Jump to content
The Wifcon Forums and Blogs

FAR-flung 1102

Members
  • Content Count

    101
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by FAR-flung 1102

  1. A Note About Terms: FAR Part 13 does not use the term "Sole Source" to refer to single source acquisitions at or below the Simplified Acqusition Threshold (SAT). FAR Subpart 13.5 does use the term "Sole Source" to refer to single source acquisitions using Simplified Acquisition Procedures above the SAT.
  2. Further discussion of ODCs (based on the observation that an ODC is not a deliverable and why under the FAR that matters) and Vern Edward's topical remarks see:
  3. For some insight into Government policy, practices and exception authority regarding overtime and CBA, see FAR 22.103 and paragraphs 4.11 & 5.4.7 of the U.S. Navy's Desk Guide for Service Contact Price Adjustments, Service Contract Act and Fair Labor Standards Act, Issued November 2010, reviewed December 2010. It's searchable on the internet...I just didn't find a link that my mobile browser would copy.
  4. See the recording statute, 31 USC 1501, also see DoD FMR, vol. 3, ch.8, para. 080302.
  5. It's on a bit of a tangent, but I'd want know when deciding the extent of market research...it might be a game changer worth considering on occasion, that for commercial item solicitations which contain the standard language of clause 52.212-1 (see paragraph (e)), the government encourages an offeror to submit multiple offers and will evaluate them separately.
  6. The MSDS for "Wite Out" can be found here: http://productsafety.biclink.com/MSDSSheets.aspx
  7. Hmm, can you state the initial counterpoint to yours more fairly than this? The mandate to do small business set-asides in support of overall Agency Objectives was eliminated in the 809 Panel's recommendations...but authority to set-aside for small business remains, as do the overall Agency Objectives...with new additional support of a 5% price preference.
  8. Jack, Please see FAR 1.102-2 Performance Standards (b) Minimize administrative operating costs., at paragraph 1): "In order to ensure that maximum efficiency is obtained, rules, regulations, and policies should be promulgated only when their benefits clearly exceed the costs of their development, implementation, administration, and enforcement. This applies to internal administrative processes, including reviews, and to rules and procedures applied to the contractor community." (Emphasis added).
  9. I know this is an aside..."of the time" itself makes for a confusing unit of measure...this theme comes up often on customer's first drafts of service contract standards (think Quality Assurance Surveillance Plan, QASP). I usually frame the advice I am responsible to give as "I suggest you replace. "of the time" with what percentage of "occurances" or what percentage of "observations" just as ji did above.
  10. Welcome! When I first started as a Contract Specialist, my organization had no primer or listing of tasks and systems for a newcomer...so I made one based on the experience I was gaining and called it something like Welcome Hot Sheet! It was kept and given out after me.
  11. Also, what are the units of issue specified in the CLINs (contract line items)?
  12. Thanks Joel... Let's try this definition of exercise: "choose to implement". So... my takeaway is that the government may exercise it's option (unilateral right) to extend at the stated terms, or may enter into a bilateral agreement according to (a) new term(s)...We kind of knew that latitude already, didn't we? Well, in this firmat it may provide cover under Competition in Contracting Act. So, Joel, please remember you didn't yet answer the question...can an option be exercised bilaterally?
  13. Given the definition of Option at FAR 2.1: "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." Who here thinks an option can be exercised bilaterally? If so, what is your reasoning?
  14. 1 a) Before tossing away any use of "within" in the option clause 52.217-9, consider the possibility of exercising an option after contract completion date: see FAR 17.204 paragraphs b through d: "(b) The contract shall state the period within which the option may be exercised. (c) The period shall be set so as to provide the contractor adequate lead time to ensure continuous production. (d) The period may extend beyond the contract completion date for service contracts. This is necessary for situations when exercise of the option would result in the obligation of funds that are not available in the fiscal year in which the contract would otherwise be completed." A mistaken conception of "contract expiration" could contribute to the loss of this as an authorized flexibility, especially if experimental edits of the -9 clause become popular...why voluntarily surrender territory already given us by regulation? Note: Vern Edwards advised in an earlier Forum discussion concerning contract expiration: "Contracts don't have expiration dates. Contracts have (1) a delivery date, (2) a completion date, or (3) a period of performance. (In addition, an IDIQ contract has an ordering period.) Contracts do not "expire" until all obligations of both parties have been fulfilled."
  15. Thank you Joel. The practical case for contractor involvement in government inspection is one that I'd hate to lose whether due to failure of imagination, ignorance of available professional practices, or lack of curiosity about historical context.
  16. Well, Joel, the inspection clause for construction cited above arguably does cover the concept of government direction you cited at FAR 46.401(e)...that direction is explicitly provided by the Contracting Officer as at FAR 52.24612 paragraph (b): "...All work shall be conducted under the general direction of the Contracting Officer and is subject to Government inspection and test at all places and at all reasonable times before acceptance to ensure strict compliance with the terms of the contract." and at FAR 52.246-12 paragraph (d): "The presence or absence of a Government inspector does not relieve the Contractor from any contract requirement, nor is the inspector authorized to change any term or condition of the specification without the Contracting Officer’s written authorization."
  17. What inspection clause should government use when a (third party) contractor performs the inspection? Would it be a problem that "government" is written all over the standard inspection clause used for construction, 52.246-12? My guess is no. And I'd advise seeking a legal opinion, before the government might use the clause "as is"and maintain the view that inspection by (third party) contractor is how the government chooses to performs its inspection, what of it?...what would be the issue if the construction contractor does not seem to lose any rights by this practice.
  18. Thanks Bob...And that's in addition to the two SR-71s found on Edwards main base (one at the main Edwards AFB Museum and the other in front of NASA's Neil A. Armstrong Flight Research Center).
  19. Bob, I've seen it and knew it had a one of a kind (or is that two of a kind?) story. ...didn't remember the model designation or understand the operational history, though, before checking with Google.
  20. Please take care. Some who read only the discussion above might see the phrase "per the JTR" used in its given context, and mistakenly assume that the JTR applies to contractor travel...well, it doesn't. Look at the introductory paragraphs of the JTR and you'll see for yourself...it's too plain to miss (and the exception noted there barely dilutes the general rule). Knowing this about the JTR shouldn't stop us from doing what we aim to do, however. Notice that Joel Hoffman was discussing "JTR rates" and "JTR limits" with evident care to avoid the confusing phrase "per the JTR". He's on to something... See also the careful phrasing of the Cost Principle FAR 31.205-46 --Travel Costs. for a more lengthy example along the same lines.
  21. You do realize that what you have posed is a kind of Rorschach test. I suppose that you hope to learn the general tilt of the land. Keep in mind, however, as ji20874 indicated that many conditions people encounter and comment on are local and can be avoided in the long run. My own observation is that novelty seeking fits well with almost all jobs I've had in the career field. I can imagine others in the same positions being content doing as much as 80% routine work. In contrast if more than half my effort becomes routine then I start looking at how to increase depth/breadth of the effort I make or the responsibilities I seek and accept in the current or next position.
  22. Despite what I see or perhaps be cause of it, I feel to opine...It's real work...this trying to learn the business ...both top down and bottom up, as well as inside government and out. Doing this real work generally results in real rewards...partly intrinsic and partly tangible. My suggestion to all is, as much as you can stand it, make habits in life of listening, tackling responsibility, raising standards and expectations wherever you go, and contributing to the success of others by often sharing something useful and new. Do this...and in a way that spirals up, I hope you'll discover more folks intent on filling the void by practicing these things...some (perhaps.many) of them will stick around in this field of work a little longer and have an elevated sense of community with those fellow travelers who also find the journey to be much more than just memorable.
  23. The deadline will change if the big dog says so (it's a really big dog!). The new deadline will be at the same time whatever day the big dog wakes up.
×
×
  • Create New...