI. The contractor had very detailed cost records related to their diagnosis and corrective action, related to building compliant rocket solid motors ("compliant" in this case meaning "motors that don't blow up" 😁). This one seems to have started in relation to a data package, but that issue kind of faded into the background quickly. Was anyone else startled to read this part?: Part 50 doesn't predicate rights to an adjustment on a modification being issued. Does anyone know what the referenced decision says in full? (e.g., does it talk about "implied" or "constructive" modifications?) In the meantime, I'm going to pop some corn and watch this drama unfold in the COFC.
  2. REA'n Maker

    Advice on Job Offer

    Having worked both places, and having completed my contracting internship there, I would recommend DoD. Stay away from the Pentagon though.
  3. REA'n Maker

    Commercial FFP - why?

    It sounds a lot like contractor-run depot maintenance. For Naval aviation anyway, we used Basic Ordering Agreements, under which we could issue orders for teardown and the resulting maintenance as separate actions. Many times the maintenance part ended up being ceiling-priced based on an FFP per hour estimate, with consumables and parts priced at-cost.
  4. REA'n Maker

    Option Year Renewal

    To what end? Are you actually going to throw a sub off the contract based on their re-bid? What does your subcontract agreement say about options? Did you include the quals of your sub(s) in your proposal/quote? I would be worried about creating the impression in the client's mind that the prime was pulling a bait-and-switch, i.e., it looks kind of sneaky.
  5. REA'n Maker

    Amended Solicitation - Fair Opportunity

    I told them the basis for my decision in this example: price and delivery for a compliant product, i.e., give me your best price for your best delivery. There is nothing in the FAR which requires a (literal) calculated decision below $5M. And the FAR allows "broad" discretion at that.
  6. REA'n Maker

    Amended Solicitation - Fair Opportunity

    I can say the procedure involves "the best value combination of price and delivery" and leave it at that. I wasn't suggesting I can decide after I get the offers; I was saying that I can set the general parameters of what I will look at and use CO discretion based on the responses. Fair Opportunity is the only real requirement for a 16.505 Order. Per your cite:
  7. Why would you want to state 'target qualifications', unless you are saying that qualifications that exceed the target are not desirable?
  8. REA'n Maker

    Amended Solicitation - Fair Opportunity

    Why would I box myself in with contract language when I am allowed to use my professional judgement based on the specifics of the scenario at hand? 1102's are at the top of the government pay scale for a good reason.
  9. REA'n Maker

    Amended Solicitation - Fair Opportunity

    The answer in regard to 16.505 competitions is "whatever approach is in the best interests of the Government". If you think it might result in a better price, send out to all who you originally sent it to - why not? Unless it's over $10M... Part 16.505 is as close to exercising common business sense as the Government gets. Learn it. Live it. Love it.
  10. REA'n Maker

    New, More Specific Questions About An RFQ

    I've seen potential vendors go to their counterparts in the program office with questions, thinking that doing so is synonymous with "responding to a solicitation". I ignore any question that comes in through that route, simply because I'm not convinced that the question is being posed by an individual authorized by the vendor to submit one.
  11. "Upgrades" in DoD typically refer to system capability enhancements (e.g., "Tomahawk Block IV upgrade"), which are typically done at the Department, Program Office level (Navy PEO-T, etc.) As Vern mentions, DLA typically takes over procurement responsibility from the Departments once a system/item moves to the sustainment stage of the product life cycle; oftentimes these items are common across Departments. You originally made it sound like end-of-life replacement of an obsolete item. So are you "upgrading" systems, or "replacing" items with a similar (currently available) capability?
  12. You could always include "FAR 52.217-10 Vulcan Mind Meld (Sep 1966)" . (I hereby declare this horse "dead").
  13. Nothing in your anecdotes has anything to do with the point of professional services not being readily transferable to a "backup". I've actually written these types of contracts for physicians at the VA, and they are comparable to personal services. So no, I'm not grasping.
  14. Whoever issues licenses to practice medicine. So you're saying that every position has to actually be filled by 2 people, who are certified in advance, so that in case one is out, the other can parachute in at a moment's notice?
  15. Let me know how that goes. "Substitute Doctor" isn't really a professional designation I'm familiar with. Who certifies on a moment's notice that Dr. Backup is qualified? Nothing says quality patient care like the words "Hello; you don't know me, and I've never seen you before in my life and am not familiar with your case, but you'll be putting your life in my hands until further notice".