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. 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?
  2. 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
  3. 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.
  4. 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
  5. 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
  6. 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.
  7. 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
  8. I recall when I was working for the Air Force they had begun to implement their expanded use of GPC initiative, allowing non-warranted cardholders to procure under FAR 13.301 for up $25,000 provided they had the additional training and were provided a delegation stating this threshold. Of course, re-reading it sounds as if those cardholders were in fact warranted up to $25k (is that correct?). Seemed like a great idea and it really took a lot of the workload off the base contracting folks and instead each cardholder would submit their proof of compliance (typically a sole source J&A or 3 q
  9. 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).
  10. 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
  11. 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).
  12. 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
  13. 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.
  14. 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?
  15. 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.
  • Create New...