Jump to content
The Wifcon Forums and Blogs

General.Zhukov

Members
  • Content Count

    93
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

0 Neutral

About General.Zhukov

  • Rank
    Member

Profile Information

  • Location
    Strelkovka
  • Interests
    Deception & surprise, combined arms maneuver to encircle and destroy the enemy, T-34-85 Soviet Medium Tanks.

Recent Profile Visitors

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

  1. Ah, you are correct. I was thinking of a new TO issued against something like an agency IDIQ, which for small $ isn't protestable; while an out of scope mod would be. This is not an area I am very familiar with. My mistake. The general point was that an otherwise inexplicable method of procurement sometimes makes sense if understood as a method of avoiding a protest-happy contractor.
  2. There are strategic reasons. People: That's the only contract available for that particular contractor. Time: A bilateral mod on an existing TO may take a few days, while a new TO might have a lead time of months. Avoiding protest / legal strategy. In some situations, an out-of-scope mod to a TO (or other type of contract action) can't be protested, but a new contract/order could be. If you are in a contentious litigation with a company who has declared their intent to expand their protest further (possibly to pressure the Government to take corrective action rather than wait for a decision), then this may be a good idea. Particularly if the stop-work(s) is (are) becoming very painful.
  3. I don't have a real rationale, nor argument. I can terminate a commercial contract unilaterally, which is far more drastic a measure than a stop-work, but conceptually very similar, so if I can take a full-measure, why not a half-measure? Again, not going to argue this point. This is kinda sorta like the rationale in Robert A. & Sandra B. Moura, PSBCA 3460, 96-1 BCA ¶ 27,956: Excellent feedback, thank you all. Much appreciated. I take the point that the clauses in the contract, not the FAR, is what's binding. In my particular case, a contractor is performing work under a commercial services contract. By all accounts, doing a very good job. However, there are several major issues with the contract. One being we (GVT) are considering terminating it due to change in our business strategy, but haven't yet made that decision. . Second, the contractor seems to have been receiving interim payments, not delivery payments as intended. And at this point has been paid in full, but the work is incomplete. Given these circumstances, the grown-ups have decided we are in a hole, and need to stop digging immediately. I feel like there is some basis for issuing a stop work in this case, although I cannot find on in the texts.
  4. What's going on with stop-work orders for commercial contracts that do not have 52.242-15? FAR 52.212-4 & -5 do not appear to have anything allowing issuance of unilateral stop-work orders. Does that matter? My intuition is that it doesn't, I can go ahead and issue a unilateral stop-work order for any commercial contract and that stop work order will be legally binding. FAR 42.1303 Stop-work orders - this part of the FAR indicates to me I can issue a stop work for a commercial contract, regardless of clauses, so long as the contract meets those weird critieria. Why does FAR 42.1303 have these weird, seemingly arbitrary criteria? Implying no stop work order for simplified, sealed bid, 16.5 orders, incentive contracts, time & material, etc. This makes no sense to me. negotiated fixed-price or cost-reimbursement supply, research and development, or service contract Why doesn't the FAR say the government can issue a stop work order, always - the end?
  5. Validating stuff from external sources - (SAM.GOV). Compliance reviews Organizing, preparing contract file & documentation. Routine correspondence. Automating contract writing - checking boxes, adding boilerplate T&C, etc. Acquisition planning - esp. filling out technical documents or forms. All the back-office purchase card stuff.
  6. This is a clue. My guess is that they are trying to price the change (maybe an equitable adjustment?) and can't figure out how to do that without more granular pricing data.
  7. Off topic: Companies will charge as much as they think customers will pay. Last year I found myself getting a tour of a McLaren 570GT by its super-enthusiastic owner. Brakes had recently been replaced, at cost north of $2,000. It may well have been $2,000 just for labor and testing. In any event, it was insanely expensive. On topic: Inspection & Acceptance in the contract is mostly covered by 52.212-4, with a few additional caveats. The AoA was done in very close coordination with the COR & PM, and the COR took the AoA, modified it, and presented to higher-up. This took somewhere between 1 and 5 weeks. I consider that government acceptance.
  8. Thanks for the advice. I am finding the Contract Lawyers Handbook and Contract Pricing Reference Guides to be very helpful resources. Asking the SBA to step in is also quality advice. They want to give me what I need in terms of information, but its been tough going, and it would be great if an outside adviser could give them some help on this. Regarding the clause and authority to do an REA.... This is a commercial contract, so it has 52.212-4 and the paragraph about changes by mutual consent. So, that is that in terms of clauses. In terms of "Should the contractor be compensated for event X?" - that is what I struggle with, especially when its fixed price and there isn't any cost data. This is particularly true when it comes to this contract. Contractor does research, submits an AoA to PM. PM takes it up the chain, and thereby implicitly accepting it, and the higher-ups reject the AoA. Contractor revises AoA, re-submits, kicked-back again. Third time is approved. At the same time, internal Government issues lead to delays where the contractor needs guidance from the GVT that is not forthcoming so they sit on their hands for a while. I have mixed intuitions about whether the contractor did either the right or the legal thing by doing the re-work rather than refusing to work further once the initial deliverable was accepted. In any event, thanks again for the advice.
  9. I have a Request for Equitable Adjustment for a FFP Commercial Contract for IT Services, and its killing me. Two related questions. 1) How to price EA for FFP when I have no cost information except some really simple info (1 slide, containing $/month) sent to me by contractor? Our agency has no cost/price analysts or handy support staff, and minimal experience with Equitable Adjustments so far as I can tell. 2) Are there, out there on the interwebs, any good examples of actual or theoretical Equitable Adjustments for FFP? Background: Direct 8(a) within a special IT program. Objective of the contract was to support Business Case Analysis for replacement of an IT system, and then to prototype one or more of the selected alternatives. Fixed price. About $1MM over 1 Year. There has been about 6 months of delay for at least 4 discreet reasons, not all of which is the GVT fault. 1) Performance started late due to on-boarding and security clearance issues. Probably not our fault? ~ 1 Month. 2) GVT shutdown. Our fault. 1 Month. 3) Requirements gathering 'more complicated' than anticipated. Probably not our fault? 1 Month. 4) The Analysis of Alternatives was kicked back by the GVT at least twice for very questionable reasons and not within a reasonable time-period. Our fault. 3 Months.
  10. 1) Justification for Other Than Full and Open Competition (FAR 15) 2) Justification for Exception to Fair Opportunity (FAR 16.5) 3) Sole Source Justification (FAR 13.5?) 4) Limited Source Justification (FAR 8.4) 5) Brand Name Justification (scattered throughout the FAR) 6) Determination and Finding? 7) Probably other ones too? (Maybe FAR 14 has its own?) How's this for acquisition streamlining, just use option #1 for everything. Over SAT = Use FAR 6/15 Rules. Under SAT = Use FAR 13 Rules. The end.
  11. Caveat: Not an expert, so not the definitive answer: Yes. A FAR 13 'Sole Source; (FAR 13.106-1 (b) ) does not have any specific authority in U.S.C. In addition, the same is true for FAR 13.5. Under FAR 13.5, you use the 1) format, 2) notice and 3) approval from FAR 6. That is all. You do NOT cite any FAR 6.3 sole-source authority. The authority for (almost) all source-sources under FAR 13 is FAR 13 itself - ''CO determines only one source is reasonably available'.
  12. I caution against over-relying on FAR 15 for this, unless you are sure FAR 15 procedures were used. The vast majority of contracts do not use FAR 15 procedures (in HHS, my best estimate is less than 4% of new contract actions are straight FAR 15). FAR 3.104 is worth a read. As a CO, its very unclear to me what exactly can and cannot be disclosed in a debrief - other than if you guess wrong and disclose too much its instant death.
  13. Google "DTIC" Get stuff like this Analysis of Alternatives for Out- and Over-Size Strategic Airlift: Reliability and Cost Analyses https://apps.dtic.mil/dtic/tr/fulltext/u2/b256383.pdf
  14. It really varies, contracting is full of tiny little niches that don't have that much in common with each other: Topics I'm Interested In Process Improvement & Streamlining Source Selection for Services excluding FAR 15 IT System Acquisition Innovation Metrics and Performance Measurement Don't Care Anything Cost Plus DoD stuff, like OTA FAR 31 Construction Sealed Bidding Buzzy-Buzz-Buzz: AI / Blockchain / Machine Learning / Platforms / Robotic Process Automation / etc. Anything that applies only to FAR 15
×
×
  • Create New...