Jump to content
The Wifcon Forums and Blogs

FAR-flung 1102

Members
  • Posts

    142
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by FAR-flung 1102

  1. I have a bone to pick for some of the sharp tools that might have been included, but instead are lacking in the typical assortment given to the Contracting Officer when they deal with nonconforming services. As I understand it, the 2-in-1 Invoice most often used in WAWF (Wide Area Workflow) for FFP Services, does not allow for partial acceptance (it's all or nothing) on invoiced quantities. And often the Unit of Issue modeled in a template or routinely used for the sake of convenience in a line item is "Month" instead of something that might allow for acceptance of lesser quantities such as "sq. feet" or "acres" to give just two examples. I've seen a procedure to make a Govt estimate ahead of time based on such useful measures, but still accompanied by a suggested CLIN structure that specified "month" as the unit of measure...go figure? Let's think it over. What kind of signal are we sending? What kind lessons might be learned by the contractor if the Contracting Officer does not have the readiest tools available to deal promptly and effectively with nonconforming services which fail inspection and for which reperformance is not possible?
  2. If Govt was of the opinion that discussions are most likely, but not most desirous, could the Govt truthfully include "the Govt intends to conduct discussions" in the solicitation?
  3. Thank you, Vern, the history prior to DCMA is almost all news to me. Knowing this backstory will help when I'm facing divergent views on a need for COR Appointment in DoD where particular facts about a requirement show it might be wise to appoint a COR, but is it's still not required by DFARS PGI 201.602-2(d)(v) (a) or (b), for example a supply contract without reimburseable line items.
  4. You did not state, but I will assume for a moment that you are with DoD and that this is a locally issued IDIQ contract. If so, then why not be satisfied with appointment of a COR at the contract level and not appoint a COR at the order level? See DoDI 5000.72 Section 3, specifically the pertinent parts of paragraph b and c. "3. POLICY. It is DoD policy that:... b. Contracting officers will designate a COR for all service contracts, including construction, unless the contracting officer retains and executes contract oversight responsibilities..." "c. A qualified COR is designated for all contracts or orders placed for DoD requirements, regardless of whether or not contract actions are executed by a DoD or non-DoD contracting officer"... Emphasis added.
  5. So, to make clear for folks who have not run across this before, the FAR Council is pointing not only to criteria for "small" as most folks might expect, but also to criteria for "business concern" or "concern" when deciding whether to set-aside a services acquisition outside the United States; the Contracting Officer would need to consider not only whether the entity is small, but also whether it satisfies one of the two criteria of a "business concern", at 13 CFR 121.105. A small business entity that is not located within the US may none the less meet the criteria of a business concern in that it "makes a significant contribution to the U.S. economy through payment of taxes or use of American products, materials or labor."
  6. Personally, I'd use "an FFP", but did some market research anyway on Google Books to see what a search of edited texts had to show about this; I ended up a bit surprised at pretty strong showing for "a FFP". Caveat: The search results are a mixed bag and not just contracting related: "a FFP" showed up in 486 results and "an FFP" showed up in 537 results
  7. Thank you for providing that. Back when I worked utilities contracts at Ellsworth AFB I had a set ASPRs on my shelf because at least one of my contracts was created under them. I wish I'd looked it over the ASPR in my spare time then...if so, I'd have had at least a bit better ballast if not wind in my sails. Do you know how I can find the ASPR now? I did a cursory search and didn't find anything.
  8. Vern, thank you...I can now take away a sharper tool from this discussion. It's interesting how the ability to make such useful distinctions is (or should be) the acquisition professional's stock in trade. It might be the only thing that no one else is equipped to do.
  9. Vern, given DoD's wave of adjustments in the past 10 years or so in pursuit of audit readiness and what Dr. Carter called "CLIN Integrity", is this informational subclin format still available to DoD? DFARS 204.7104 seems to me to allow informational sublines as long as doing so has no effect upon delivery, performance or amounts that have contractual significance... DFARS 204.7104 quoted below (Sorry, I won't be able to highlight pertinent portions from my phone):; "Contract subline items. 204.7104-1 Criteria for establishing. Contract subline items provide flexibility to further identify elements within a contract line item for tracking performance or simplifying administration. There are only two kinds of subline items: those which are informational in nature and those which consist of more than one item that requires separate identification. (a) Informational subline items. (1) This type of subline item identifies information that relates directly to the contract line item and is an integral part of it (e.g., parts of an assembly or parts of a kit). These subline items shall not be scheduled separately for delivery, identified separately for shipment or performance, or priced separately for payment purposes. (2) The informational subline item may include quantities, prices, or amounts, if necessary to satisfy management requirements. However, these elements shall be included within the item description in the supplies/services column and enclosed in parentheses to prevent confusing them with quantities, prices, or amounts that have contractual significance. Do not enter these elements in the quantity and price columns. (3) Informational subline items shall be used to identify each accounting classification citation assigned to a single contract line item number when use of multiple citations is authorized (see 204.7103-1(a)(4)(ii))."
  10. DoD implemented Full Replacement Value coverage in 2007 and so DoD personnel who do have a paid personal property move are not in a similar situation. https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2006/12/15/06-9729/mandatory-provision-of-full-replacement-value-coverage-by-department-of-defense-personal-property
  11. I'm confident Vern already knows this, but I thought I would mention for those looking on that the FAR at 1.107 also cites 41 USC 1304 on the subject of Certifications.
  12. If the unintended outcomes of Acquisition Reform and Organizational Change were likened to a Star Trek alien species, which would it be? The Borg Tribbles The Ferengi Why? The Borg: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Borg?wprov=sfla1 Tribbles: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tribble?wprov=sfla1 The Ferengi: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ferengi?wprov=sfla1 Bonus: Ferengi Rules of Acquisition https:https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rules_of_Acquisition?wprov=sfla1
  13. Thank you, Jamaal, for the explanation...Sometimes an old breadcrumb trail is just what's needed.
  14. Yes. And it avoids the rabbit holes, which for me, at least, is the point. Thank you, Vern.
  15. The first two definitions below are new and replace the old "Commercial Item" definition: How do they work with each other and with the current FAR definition of "Supplies"? From FAR 2.101: "Commercial product means— (1) A product, other than real property, that is of a type customarily used by the general public or by nongovernmental entities for purposes other than governmental purposes, and– (i) Has been sold, leased, or licensed to the general public; or (ii) Has been offered for sale, lease, or license to the general public;..." Also from FAR 2.101: "Commercial service means— (1)Installation services, maintenance services, repair services, training services, and other services if– (i)Such services are procured for support of a commercial product as defined in this section, regardless of whether such services are provided by the same source or at the same time as the commercial product;..." And finally from FAR 2.101: "Supplies means all property except land or interest in land. It includes (but is not limited to) public works, buildings, and facilities; ships, floating equipment, and vessels of every character, type, and description, together with parts and accessories; aircraft and aircraft parts, accessories, and equipment; machine tools; and the alteration or installation of any of the foregoing." So, do commercial services for installation of a commercial product, constitute a supply purchase? Or alternatively do the commercial installation services for a commercial product, constitute a service for purposes of ...performance based service acquisition? ...appointing a COR? ...incorporating the Service Contract Labor Standards (Service Contract Act)?
  16. Thank you., Vern, You may not be selling, but I will give 'consideration" anyway...I suppose smiles 😊 count as such in this venue.
  17. Vern, so, the court is not plainly stating that a service does not qualify as a commercial item when it says, "But, as explained below, FAR 52.212-4 governs the termination of commercial item contracts for the government’s convenience, and it does not apply to service contracts, such as the contract at issue in this case.2" I don't buy your view...yet. Do you have anything more to add that might convince me?
  18. It seems that they might fall into the other than a "concern" category for your purposes. See: "FAR 19.001 Definitions. As used in this part- Concern means any business entity organized for profit (even if its ownership is in the hands of a nonprofit entity) with a place of business located in the United States or its outlying areas and that makes a significant contribution to the U.S. economy through payment of taxes and/or use of American products, material and/or labor, etc. "Concern" includes but is not limited to an individual, partnership, corporation, joint venture, association, or cooperative. For more information, see 13 CFR 121.105."
  19. I suppose you have this already, but in case not...A Google search found a paper with a partial history and a bibliography reaching as far back as 1968. https://apps.dtic.mil/sti/pdfs/ADA494735.pdf
  20. 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.
  21. 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
  22. 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.
×
×
  • Create New...