Jump to content
The Wifcon Forums and Blogs


  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

0 Neutral

About nkd9

  • Rank

Recent Profile Visitors

128 profile views
  1. All, Thanks for the wealth of knowledge and advice. These replies have given me some good points to bring up with the customer.
  2. Contract has not been awarded.
  3. Working with a contract where we tell the contractor we need a set number of employees at a set location for a number of hours- Temporary help services. Customer requests that travel be reimbursed per the JTR. My question. How would you evaluate this when it came time to evaluate price? A contractor using local employees vs having to transport them seems to have an unfair advantage. The performance work statement does specify how many nights and meals but leaves miles open.
  4. So what about a case where: 1. FFP Commercial Service under SAT where a contractor has submitted final invoice and there's a nominal amount left? If by the language of 52.212-4 price is a term, wouldn't the deob have to be bilateral? 2. Again FFP Commercial. The government was unable to use all of the services on a line item, due to weather or other circumstances, leaving a partially funded line item that is no longer needed with an expired POP. Wouldn't the deob have to be bilateral here too? It makes sense that if a release of claims has been submitted that the action could be unilateral, but in the cases above bilateral citing 52.212-4 (c) eems to be a safe way to go
  5. I have a few questions pertaining to the Contract Closeout process. Specifically: 1. When is a release of claims required? Per my understanding, it's for FFP Construction (52.232-5) and Architect Engineer Contracts (52.232-10) as well as Time and Materials and Labor Hour (52.232-7). Is there any requirement for a release of claims for commercial items at any dollar threshold? 2. When a de-obligation is required what is the correct legal authority to cite on the SF-30? For FFP commercial contracts, I usually go with FAR 52.212-4 (C) and a bilateral modification because a reduction in price is a change to the Terms and Conditions of the contract and must be made by mutual agreement of the parties. For Construction, A&E, Labor Hour, or T&M where a release of claims has been submitted is there any reason it couldn't be listed as a funding only action and executed as a unilateral mod? Thanks in advance for the help
  6. I appreciate all of the feedback this thread has generated. The parent IDIQ does not offer much guidance, just that fair opportunity will be given and that the award will be made based on the best value to the government. As the IDIQ does not offer much guidance. I think I'd be ok to use past experience and price as my only two factors. Dependent on the price, we may be willing to tradeoff price for experience. This order is under the SAT. I don't believe that I need to state the relative importance of each factor as FAR 16 doesn't seem to require it. As far as procedure for how the contractors will be evaluated, can this be simply stated, such as: "The government will consider and evaluate technical proposals and may make a tradeoff decision between price and past experience." Once we are ready to award, we would justify paying a higher price based on the importance of a contractor with greater experience with a memo to the file? Thanks again
  7. Hello all-- I'm working on placing an order against an existing IDIQ. The ordering procedures in the IDIQ dictate the government will give each contractor fair opportunity and an award will be made based on the best value to the government. The requirement owner would like to use evaluation factors because experience in a specific state is important due to state specific reporting requirements. I am thinking of using two factors: technical capability/past experience and price. For the tech factor I am considering asking the contractor to submit a short (2 page or less) statement which details their ability to perform the work specific to this SOW including specific experience in the state where the work is to be performed I am looking to possibly "trade off" price for the non-price factor. I would have the requirement owner justify their decision at source selection. My question: Is this an acceptable evaluation approach pursuant to FAR 16?
  8. ji20874, Thanks for the response and for sake of my understanding... Consider a 25k purchase of commercial items in which we are planning a single/sole source (the manufacturer of the item is the exclusive provider). 13.106-1 (b) (1) states that I have determined one source reasonably available (in this case because of patent rights). My next step is to prepare a justification stating 13.106-1 (b) as the authority. Following the justification I would post a combined synopsis/solicitation (for any time frame I deem reasonable meeting conditions at 5.203(b)) which would include the synopsis requirements at 5.207 as well as the justification citing the authority as 13.106-1 (b). Because 13.501 (a) documentation requirements do not apply I would simply post an award notice following award which would not have to include the justification. I do not see anywhere where a notice of intent would be required... Is this true? and Does my scenario make sense?
  9. Hello all, Can someone assist with explaining the application of soliciting from a single source pursuant to 13.106-1 (b) vs. sole source acquisition pursuant to 13.501 (a) ? Specifically, what does "soliciting from a single source" entail? How can one comply with posting requirements if only soliciting from one source pursuant to 13.106-1 (b)? Mainly, I am trying to understand the difference between the two authorities.
  • Create New...