Jump to content
The Wifcon Forums and Blogs


  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

0 Neutral

About Freyr

  • Rank

Recent Profile Visitors

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

  1. I had a feeling these would be the responses (I don't disagree)! It's curious to me though that such a large/visible program like OASIS would take this approach, if it's a poor/non-compliant approach then why would they write it like that? Did they just try to be too clever to make it user friendly?
  2. Hi all, I was reading through the OASIS Contract (page 52) and came across the section on Clauses. It states: "All “Applicable” and “Required” provisions/clauses set forth in FAR 52.301 automatically flow down to all OASIS task orders based on their specific contract type (e.g. cost, fixed price, etc.), statement of work, competition requirements, commercial or not commercial, and dollar value as of the date the task order solicitation is issued. (Note: Any Applicable and/or Required provisions/clauses that require fill-in information must be provided by the OCO in full text)." Basically,
  3. Hi all, as I was reconciling my payment records I saw that our accounting folks paid the contractor using the wrong LOA. The vendor billed to the correct one, but for some reason our side billed the LOA on the CLIN below it. My question is whether this is going to require us to 1) have the contractor pay back that money and reinvoice on that CLIN again or 2) if it'd be possible for us to issue a modification to move money around between two different LOAs. #2 seems like it'd be in violation of some kind of rule (misappropriations act?). Looking for the most efficient solution to the correct is
  4. First off, congrats finding a ladder that goes to 13, most go to 12. That said, those yearly promotions are not guaranteed and you still need to be meeting your performance goals to obtain them typically. Some offices will just promote you on the clock, others are more strict on deciding when they get to promote you (DHS for example will hire folks at 12/13 ladder positions and never give them a 13). Formerfed really nailed it though, pick jobs based on the work you want to do, work/life happiness, and your own goals. In DC you can get to a 15 relatively easily if you're smart, work hard
  5. Hi all, my organization seems to put periods of performance on everything. Supplies, services, construction, everything from Hotel rooms to hardware maintenance. We use PRISM and I guess there's some issues between our financial system and PRISM that makes it so our purchase requests cannot be set up with X days after award and the award must match the purchase request exactly in terms of CLINs, dollar amounts, quantities, delivery dates, etc. It also seems to prevent vendors from invoicing for things before the ultimate delivery date or the end of the period of performance. For some of t
  6. I have a customer who's able to define what their bare minimum requirements are but they're willing to pay more if a contractor can propose something that exceeds those requirements in specific areas. I'm having trouble thinking of how to phrase the requirement though (It's a simplified acquisition, likely commercial). It's like saying at a minimum I need a vacuum that works on carpet but I'd be willing to pay more if it has a detachable hose. Would we be able to say we'll rate their technical acceptability as satisfactory if it meets the minimum XYZ, good if it meets XYZ and either A, B, or C
  7. If Yes and Yes, honestly I'm not seeing a reason why she would want to use FAR 15. FAR 13 really gives you all the same tools as FAR 15 but without the rules right?
  8. Hi all, I'm overthinking something again, must be the rainy weather... I have a requirement for various COVID cleaning services where I have CLINs 0001 through 0003 as base CLINs and 0004 through 0005 as optional. These aren't different periods, just if we need an extra service we'll exercise the CLIN. The FAR doesn't explicitly have a clause for doing this as far as I can tell but it seems like 52.217-7 is pretty close even if the FAR says to include it for acquisitions "other than for services." I want it to say that we'll exercise those lines within 120 days of award (we expect completion w
  9. That helps a lot! So we if we know we might need 1,000 of those $75 tests we can treat the need for each test as a separate requirement as long as we're just purchasing them as the need comes in? On one hand it makes a lot of sense but on the other hand it almost seems like we'd be splitting the requirement, though the purpose wouldn't be "merely to avoid" any MPT requirements. However, like you said, if we think we'll need to get 100 of the tests at one time (the purchase being $7,500) then we should have two BPAs so we can compete it right?
  10. Thank you all! Per usual your responses have been incredibly useful and has helped open up my thinking on the use of FFP contracts. Firm-Fixed-Price, not Firm-Fixed-Amount! I'm still not clear on the use of a BPA with GPC for each test (or the lump sum at the end of the month). Would are customer (who is the cardholder) be "swiping the card" or would we need the CO to do it because it may exceed the MPT for services? What about creating a CAR in FPDS if the number of tests needed does exceed the MPT (and what if it doesn't)? Since my organization doesn't really seem to use BPAs like this I'm b
  11. Isn't the whole concept of FFP that it's a fixed amount that doesn't change? Wouldn't we be required to pay them for the firm fixed price regardless of if we actually used what they actually provided? As far as the BPA idea, how would that work with GPC? We really don't use GPC for anything other than micro purchases and we'd very likely need to exceed the MPT with this.
  12. We may have a requirement coming up for the purchase of rapid covid-19 tests, up to 1,000 of them max. We don't know how many exactly we'll need or exactly when they'll need to be used. Once it's determined that a test is needed we need to get the person tested within 12 hours. The issue we're running into is how do we structure the contact so that we can execute in that small timeframe. Our contracting personnel can't/won't execute an option that fast and we don't want 1,000 CLINs. FFP doesn't seem appropriate since we don't know exactly how much we need or when (and we don't want
  13. My first thought was "oh no then we'd be subject to multiyear contracting rules!" Then I re-read FAR 17.1 and though "why the heck aren't we doing this?" I noticed this organization has had some issues with missing their window to exercise options, resulting in contracts ending then the team has to scramble to reacquire those services. It seems like just doing a 5 year contract that's SAF each year would eliminate that issue and possibly reduce our administrative burden. Unless I'm missing something... Edit: Answered my own question! Edit 2: @C Culham Maybe I am missing someth
  14. They're intending the POP to be from date of award to 9/30/2021 for the base, then 12 months for each period after.
  15. After years of working in an office no-year money, I've found myself in one where that stuff matters now! I have a severable service requirement (provide and maintain equipment) that they're looking to award in the next few months and the PMO put the contract end date as 9/30/2025. My question is why not just do it as a 12 month base with 12 month options? FAR 37.106( b ) appears to allow for this, and our agency supplement delegates it down to the Chief of the Contracting Office. It seems this would be a better solution than having to short the contract several months and putting it on the fi
  • Create New...