Jump to content
The Wifcon Forums and Blogs


  • Posts

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Recent Profile Visitors

554 profile views
  1. Hoping wifcon might be able to provide some insight. This is a FAR 15 acquisition using best-value tradeoff. Assume the Statement of Work stated that work must be complete no later than 09/25/2020. Multiple proposals were received. A large number of offerors (60% of them) indicated in their proposals that the completion date in our Statement of Work would not be possible to meet and gave completion dates ranging from 01/05/2020 to 02/05/2020. Can the Government accept one of the proposals with a later completion date if the CO determines that the later date is acceptable to the Government? If for some reason your answer is no, what if we enter into discussions and allow all offerors to indicate their period of performance?
  2. Scenario: The Government ordered a widget at a cost of $100,000. Due to issues with the Government's specifications, the Contractor needed to adjust some of the characteristics/specifications of the widget (size, color, etc.). The Government accepted the changes in order for an on-time delivery and the new widget will meet the Governments need but it is worth less. The CO believes there should be a cost savings of $10,000. The contractor has offered compensation in the form of accessories for that widget that would be to the benefit of the Government to accept. Question: Can the Government accept other than money for a change in cost of the requirement (i.e. can the Government accept $10,000 in accessories to cover the difference?) Note: I've tried to be as clear as I could, let me know if additional detail is necessary.
  3. To answer C Culham- Yes this is for services, though each task is the same service. This project is dependent upon another that is taking place at the same time, so I've been told quantities specified might need to change as time goes on. If the other project takes longer, we'll need the services for longer. Funding is 2 year. I think I'll advise the customer that we use a single option line. Something like "up to 12 months" of this service. Then I'll utilize the Option for Increased Quantity- Separately Priced Line Item and tailor it to fit my needs. Thoughts on this approach?
  4. Customer has a requirement to create a plan and then implement it. They are hoping for: Base Task- Plan creation (awarded this fiscal year), period of performance would end 5 months following date of award. Option Task 1- Implement Plan for Stage 1- period of performance takes place for 3 months next FY Option Task 2- Implement Plan for Stage 2- period of performance takes place for 4 months next FY Option Task 3- Implement Plan for Stage 3- period of performance takes place for 2 months next FY The customer wishes to award as many options as funding allows at date of award. Whatever available funding does not cover, they are hoping to keep as options for future use. Is this an acceptable use of options? Thanks for any insight or feedback.
  5. All, Thanks for the wealth of knowledge and advice. These replies have given me some good points to bring up with the customer.
  6. Contract has not been awarded.
  7. 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.
  8. 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
  9. 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
  10. 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
  11. 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?
  12. 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?
  13. 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...