Jump to content
The Wifcon Forums and Blogs

Neil Roberts

Members
  • Content Count

    202
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

0 Neutral

About Neil Roberts

  • Rank
    Member

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Male
  • Location
    Southern California/Nationwide
  • Interests
    World and U.S. travel.

Recent Profile Visitors

2,832 profile views
  1. Thanks for the clarification, Sunstrider. I assume this is a negotiated procurement and you will be receiving certified cost or pricing data from the prime contractor. You may eventually have post award justification to request an audit. In the meantime, since the prime is a sole source, suggest the best interest of the Government is for you to use your negotiation skills to request additional support for any questionable subcontractor pricing information/analysis. You do not have any other source of supply available to support the schedule at this time. Not sure why your focus is on subcontractor TINA requirements. If that subcontractor is already the lowest priced bidder and meets the requirements, what are your additional expectations? Communicate them to the prime. The prime may assert that there is adequate price competition, which eliminates TINA requirements for the subcontractor.
  2. Facts are not that clear to me. Is this post from a prime contractor or the Government? Which is the sole source...the prime contractor or the subcontractor? Did the prime propose a listing of equipment to be purchased only from one source at one time or is it a time phased purchase to match the funding profile such that none of the contemplated purchases exceed TINA ? How is it known what supplier is "the apparent successful...supplier? In many situations, prime contractors have not yet evaluated, made a source decision or awarded an subcontract at the time of a proposal to the Government. Could the post please clarify who is who here? Thanks.
  3. SBA final rules and FAR Part 52 clauses and provisions have been a long standing point of confusion and frustration in timing to sync them. The most recent version of FAR 52.219-xx includes the following language: Class Deviation 2019-O0003—Limitations on Subcontracting for Small Business. Effective immediately this deviation remains in effect until it is incorporated into the FAR and DFARS, or otherwise rescinded. As a result, many such clauses and provisions have been changed. You may find that final SBA rules you are concerned with have now been incorporated in FAR. You should confirm that with a review that compares the two if you are interested. The FAR Council process still considers the Class Deviation changes only an interim fix...hence the proposed rules process which may confirm the Class Deviation changes, revise or add to them when it is final. Hope this helps.
  4. Xanadu, I must have missed a prior propose rule by the FAR Council. Do you have a reference to where a prior proposed rule by the FAR Council on this subject appeared in the Federal Register? The SBA is not part of the FAR Council.
  5. Neil Roberts

    travel on GOV by contractors

    Because Contractors may have adopted ethics rules that determine if contractor employees may accept "a ride," can we assume that this transportation is included in a Government furnished contract clause and that this clause was included in the RFP/ITQ?
  6. Neil Roberts

    space cowboys, weed, safety, and NASA

    ABC News reported " (NASA) officials issued a press release this week saying they would be undertaking a “cultural assessment study” of commercial partners SpaceX and Boeing “to ensure the companies are meeting NASA’s requirements for workplace safety, including the adherence to a drug-free environment.”
  7. While they may be facts, they seem to be judgmental (negotiation position) and/or not relevant to or are not cost or pricing data ( a discussion took place, a decision was made). Therefore they wouldn't be indexed. Other examples include the fact that companies may be always looking to buy another company, merge or sell the company. When executives reach a final decision to pursue one of those items, it would be a fact that may impact future costs. "Always looking" is not a fact that has any affect on cost or pricing data because nothing has actually happened as a fact to affect the cost or pricing data. If you wish you may include "always looking" in your index but it seems to raise more questions than facts that affect cost or pricing data.
  8. Suggest you contact GSA Regulatory Secretariat Division to obtain a referral contact that may be able to answer your questions regarding open action items related to this Open FAR Case Report item 2016-011: Regulatory Secretariat Division 1800 F Street, N.W. Washington 20405 Phone: 202-501-4755 E-mail: GSARegSec@gsa.gov
  9. Neil Roberts

    Novations- Inc. to LLC

    I assume you are posting about the relationship between the Government and a contractor? If not, FAR is not controlling.
  10. Question for StePa (Special Test Equipment Procurement Agent?): Do you know if the Government prime contract is for a commercial end item or not. And if so, how do you know.
  11. I don't see it as dictum. I see the Court believing that without making the Christian Doctrine applicable, the facts were not supported with any legal basis. Whether it is dictum or not, it may still be cited by litigants to bolster their case, and the court in their case may decide it is or is not dictum.
  12. I do not have experience with the Court of Federal Claims. However, I am contemplating that this apparent expanded Christian Doctrine holding could now be cited as precedence in another case. There may never be a "trial" and/or appeal because the parties could settle. I would hope that the current decision be decertified for publication if that is possible in this Court, because in my mind the Christian Doctrine is deserving of a precedence case with more rationale for expansion of this nature.
  13. Thanks, Retreadfed. Seems like this does not support the decision either. FAR Part 31 is as follows: 31.000 Scope of part. This part contains cost principles and procedures for— (a) The pricing of contracts, subcontracts, and modifications to contracts and subcontracts whenever cost analysis is performed (see 15.404-1(c)); and (b) The determination, negotiation, or allowance of costs when required by a contract clause. (emphasis added) I did not see any of the above applicable from the facts in the case. I agree with C Culham...let's see how or if this case is relied upon in the future. I agree with Joel Hoffman that the court seemed to be off base by focusing on allowability. Even so, there was no express finding regarding what paragraph in FAR 31.205-47 makes the cost allowable. As a result, I am not sure it is allowable even if -47 is applicable.
  14. I do not understand that under the Christian Doctrine, FAR 31.205-47 is a mandatory contract clause. It isn't even a contract clause to me. Or is it that cost principles in FAR apply by operation of law under the Christian Doctrine? I haven't done the research but if FAR cost principles apply by operation of law, I would have thought that the law that made them operational was something other than the Christian Doctrine.
  15. Neil Roberts

    Allowable ODC Charge?

    I have found the excess airfare conditions to be a applicable much of the time. In any event, when they are not, the practice might be to bill only for the lowest price airfare that was available and write off the rest as unallowable.
×