Jump to content
The Wifcon Forums and Blogs

Freyr

Members
  • Content Count

    47
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

0 Neutral

About Freyr

  • Rank
    New

Recent Profile Visitors

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

  1. Thanks Retreadfed, definitely provides food for thought. Specifically, "While the Air Force’s position here would seem to be consistent with a literal reading of FAR § 19.1406(a), “a regulation must be interpreted so as to harmonize with and further and not conflict with the objective of the statute it implements."" The case seems to support the idea that if the FAR conflicts with a statute, then it should not be followed if there's other implementing regulation that could be reasonably used (provided we don't skip over the rule-making process).
  2. Devil's advocate kind of question here for my own edification: Where does it say that you follow the FAR above all else? FAR 1.602-1(b) states, "No contract shall be entered into unless the contracting officer ensures that all requirements of law, executive orders, regulations, and all other applicable procedures, including clearances and approvals, have been met." So what about a scenario where the Small Business Act has been updated and 13 CFR has been updated to reflect that change in law but the FAR has lagged behind that change? Seems like FAR 1.304(b)(2) allows for local policy to be inc
  3. Update on this: Leadership has seen the light and decided not to continue trying to rush the awards (which include cost reimbursable work). Their whole rush was the worry that all the many months spent evaluating proposals would have gone out the window if an offeror couldn't properly certify to the new 889 requirement (they also didn't want to deal with doing an amendment). Strange that my agency seems to be pulling their hair out over this new requirement, though I haven't seen much worry from other agencies about it (it doesn't seem like it's that hard to deal with to me).
  4. Hi all, we've gotten some "interesting" guidance from our leadership lately. With an 889 Part B implementation date of 8/13 looming we've been instructed to make all of our pending awards before 8/13. This includes ones that have been announced as prospective awardees, pending a review of any lingering responsibility matters, in our case possession of an acceptable accounting system. Our solicitation very plainly says "Each prospective awardee must possess an acceptable accounting system in order to be eligible for award." To me, this is entirely improper and no Contracting Officer should be s
  5. This is one of the things that's been confusing me. Looking at the CPRG it states that T&M/L-H/FP-LOE contracts are "are considered cost plus-fixed-fee contracts for the purpose of assigning profit/fee values." Why is that? It seems that T&M could be anywhere in a risk continuum between CR and FFP depending on the mix of labor vs materials but most the guidance I've read treats T&M as very risky to the Government but not as risky as cost reimbursable work. In our situation the large portion of the costs would be labor costs.
  6. That's exactly how I'm trying to look at it since it's a sole source as well, we're playing a game with the contractor by saying 10% is too high for us to justify try to come down a little. That said, if they come down on profit and up on direct labor rate that could, and probably will, increase the loaded labor rates. Some folks here have mentioned that 10% seems reasonable, my question to that is why? We're supposed to use a structure approach to negotiating profit, so for a T&M requirement what would drive up our objective on profit?
  7. The format we've got in our analysis document is a breakdown of each of the individual elements and an overall analysis of the fully burdened rates, so we're absolutely not ignoring the full rate.
  8. A. YES (we are requiring certified cost/pricing data) and A. FAR 52.232-7 and 52.216-7. That was my initial thought too (just negotiate the fully burdened hourly rates and they'll adjust profit accordingly right?) but my CO said she wanted a breakdown of each of the individual elements of their price (I pointed her to FAR 15.405(a) but she held her ground).
  9. Hi all, I'm being asked to determine whether or not a proposed profit of 10% is fair and reasonable on a sole source T&M contract we're planning on awarding. We haven't done this type of work before and I don't really have anything to base our decision off. I've read through FAR 15.404-4, The Time-and-Materials Contract: The Time Has Come for A Long, Hard Look, the DoD's weighted guidelines, and GSA's structured profit/fee approach and it doesn't seem like 10% is even close to something that should be fair and reasonable considering the contract type and risk involved, though I understand
  10. I've got my FAC-C Level III already and I'm DAWIA Level 2 certified.
  11. Hi all, I'm at a bit of a crossroads right now where I need to relocate and the options for me are either to take a lateral PM position (I'd manage an acquisition program) or stick with contracting but take a grade lower (with pay matching, so step 7). I was hoping I could get your opinions on the two career fields, pros/cons, career and promotion potentials, etc. Anyone have experience in both fields or going back and forth between them that can share? What do you all think about folks who go from 1102 to PM the potential to go back to 1102, would that PM experience be seen as valuable? Thank
  12. It was they way we did it when I started at this office and no one's thought to question it, I try to question whatever doesn't make sense to me but this one flew right over my head. My assumption, or what I figure people would say in hindsight to make sense of it, is that it's to get all the information up front so you don't need to ask for it later (like Joel mentioned, streamline the evaluation timeline). Looking at it now, it doesn't seem to streamline much and could potentially cause other issues and make things take even long (or even still have to ask for updated information regardless)
  13. Those are the only responsibility type criteria we typically include in our full and open competitions along with whatever other technical and price evaluation criteria are necessary (we normally do not use LPTA and most requirements are above the SAT/non-commercial). So we're not actually using any of those three to discriminate between proposals.
  14. I feel like I ask the most basic questions on these forums but this is another one I haven't really seen any information on. I know FAR 19.301-1(f) states, "The contracting officer shall accept an offeror’s representation in a specific bid or proposal that it is a small business unless (1) another offeror or interested party challenges the concern’s small business representation or (2) the contracting officer has a reason to question the representation. Challenges of and questions concerning a specific representation shall be referred to the SBA in accordance with 19.302." My quest
  15. Definitely understanding not to paint ourselves into a corner! For those proposal submission items I identified, our office's RFPs typically include them as requirements for their initial proposal submission (I'm assuming so we don't need to ask for them after a technical evaluation? Not sure.). For clarification, I have been referring to SB subcontracting plans, I apologize for not making that more clear.
×
×
  • Create New...