Jump to content
The Wifcon Forums and Blogs

MAY-D-FAR-B-WIT-U

Members
  • Content Count

    21
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

0 Neutral

About MAY-D-FAR-B-WIT-U

  • Rank
    New

Recent Profile Visitors

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

  1. ji20874, would you need a D&F for this type of contract per FAR 16.401(d)?
  2. Joel We discussed the use of award fee mostly due to the situation you described above, ship repair will have a good amount of unforeseen work that will have an impact on schedule and subjectively evaluating all the factors outside the control of the contractor that impacted the ability to meet the schedule before awarding the incentive will be beneficial. Ultimately the administrative burden of the award fee and anticipated difficulty getting buy-in form the ACO side led us to leaning more towards something more objective while addressing how delays will be handled.
  3. We are looking at the possibility of structuring a FFP contract with a delivery incentive for a ship repair contract and there's a debate as to whether there needs to be a target cost, target profit, target price, ceiling price, and share ratios for this kind of contract as a way to satisfy the requirement for a cost incentive or constraint. A part of the confusion may be due to the fact that we keep calling this a FPIF where the IF portion is to incentivize schedule only. My interpretation of FAR 16.202-1 leads me to conclude that this is still a FFP and a FFP satisfies the requirement for a
  4. The contractor is working under the current period which expires in a couple of days.
  5. There are government employees on the program who are working and they expect the support to continue because they have the funds. I am also considering the possibility of someone simply sending an ATP to the contractor saying funds are available and proceed with the terms of the option period. With the exception of finding someone with a warrant who isn't furloughed, does anyone foresee a problem with this?
  6. My concern is a third party (possiblly one of the offerors during the award) would be happy to see the contract die and have another opportunity at the requirement in a recompete. I am thinking if I was a third party, I would argue that failure of the government to exercise the option means the contract is dead and should be recompeted regardless of the intent letter. The intent letter itself says the letter is not an obligation and does not commit the government in anyway. Maybe am just trying to anticipate a solution for a problem that does not exist. ji20874, Can a third party cha
  7. The current option period of a contract is set to expire, we have previous year funds to exercise the next option period and we sent out the intent letter before the shutdown, but due to the shutdown, there is no staff available to obligate the funds. I am looking for any legal precedent or GAO decisions that will allow us to revive the contract, assuming this shutdown will not be over until after the current period expires. Thank you.
  8. My agency is issuing a 10 year IDIQ, and the 5 year ordering period limitation applies to my agency (nothing in regulation states this can be waived, otherwise we would have include a 10 year ordering period in the D&F for the 10 year PoP). We will like to modify the clause in 52.217-9 to extend the ordering period using the language below, and we have a few questions 1. Should this be moved to section H as an H-Clause? or does the phrase "substantially the same" at the beginning of the clause imply this kind of change is authorized per "52.104" 2. Would it be cleaner just to hav
  9. @FrankJon, You second post answered most of my questions and although I pride myself on being able to research different topics and drawing a conclusion, you response shows me that I have a long way to go and I need to learn to be patient when seeking answers and dig even further. Thanks for taking the time. @Vern Edwards I also read "negotiated contracts" to mean RFP i.e. FAR 15 and did not think the provision will apply to orders under 16.505 but the FAR definition (A contract awarded using other than sealed bidding procedures) made me second guess myself and scratch my head a
  10. Thanks FrankJon, my initial question is to find out if 52.222-46 applies to orders under 16.505 when the evaluation required by the clause was already performed during the award of the IDIQ? I then read the prescription for the clause a second time and saw that it only applies to "negotiated contracts", which led to my next question and maybe resulted in my confusing post.
  11. Is a task order competed among multiple IDIQ holders considered a "negotiated contract" or does a negotiated contract only refer to contract awarded using FAR 15 procedures?
  12. I really appreciate all the responses, in digging and getting more people (program office) involved, the SOW was specifically written to give them flexibility to assign a variety of work to the contractor. The COR informed me that tasks are generated mostly on a daily/weekly basis and occasionally monthly, and are then assigned to contractor personnel. It seems we got what we paid for (support) but we will still proceed to discuss availability issues with the contractor. We also bounced around the idea of having a task list that will be incorporated into the task order on a monthly basis and
  13. Thank you all for your responses....This is a contract for commercial services where the contractor supplements the government effort in several technical areas and in many of the positions, the contractor staff have a higher technical expertise. The SOW does not list specific task but general areas where support will be required, I’ll give an example which I have altered a bit. a) The contractor shall provide support to include the following technical areas: Propulsion Systems, Electrical Systems. b ) The contractor shall provide SME in Design and Construction of XXXXX. The contra
  14. We have a FFP TO awarded again a GSA Oasis Contract (16.5 not 8.4), the contract has a SOW to provide support services in different areas (PM, Acquisition, Logistics, e.t.c.) and payment is made monthly for 1/12th of the total price. The total value of the contract was determined by estimating the number of hours needed for different LCATS. Although the labor hours and labor rates were never incorporated into the contract, we have bilaterally made several changes to the contract, increasing and decreasing the estimated hours required to provide the support needed. One of the CORs (contract sup
  15. My agency is in the process of awarding a part 8 BPA along with the first two TOs. The BPA-PWS is so general and reads more like a SOW and we are worried all offerors will simply restate all the task/services listed in their quotes and say, yeah we can do that --no real discriminator for a technical factor. For instance, one of the services listed is PMO support and the BPA-PWS simply lists all the activities in the PMBOK. The two task orders on the other hand have some meat and will allow us to identify those who can truly perform the work. Our plan is to evaluate the task orders first and aw
×
×
  • Create New...