Jump to content
The Wifcon Forums and Blogs


  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

0 Neutral

About Sunstrider

  • Rank

Recent Profile Visitors

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

  1. Assume the Government has a requirement for repair of an aircraft wing to take place on a Government site. Got it, I don't need to satisfy the four criteria at FAR 45.102(b). Clearly, I would have to provide access to the aircraft wing in order for its contract repair to be possible. What I am trying to understand is, are there situations where an aircraft wing is incidental to the place of performance IAW FAR 45.000(b)(5)? I know the examples FAR cites for incidental Government property are routine office supplies--assets part and parcel of an office. Contractor presumably requires access to the office (to include office supplies) to perform required services. Could this exception apply to an aircraft wing? The Contractor requires access to the aircraft wing to provide required repair services. Since the Government will have never relinquished stewardship, my opinion is that treating the aircraft wing as GFP and requiring the Contractor to assume management, individually track, and dispose is complete overkill. I seek compliance, but need simplicity.
  2. Appreciate both the style and substance of your post. So many ways to prove that Reps & Certs are, in these instances, just not required. Didn't need the Reps & Certs to issue your order anyway. And oh, by the way, here's how the Reps & Certs, to include annual updates, "flows" down to the proposal resulting in your order. Recently started to think there may be an ironic corollary to FAR 1.102(d). If I believe doing things the way I just do things as a CO is in the best interest Government, I am not prohibited to do what I want! Sarcasm very much intended.
  3. I had a hunch it was required, as there was no explicit exception for the contract award synopsis. Interestingly enough, DSCA emphasizes this: https://www.dsca.mil/contracting/guide/award/step-3-part-1 I suspect the pre-award synopsis exception at FAR 5.202(a)(3) is to mitigate the already tedious FMS acquisition process. But that's just my opinion...
  4. In this case, a single award IDC to a large business. What were you thinking if it's multiple award set-aside to small businesses? Government.
  5. Too many people work for the process, than get the process to work for them/their customer. In this case, I work for the boss and am in a position to fight the fight... 😁
  6. Is your rationale based on incorporation of Reps & Certs via 52.204-19, or that the IDC awardee is no longer a "prospective contractor", or something else?
  7. Assume you are managing an IDC and that the clause at 52.204-19 was included in that basic contract. IAW FAR Subpart 4.12, is documenting Reps & Certs required in each instance of proposal evaluation/order award to the "prospective contractor"?
  8. All new task orders procured non-competitively via single award IDIQ. As direct costs; the contract vehicle treats every single task order as either an "engineering change proposal" or "contract change proposal". The sole offeror/winner. Very helpful. Thank you. Perfect. Thank you. Once again, thank you. Apologies for my delayed response.
  9. Synopsis of proposed FMS contract actions is exempted at FAR 5.202(a)(3). That said, shift gears to synopsis of contract awards IAW FAR Subpart 5.3. Once executed, is there a requirement to synopsize FMS contract awards? I often see DoD public announcement of FMS contract awards valued at $7M or higher, so this is why I ask.
  10. Should a contractor such as a defense prime be paid for proposal preparation costs? If so, should this be treated as a direct or indirect cost? Should profit/fee be included?
  11. Seems like you may have a case for defective pricing. The contractor relied upon a set of facts/data to generate a proposal, which you then relied upon, in order to negotiate an award. You both agreed on a price. That company then duly certified that the data utilized was current/accurate/complete. But after award, it was discovered that this was not retroactively true. When notified, you were almost distracted by the fact that the negotiation was complete/over. Who cares. Uncle Sam may have paid more due to defective data. As mentioned, definitely see that clauses 52.215-10/-11 are in the contract and/or task order and get clarity on the matter.
  12. Was this a procurement under FAR 16.505(b)? Is the dollar value in excess of the applicable threshold specified at FAR 16.505(a)(10)(i)(B)?
  13. Yes. I see now, I think. No need for a new CLIN. Issue a unilateral mod citing the 52.245-1 directing delivery/return of the GFP . Then, as the clause states, settle on an equitable adjustment for the GFP delivery. That's my interpretation. Am I reading correct?
  14. GFP no longer required on a contract must be delivered for usage on a different contract (by a different contractor). There is no delivery/shipping CLIN in the Schedule. May the CO issue a change order to create this CLIN, an NTE price for 1 Lot, and specify its delivery instructions IAW clause 52.243-1 Changes-Fixed-Price?
  • Create New...