Jump to content
The Wifcon Forums and Blogs


  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

0 Neutral

About RightSaidFed

  • Rank

Recent Profile Visitors

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

  1. Does inclusion of the GP clause automatically make the item GFP? I would think not; you'd have to specify what exactly is GFP. The DFARS seems clear enough in its prescription to include the clause, but I don't see the wing as meeting the definition of GFP in any practical sense. I agree that the definition is poor, and that "furnished" is undefined. I think this situation demonstrates the hazards of overly-broad prescriptions and bad writing in the FAR.
  2. Here's one relevant to my interests. https://www.casemine.com/judgement/us/5914b38badd7b04934766e4a Basically, what I read is that federal preemption involves not only a clear indication in the text of the relevant statute, but also in the intent of Congress. Absent those elements, a requirement contrary to state law would not suffice to give the contractor the right to violate that law.
  3. Sounds like OP wanted short answers only (i.e. wasn't interested in reading or understanding). The 1102 series is not for them.
  4. Maybe I'm grossly misunderstanding this, but wouldn't RAM for servers typically fall under an exception for Section 508, specifically that at FAR 39.204(d): Given that understanding, I don't know why any HHS policies relevant to Section 508 would apply. But I have no experience with HHSAR.
  5. I'm an early-career 1102 (just over 3 years in), and I made the move from DOD to a civilian agency for that target 13 position. Let's just say that there have been some regrets. Forget expanding my contracting knowledge here; I think I'm actively getting dumber. There's definitely grade inflation here on the civilian agency side, by about one grade. The biggest difference is experience, however. Our management staff is entirely composed of young, go-getters (younger than me). In DOD, all our managers had 30+ years of experience. The difference in respect earned from Program is immense. We were trusted business advisers in DOD. Here, we're an obstacle to be overcome, with all our inconvenient legislative and regulatory mandates that ring like the buzzing of flies in our customers' ears.
  6. Can't this be done with a Time & Materials or Labor Hour contract, in accordance with FAR 12.207(b)(1)?
  7. Is the Government really this ill-equipped to handle a volume discount? I would think a reasonable evaluation of price could include some sort of weighted average price, given the estimated likelihood of exercising a given option, or buying a certain volume.
  8. I used to get so much guff from people for printing my documents for vertical flipping by default. Sure, it's unusual for review, but it's better for the file. My former employer just mandated (as of 1 OCT) electronic contract files...for SAP buys only. They also had about 5 gigs of network storage space per 1102, which won't last long, given the lack of file size discipline exercised by most users.
  9. It does say "to the maximum extent practicable." Your contract writing system has inherent limitations that, perhaps arguably, make it impracticable to precisely follow the format. At this point, consider yourself fortunate to have a contract writing system that can: 1) integrate provisions and clauses, 2) integrate a SOO/SOW/PWS, 3) generate a conform copy of the contract, 4) handle attachments/exhibits. Mine can't do any of that. I never thought I'd long for PD2.
  10. If you reread the decision, you'll see that GAO disagreed with the ACE, and determined that this was not, in fact, a sealed bidding acquisition. Instead, GAO determined that this acquisition actually used FAR subpart 12.6 procedures, which allows for more latitude in their evaluation. All that said, I agree that FAR part 14 does not apply to acquisitions using FAR part 8. Still, the GAO decision does indicate that GAO has upheld use of the equal low bids portion of FAR 14 in acquisitions that used FAR part 15 procedures. It certainly seems like a reasonable procedure, and absent any smoking gun FAR citation, I don't see any other, more reasonable solution, assuming you already asked for a discount and there remains a tie. I assume you considered FAR 8.405-5(d) Though I suspect that receiving four equal quotes means that a large business manufacturer quotes the same prices to each of their resellers or otherwise dictates pricing.
  11. I would think you would need to be a bit more specific in which value indicators you considered, in order to fully document your award decision.
  12. There has been one contract that I wrote that probably should have been a T&M but was instead a very expensive (for the services to be provided) FFP. It was a contract for generator maintenance/emergency repair. Perhaps it should have been FFP for routine preventive maintenance portions, and T&M for diagnostic and repair. All my part 13 buys have been commercial. I succumbed to (as indicated in your signature) the nemesis of progress, tradition.
  • Create New...