Jump to content
The Wifcon Forums and Blogs

FAR-flung 1102

Members
  • Posts

    121
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Recent Profile Visitors

2,823 profile views
  1. I like it. ...And it's simple enough that I'd like to genuinely encourage multiple offers from an offeror at least as much as is done now in the standard commercial instructions, as a means of generating better industry solutions.
  2. Patrick3, is this most recent question about an in scope modification? This fiscal rules pertaining to bona fide need might be different than first impressions would suggest.http://www.wifcon.com/bona/bonafide7.htm
  3. With the DoD change from ECMRA reporting to SCR, there is now a $3M threshold and not every product service code (PSC) that required reporting under ECMRA is reportable under DoD's SCR. https://sam.gov/SAM/transcript/SCR_OSG.pdf That link should get you to the Quick Start guide where the above info is discussed. Note that the DoD and Federal SCR requirements are not identical.
  4. DBA is not limited to only it's geographic scope, but also includes the scope considerations of the various Davis Bacon related Acts that can include OCONUS: https://www.dol.gov/whd/programs/dbra/whatdbra.htm
  5. Here's an assertion for you...Nobody knows how to make a pencil. One of my favorite essays ever: https://oll.libertyfund.org/title/read-i-pencil-my-family-tree-as-told-to-leonard-e-read-dec-1958
  6. Stay tuned...there is an open DFARS Case 2019-D034 on the topic. "212, 236, 252 (S) Preference for Commercial Construction Services Partially implements section 876 of the NDAA for FY 2017 (Pub. L. 114-328) regarding the preference for the acquisition of commercial construction services. 04/19/2021 DARS Regulatory Control Officer identified issues with draft proposed rule to case manager. Case manager and DARS Regulatory Control Officer resolving issues."
  7. I'm not convinced this is a small matter. Indemnification is only a part of the larger issue the Federal Government has with routine terms of Commercial Supplier Agreements, Terms of Service, EULAs and other like terms usually found in online agreements. In 2015 GSA identified 15 common terms it takes exception to as incompatible with federal law, below is the initial action taken (Class Deviation) and the below that the 2018 Final Rule. https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&url=https://www.gsa.gov/cdnstatic/insite/MV-15-03.pdf&ved=2ahUKEwiXrtup6ZfwAhU9ITQIHQFEAlYQFjAAegQIBhAC&usg=AOvVaw1ob28-WHisQyxZKSBV6KId https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2018/02/22/2018-03350/general-services-administration-acquisition-regulation-unenforceable-commercial-supplier-agreement The tactic used by GSA is to render is to render such agreements unenforceable. At what cost does this solution come? Availability of commercial goods and services won't help the Government much if year by year more and more of the potential solutions remain out of reach due only to online terms which the Government continues to treat as alien. This issue won't go away until the Government learns a few new skills (both legislative and administrative) and models compatibility with online markets. Only then can innovation take center stage and the Government hope to keep pace at the speed of relevance.
  8. For reference see https://www.acq.osd.mil/dpap/cpic/cp/docs/New_Contractor_Manpower_Memo_16_Oct_2019.pdf which explains the threshold change, reporting criteria and mentions that further implementing guidance, a DFARS rule and contract clause implementing the change from ECMRA to SAM are all in the works.
  9. Implement a standard practice where the unsuccessful protestor pays the reasonable proximate costs incurred. No settlement fee in advance. Hand the filer a good faith estimate of the potential cost to them (and likelihood) of various outcomes, then they decide their course of action....
  10. How about this what if: "I'm going to a training conference in two months...registration is expected to fill up a month before the conference. Can I pay the registration fee via GPC? I have a travel card, but don't expect to get orders until a few days before I travel."
  11. Government Purchase Card is an interesting subset for two reasons: 1) Coordinators receive a high volume of questions from users who are not Contract Specialists and 2) Many of those users find themselves facing edge cases not readily resolved by their established procedures or by their reading of the regulation.
  12. Have you checked with Watson? https://www.washingtonpost.com/business/economy/the-pentagons-procurement-system-is-so-broken-they-are-calling-on-watson/2016/03/18/a6891158-ec6a-11e5-a6f3-21ccdbc5f74e_story.html
  13. Motorcity, The nature of the risk boils down to what economists term an "Agency" problem. Checks placed on what is sometimes called in DoD a government support contractor (what you termed the third party contractor) can be effective or if unaddressed, the risk can turn out to be a huge blind spot attracting opportunistic unethical behavior. These checks include many tools and they are not all found in one place or wielded by one individual. Organizational Conflicts of Interest, Non Disclosure Agreements, and Contractor identification are three of the more obvious aspects to consider. Applicability of Trade Secrets Act might not be understood and at some point in the generally well understood strictures on Source Selection Information will apply (see FAR definition of Source Selection Information at FAR 2.101 and see FAR 3.104), but exactly when that occurs might be less understood (see for example, Past Performance Information that is labeled as Source Selection Information long before an actual source selection has begun). Additionally, you might find that the government support contractor's contract has language about contractor identification, such as that found in paragraph (a) of the Air Force Supplement to the FAR, AFFARS 5352.242-9000 Contractor Access to Air Force Installations. You have my best wishes as you move forward.
  14. In a minor aside, I find that FAR 1.108-c is the subject of yet another disagreement in meaning. It has led me to question whether most folks accept the plain meaning of "all options" in FAR 1.108(c.). Who here is sure to include the value ascribed to the FAR 52.217-8 Option to Extend Services, when present, in determining the threshold value? If that's not what you do in practice, then why not?
×
×
  • Create New...