Constricting Officer

This is fun. To build it out a little, when it comes to complexity, it does not take into the account the other FAR parts and their individual definitions for use within each. No wonder the workforce is more than willing to wash their hands at 85/90% "good enough" and move on.

As long as it doesn't violate something a superior has no oversight of, I agree in most situations. The one I would not (we all been there) is when the superior wants to go about something a different way than the CO who sees a problem with it (procurement strategy/evaluation method/SS awards/etc.). It’s my name on the end product and I value that over a superior’s approval. I think an amendment to the statement makes it universal: “I really think contract specialist need to follow the direction of their superiors.”

One of our professional agencies gudiance: If present in contract (original award or modified. - "COs should not modify contracts for this requirement and an email should suffice to notify contractors that the clause will not be enforced at this time."

About an hour ago: "A federal judge in Georgia issued a nationwide injunction that prevents the U.S. government from enforcing a COVID-19 vaccine mandate on federal contractors, temporarily shutting down the last remaining vaccine requirement by the Biden administration." Judge Blocks COVID-19 Vaccine Mandate For Federal Contractors (claimsjournal.com)

Three states - at a time? Interesting . . . "The Biden administration's COVID-19 vaccination requirement for federal contractors received another blow from US District Judge Gregory Van Tatenhove, who granted a request Tuesday to block the federal mandate in three additional states: Kentucky, Ohio, and Tennessee." Judge Blocks Biden COVID-19 Vaccine Mandate for Federal Contractors (businessinsider.com)

Two questions: 1. The intent is to award a task order for the services under a parent IDC (ID/DQ-ID/IQ-ID/R)? 2. Are you not planning on using other than performance-based acquisition methods? I ask because FAR 37.602(b)(1) is clear, "Describe the work in terms of the required results rather than either "how" the work is to be accomplished or the number of hours to be provided." you could easily add number of employees in that citation. This is why the reviewer brought this up. I personally have never been in a situation where telling a contractor how many employees they should provide outweighed giving them the desired outcome and let them decide how to go about it. This allows them to provide a proposal that is competitive and capable of meeting the need.

Do it and learn from any mistakes made. A quick google search can provide ideas. Having no past performance is a factor and maybe a prime will shy away, but have you assembled a team of capable professionals to do the job? Don't focus on the fact that your company has no relevant past performance. Focus on the members of the team you assembled and their capabilities and experience.

Depends on many things, but mostly your presentation of the compony (offer/capabilities). As a sub, don't you already have a contract with the prime?

I concur as well. I don't know why anyone would sign a release considering the clause used provides a link to a website and FAQ page that is changing constantly. If the "sigma alpha mu variant" shows up this winter, they may update it to say all contractors must wear hazmat suits while in conference calls and using the restroom. Am I being a bit ridiculous? Perhaps, but nothing surprises me of late. FAR 52.223-99(c) - Compliance. The Contractor shall comply with all guidance, including guidance conveyed through Frequently Asked Questions, as amended during the performance of this contract, for contractor workplace locations published by the Safer Federal Workforce Task Force (Task Force Guidance) at https:/www.saferfederalworkforce.gov/contractors/. 🤨

They have the choice to accept it or not. I know no CO that would T4D them in administration if they do not. With that, several I have talked too in the construction realm, in which I currently reside as a CO, said they would lose most of their workforce if they enforced it. I do believe this is going to get interesting. We should all share the effects/trends we are seeing moving forward.

No. That clause is only present in the patent IDIQ to address the appropriation's availability for the guaranteed minimum. It is telling the contractor that even though the contract is awarded, we don't have the funding (consideration) to bind the contract and we'll let you know when we do. It has nothing to do with a TO 4.5 years down the road. What about an ID/Requirements contract? You wouldn't have -18 there because the consideration is a promise to order all items/services needed from them. There is no appropriation needed. Are you suggesting we add -18 to all ID/R contracts just in case a TO down the road may be in this situation with funding availability/end of year workload? It intrigues you that I issued a RFP and let the contractor know that the funds to award a contract are not yet available/appropriated?

Apologies for wording. I was in a hurry What I mean is that the modification may involve a different FY appropriation - Separate action concerning funding. Example - Service contract award in/with FY20 funding being modified, within scope, in FY21 will be subject to a different appropriation. It seems logical that a clause added to the initial award (FY20) would not automatically apply to a separate appropriation (FY21) down the road.

Chapter 14 (dol.gov) 14b03(a): "Based on the language of the SCA, if a contract is “entered into” by or with the government, and if its principal purpose is “to furnish services in the United States through the use of service employees,” it is subject to the SCA. See 41 USC 351(a)."

Agree with @ji20874. They are, for government owned equipment. If the government leases an office building and it gets hit by a bomb in the middle of the night, we don't award a design-build contract to rebuild it. It is on the lessor. No different than this leased equipment. Do they also want to start awarding service contracts to cover the 3-year warranty that comes with an MRI that was purchased?

No. A change order is a separate contract and the language in the clause (as outlined early in the thread) restricts it to "this contract." Not binding - If the clause is used in the change order and funds are not available at the time the modification is awarded. Additional notification required. Binding - If the funds are available when the modification is awarded. There is no need for the clause to be present in the situation. Only if it does apply. Adding language that says something not present, doesn't apply is a waste of time.