Constricting Officer

I don't believe that kind of thinking is allowed . . . Example: Plain Writing Act of 2010 = nothing in USC/FAR/Agency Supplements being re-written.

All, Not a overly complex question, but one I was struggling with. Thank you for the information, viewpoints and redirection needed.

All, When consulting FAR part 6, we find at 6.301 (b), "Each contract awarded without providing for full and open competition shall contain a reference to the specific authority under which it was so awarded. Contracting officers shall use the U.S. Code citation applicable to their agency. (See 6.302.)." We know that the authority for agencies outside of DOD, CG and NASA is located at 41 U.S.C. 3304. For example, FAR part 6.302-2 (unusual and compelling urgency) is cited as 41 U.S.C. 3304 (a) (2). My question concerns SAP. When using FAR part 13 procedures, at 13.106-1 (b) (1) (i) FAR states, "Contracting officers may solicit from one source if the contracting officer determines that the circumstances of the contract action deem only one source reasonably available (e.g., urgency, exclusive licensing agreements, brand-name or industrial mobilization)." This citation is for below SAT, once we reach 13.5 (above SAT), we are referred back to FAR part 6 for guidance. I have been looking through U.S.C. and cannot find authority for the text at 13.106-1 (b) (1) (i) added through the passing of FASA in 94. Question. Did FASA create a SS authority under SAT, that doesn't have to be referenced back to U.S.C. or am I just not finding it?

ji20874 is 100% correct. We do tend to jump around the FAR parts during an acquisition , but FAR 15 covers the "required" debriefs. I am no expert in this field, but the time I have spent in it tells me you might be dealing with a rookie that has been assigned paperwork duties. Just gave you everything they had, as oppose to discerning what should and should not have been provided. Once again, ji20874 is correct. Not your problem.

No need to focus on $ value for a contract modification. Instead focus on "in-scope" and "out of scope." The wording in the solicitation you are describing makes this modification out-off scope and therefore cannot be modified into the contract, bi-passing CICA. "Will be purchased separately" means by a separate contract action. It is the same as purchasing 50 engines from Ford and stating you would be the cars separately and then months later modifying in 50 GT Mustangs to the same contract. Good way to have a Warrant terminated.

I don't understand your reasoning? Opportunities are offered to all, but that doesn't mean all take advantage. Not contracting's job to worry about who attends. FAR 1.102-2[c](3): "The Government shall exercise discretion, use sound business judgment, and comply with applicable laws and regulations in dealing with contractors and prospective contractors. All contractors and prospective contractors shall be treated fairly and impartially but need not be treated the same (EA)." If the contractor chooses not to attend, that is their decision.

Not only is it permissible, if the timeline for the acquisition can be moved alone by doing so, I think it is a great idea. People get to wrapped around posting QAs to FBO and no other way will work ("the way we've always done it" crap), but if there is a better way to do it for the situation at hand, why not!!! I would suggest keeping minutes of the call and posting them after the fact. Whether a protest could be won or not, it could save you the headache.

I did some research and it seems to be really simple and innovative at the same time. Contractor comes through they get the daily rate as a bonus, on-time completion means the government wins/contractor is whole and late completion means they pay what it cost the government to wait. I really like it as a tool, but It would be hard to use in my current line of work for most instances (services). Hard to measure by a day or event. It has been a long day so maybe I am not thinking "Big Picture." Any ideas group?

Thanks for the info.

Hmmmm, Bob addressed this I believe: "Format for writing Questions Write your issue, scenario, or facts in the first part of your post. If your background is long, break up your thoughts with paragraphs. If you use an acronym that others may not recognize, like ADHD, write it like this Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder (ADHD). You don't have to worry about the FAR or DFARS because this is a contracting forum. Make sure you identify any regulation, law, etc. by citation. After you've written your facts, then write your questions in a new section below the facts. To distinguish one question from another, use the indent with the numbers in the bar at the top of the typing area. Click it with your mouse and the number will appear. Write your first question and, if you have more questions, hit the enter button and the number 2 will appear. If you have more questions, repeat."

All, Was wondering what you'll have been seeing as the currently trending evaluation factors in solicitations? I know sometimes people get really creative. I know FAR 15 gives us some very general ones: "FAR 15.304 (c): (1) Price or cost to the Government shall be evaluated in every source selection (10 U.S.C.2305(a)(3)(A)(ii) and 41 U.S.C.3306(c)(1)(B)) (also see part 36 for architect-engineer contracts); (2) The quality of the product or service shall be addressed in every source selection through consideration of one or more non-cost evaluation factors such as past performance, compliance with solicitation requirements, technical excellence, management capability, personnel qualifications, and prior experience (10 U.S.C.2305(a)(3)(A)(i) and 41 U.S.C.3306(c)(1)(A)); and (3) (i) Past performance, except as set forth in paragraph (c)(3)(iii) of this section, shall be evaluated in all source selections for negotiated competitive acquisitions expected to exceed the simplified acquisition threshold." (EA) Any and all examples will be greatly appreciated. Trying to put together a list of what our fellow professionals are using. Thanks in advance/CO

nkd9, As others have stated, there is a lack of information provide for a detailed response. To add to those, why are options the preferred course for the contract formulation? I am guessing it is because the customer wants the option to get out of the contract is one of the phases does not go the way they plan/hope/want?

My organization likes to first get people familiar with the contract writing system used first. Then start some formal training from the ground up (CON 90/FAR Boot Camp first), while also having a starting workload. jj20874 is 100% right about professional dialogue. I would suggest in addition to learning the ropes in that way, seek out one who appears to have the most knowledge of your team's main acquisition focus (supplies/services/construction/etc.). Think of this person as a mentor. He/She won't be hard to find after a couple of weeks there and isn't always the person making the most money either. Suggestion: Don't let it burn you out, because it can in weeks if allowed. Being a CS is rewarding, fun and exciting career field, but comes with a lot of moving parts (Agency Supplements/FAR/USC/etc.) to catch onto.

1102ByMistake, Acceptance must be completed by the government: FAR 46.101 states, ““Acceptance” means the act of an authorized representative of the Government by which the Government, for itself or as agent of another, assumes ownership of existing identified supplies tendered or approves specific services rendered as partial or complete performance of the contract.” Also, FAR 46.502 make it very clear: Acceptance of supplies or services is the responsibility of the contracting officer. When this responsibility is assigned to a cognizant contract administration office or to another agency (see 42.202 (g)), acceptance by that office or agency is binding on the Government. It does define this as services and supplies. I know of nothing directly tied to construction. I think we can reasonably agree that the same guidelines should apply. Would be a bad business practice to let the contractor tell us it is good-to-go. Inspection/testing is another matter: FAR 12.208 Contract quality assurance. “Contracts for commercial items shall rely on contractors’ existing quality assurance systems as a substitute for Government inspection and testing before tender for acceptance unless customary market practices for the commercial item being acquired include in-process inspection. Any in-process inspection by the Government shall be conducted in a manner consistent with commercial practice.” FAR 46.202-2 Government reliance on inspection by contractor. (a) Except as specified in (b) of this section, the Government shall rely on the contractor to accomplish all inspection and testing needed to ensure that supplies or services acquired at or below the simplified acquisition threshold conform to contract quality requirements before they are tendered to the Government (see 46.301). (b) The Government shall not rely on inspection by the contractor if the contracting officer determines that the Government has a need to test the supplies or services in advance of their tender for acceptance, or to pass judgment upon the adequacy of the contractor’s internal work processes. In making the determination, the contracting officer shall consider- (1) The nature of the supplies and services being purchased and their intended use; (2) The potential losses in the event of defects; (3) The likelihood of uncontested replacement or correction of defective work; and (4) The cost of detailed Government inspection.

All, Could some please point me to the authority governing such equipment leasing (use an MRI as example)?