Jump to content
The Wifcon Forums and Blogs

FrankJon

Members
  • Content Count

    261
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

0 Neutral

About FrankJon

  • Rank
    Member

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Male

Recent Profile Visitors

3,418 profile views
  1. Vern - It appears GSA’s practice is to include the full text of 52.212-4 in the contract with the deviated text replacing standard text. They label the whole thing as 552.212-4. FAR 52.212-4 is not cited.
  2. I was very surprised to learn today that, apparently, it's not uncommon practice for ordering agencies to include FAR 52.212-4 in their GSA FSS orders when the base contract already includes GSAM 552.212-4. I'm told that even the DoD Procurement Management Review looks to ensure the former clause is included in these situations. I think this is a mistake. GSAM 552.212-4 is an authorized deviation to FAR 52.212-4 that flows down to the order. By including FAR 52.212-4 as well, we are introducing conflicting terms. Do other practitioners see this practice as well? Does anyone disagree
  3. Based on a FAR Case that @Don Mansfield shared with me in November on a topic pertaining to the award of multiple/split requirements contracts, my responses are: (1) a single contract with multiple parties; and (2) I don't know about IDIQs, but in the context of requirements contracts, it matters. In 2010, the FAR Council explained FAR Case 2008-006, in part, as follows: https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2010/03/19/2010-5989/federal-acquisition-regulation-far-case-2008-006-enhanced-competition-for-task--and-delivery-order Despite this, they left FAR 52.216-2
  4. Don - I apologize if I haven't been descriptive enough, but the contrast is significant. I'll try to be more specific in this post. (1) As we know, DFARS 215.470 requires a CDRL when the Government requests data. "Data" is not defined in the DFARS as far as I'm aware. (2) DoD 5010.12-M purports to provide comprehensive instructions for the acquisition and management of data, including the preparation of CDRLs. It defines "data" expansively (see above), to include technical data and data incidental to the contract, like financial and management data. Likewise, it defines "technical da
  5. As the word is used in DFARS 215.470. Most sources I have seen indicate this is a reference to technical data as described at the DAU link (see also the Government Contracts Reference Guidebook definitions of CDRL and technical data). On the other hand, DoD 5010.12-M states: And: So there seems to be a clear conflict between how the DoDM defines "data" and how other, more modern, sources define it.
  6. And thank you for the reminder about the applicability of FAR subpart 27.4 in DoD. I should have reviewed the DFARS on this prior to posting. Despite this, there are various sources (none primary that I recall) that describe the CDRLs meaning of data as it is defined at FAR subpart 27.4 or similarly.
  7. Hi Don, I'm not questioning whether it's active. I'm questioning whether it's necessary and reasonable to treat it as mandatory policy without an underlying DoDD or DoDI at its foundation. DAU also appears to reject the expansive DoD 5010.12-M definition of data. See: https://www.dau.edu/tools/Lists/DAUTools/Attachments/654/High-Level CDRL Plannng_26 June 2020.pdf pgs. 19-20.
  8. Carl...respectfully....you're killing me. That doesn't get me any closer to an authoritative definition of "data" as it pertains to CDRLs.
  9. At issue within my office are the conflicting definitions of "data" found at DoD 5010.12-M and FAR 27.401 as they pertain to the CDRLS requirement. If DoD 5010.12-M is not authoritative, then we would look to other sources, such as FAR 27.401, for the definition. A DoD Manual "implements policy established in a DoDD or DoDI." (DoDI 5025.01, pg. 17.) DoD 5010.12-M was "issued under the authority of DoD Instruction 5000.2, 'Defense Acquisition Management Policies and Procedures.'" The referenced DoDI 5000.2 no longer exists. The modern DoDI 5000.02T "Operation of the Defense Acqu
  10. Thanks for the enlightening discussion, all. I’ve yet to check all the references but it seems like I now have a few workable options to put forth.
  11. Formerfed: Apology accepted, but I would respectfully disagree with your characterization of how I consider the information shared on here. For instance the idea of a pre-competed BPA raised by Don and Carl is new and very interesting to me. I don’t merely disagree to be contrarian; rather I try to provide reasonable interpretations of often ambiguously-written text (in this case, 13.305(b)). If that shows inexperience then I have a hard time imagining what experience in this business looks like. If that annoys you then perhaps another hobby is in order. All due respect to ji, but s/he takes a
  12. Wow formerfed! That came out of left field! My interpretation of FAR 13.305(b) is apparently different than yours. It’s a shame you’re so irked by that. I started this topic in a much different place and thought it was over more than once until other approaches were brought up. I enjoyed the open flow of alternate ideas but I didn’t come here asking for them. And I remain optimistic about the possibility of employing the multiple award requirements approach, which I learned a lot about. This is an utterly absurd statement by the way. I wonder how much thought you gave it before ty
  13. I think I’d be limited to the SAT unfortunately. I have no supplementary regulation beyond the DFARS. That doesn’t offer a higher threshold in this case.
  14. Formerfed is pursuing a different line than you.
×
×
  • Create New...