FrankJon

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

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.

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.

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.

Carl...respectfully....you're killing me. That doesn't get me any closer to an authoritative definition of "data" as it pertains to CDRLs.

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

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.

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

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

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.

Formerfed is pursuing a different line than you.

I assume you're talking about establishing a BPA, although it wasn't stated. I don't see how the following could work: Since orders are over the SAT I'll need to comply with the competitive procedures at 8.405(c)(2)(iii). Otherwise, yes, there appears to be some potential.

Right....thanks.

I didn't "start out" my research by posting to Wifcon. An IDIQ was of course one of the first approaches I looked at. I went down the requirements path because the customer seeks multiple awards and providing fair opportunity every day may not be feasible. The factors would probably not be difficult. Past performance and price. But the contract would require a dedicated KO to compete and cut orders (literally) every day, and often more than once per day. My office may not be able to support that. (Now, if we could accumulate orders as with a BPA and cut one order per month to pay for t

That's interesting, Don. Do you have a reference for that text? I'll certainly add this to my list of approaches to research. But initially I'm not seeing the advantage of this over the "multiple/split award" requirements approach in terms of application.

1. Over the SAT, under $6M. 2. Yes, the CIG has deemed it commercial.

I am aware. The administrative burden would be significant, and possibly overwhelming. Happy to have a side discussion to share more.

That’s a potential outcome being discussed, possibly with prospective price redetermination. As I said earlier, one of the fundamental constraints is that the unpredictability, volume, and relentless occurrence of requirements doesn’t lend itself to the fair opportunity process, at least not in a way that I’ve seen and would feel comfortable with.

Agree. This is a DOD service contract that could be worth $10B over 10 years. I won’t be able to “just do” anything. This is only the first thorny issue in a long process. I genuinely appreciate the many reasoned perspectives I received on this topic.

Formation of Government Contracts (4th Ed.) also provides a wealth of information on this topic. Most pertinent, on pg. 1347 it states: I have to think about how "prescribing the mode of competition to be used" would work in this context.

These terms from The Government Contracts Reference Book (4th Ed.) were touched upon in a previous Wifcon post, but for posterity I'll flesh them out a bit more here and add emphasis and edits as appropriate to the topic. The second definition is particularly interesting, though most of the references date back at least 20 years so I don't know whether they'll be persuasive. Regardless I still plan to look into them.

Correct. We would like to have between two and four contractors performing a relatively even amount of work. No set-aside. I just ran to the office to grab my reference books. I’ll post some long-form quotes on this topic when I get home.

Carl - My plan here, if I were to use the "alternating order" approach, would be to borrow the 52.216-21 Alt. III language, tailor it accordingly, and put it somewhere in the PWS. So it wouldn't be a clause per se, but it would be a defined ordering procedure that contract awardees agree to. I don't understand this. There is no risk of a bait-and-switch on the part of the Government because we would have a contract defining how orders are distributed. If the Government doesn't follow that, it's in breach. When we talk about the allowability of the "alternating order" requirements

I don’t think so. BOAs wouldn’t address my efficiency issue, as I’d still need to follow competition and posting requirements. Based on my reading of 16.5 trying to award two or more single award IDIQs to share the work would be an even more tenuous argument than awarding two or more requirements contracts. I’m going to have a battle either way. I think there’s a clearer argument for setting up this arrangement with requirements contracts.

Thanks all.