Jump to content
The Wifcon Forums and Blogs

CharterParty

Members
  • Content Count

    9
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

0 Neutral

About CharterParty

  • Rank
    New

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Male

Recent Profile Visitors

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

  1. @Don Mansfield, poor choice of words on my part with “typical Government Contracting Officer response” the issue is no less important and the referenced case Neil R. Gross & Co., 69 Comp. Gen. 247 (B-237434), 90-1 CPD ¶212: the quote includes a very important reference to the solicitation methodology “We also consider whether the solicitation for the original contract adequately advised offerors of the potential for the type of changes during the course of the contract that in fact occurred … or whether the modification is of a nature which potential offerors would reasonably have anticip
  2. @joel hoffman Let's keep the facts as close to B-219136 as possible. January was the option date, and the modification is executed in June. Again not a current item, it is just to flush out does the nuance of a BAA award change the normal J&A position.
  3. @Don Mansfield, I think the method used to place the original contract is incredibly important, in this fact set. I understand it is not a determinative factor in determining an in-scope change, an Agency can't just say any modification to contract originally awarded under a BAA is in-scope. I am saying CICA dictates that the Contracting Officer is to compete known requirements or to justify in writing consistent with the exceptions. It also acknowledged the Government may not be omniscient and allows for the BAA process in Basic Research (Again BA 1,2,3). I have not found any case
  4. Don Mansfield: Here is my reasoning. The sample scenario stated "An agency failed to exercise an option to extend the period of performance and the contract expired in January, in June the contractor and the Agency agree bilaterally to a modification to re-establish and continue originally planned work under the contract to the original option period of performance completion date of December of the year. The contract was initially award as valid contract against a Broad Agency Announcement and is for Basic Research (Budget Activity 1/2/3)." Here is the relevant text from B 28896
  5. Here is a question and some thoughts hopefully to gain a better understanding. Possible Scenario: An agency failed to exercise an option to extend the period of performance and the contract expired in January, in June the contractor and the Agency agree bilaterally to a modification to re-establish and continue originally planned work under the contract to the original option period of performance completion date of December of the year. The contract was initially award as valid contract against a Broad Agency Announcement and is for Basic Research (Budget Activity 1/2/3). Thought
  6. Conundrum or Not? Do the procedures of FAR 13,14, & 15 apply to R&D contracts solicited following the procedures of 35.007? Here are my thoughts, FAR 35.006 is titled “Contracting Methods and Contract Type” the same title as SubChapter C (Parts 13-18). Within FAR 35 when other areas of contracting methods are required to be followed it states so expressly for example FAR 35.008(d) and (e), 35.007(d) and (e) . In contrast, FAR PART 13 states in 13.000 “Scope of part.” “This part prescribes policies and procedures for the acquisition of supplies and services, includi
  7. I agree with Vern please don’t assume either the best or the worst. This is an intellectual question, not a questions of particular facts. Here is language from the NAVSUP 4200.85D: “FAIR AND REASONABLE PRICE DETERMINATION Ref: Purchase Request/Solicitation Number_____________________ 1. I am recommending award to XXXXXXX. I used one or more of the following price analysis techniques compared to the quoted price of $____________. The quoted price was similar enough to the comparative price(s) to conclude that the quoted price is determined fair and reasonable.
  8. While conducting reviews of SAP purchases a colleague and I had an discussion about what is necessary to award at a fair and reasonable price, in a particular situation. While price reasonableness is always a function of all the facts in a given procurement, absent any clear evidence of collusion or improper business relationships. Would two quotes from authorized distributors be sufficient fair and reasonable pricing? Assume that the determination necessary to support a single source BN/OEM has been properly executed for a part/item. Award is made to low price quoter of the sa
×
×
  • Create New...