Jump to content

Krimz

Members
  • Posts

    47
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Recent Profile Visitors

545 profile views
  1. I think contracting has a gap in knowledge. A lot of old timers either retired or found new offices, and there's less mentoring occurring. That's not an excuse, but I think that's what's happening. I'm still relatively new to contracting, but I supervise a team and I do my best to teach them basics and the why of what we do. I actually pass along a lot of "Vern Edwards perspective", so thanks for being here and giving that freely. I'll probably ask the occasional stupid question from time to time, but I always try to find the answer before asking. As for OP's question: I get similar questions from my crew. Our system automatically prints a "Period of Performance" in the header and line level of our forms (we're required to enter a POP in our system so finance knows whether an invoice is within the terms of the contract. This is obviously geared toward services rather than construction, so we're just sure to add enough padding to the POP and then delete it from the form our system prints out), so we delete it and let the SF1442 block 11 stand, along with 52.211-10 which is in all of our construction contracts. I'd rather not print the same information in two places, but right now that's how our system works so we just deal with it.
  2. Thanks everyone. We found a way forward. We actually have an overarching agreement between our non-DOD agencies that allows for reciprocation of certain delegations, including contracting delegations.
  3. Good afternoon Wifcon, Customer is requesting we delegated COR authority to another agency's personnel due to staffing shortages within our own agency. My concern is this individual is not learned in our agency's regulations/instructions/supplements and that delegating them CO authority may be worse than not having a COR at all. Also, do we owe this organization funding to cover the time spent performing COR duties on our behalf, or can they donate those to us? I've considered an IAA, but others in my office say I'm overthinking it, so I figured I'd consult the brain trust.
  4. Thanks, Vern. That was my understanding, but I wanted to ask the question in case we're going rogue without realizing it.
  5. Can CO's write their own clauses, or is that a no-no?
  6. Good morning Wifcon! While FAR 17.5 does not apply to construction contracts, it does not preclude the use of option clauses in construction contracts. My CO has a need for an option clause and while 52.217-7 most closely fits the bill, it needs some tweaking. Their intent was to rename the clause and tweak it to suit their needs, while keeping it substantially the same as the original clause as-written. Is this something we can do?
  7. ji20874's right. Upon award reportage to FPDS-NG, you'll get credit for as many socioeconomic groups as the contractor belongs to. Kind of weird to me, but that's the way it's tracked.
  8. As always, it depends. If you were to refuse a contract because you refused to require your employees to get the COVID vaccine, then it's not likely you will get any other contract that requires your employees to get the COVID vaccine as long as you continue to submit a quote, proposal, or bid in response to the solicitations with this clause (when it becomes available). If you only perform as a subcontractor and you refuse to agree to the COVID vaccination clause, do you think the primes will continue asking you to do work for them given your position?
  9. Yeah, not saying they were not (I was quoting that), but when I think about the old definition of PALT, or other meaningful definitions of PALT, it seems like it would be would be very hard to accurately track any other meaningful metric.
  10. I agree w/ Vern that this is a very insightful post. I'm not sure if you're saying they changed the definition of PALT to satisfy industry, or if it's just a coincidence. I think the reason for the new definition of PALT is more out of convenience than anything. I think the new definition is what it is is because PALT can now easily be calculated via FPDS-NG. Solicitation closing date & award date are both known, and it's now required to include the solicitation number in the award CAR. This is the only way to actually track this kind of data on such a large scale.
  11. Good morning WifCon, I have very little experience with formal acquisitions in FAR 15, but in the Air Force it was the rule to have funding up front before issuing an RFP. I understood that to be because we were requesting formal offers, one of which we will accept for award. Now, in my current, non-DOD office, COs are considering issuing RFPs without funding in hand. Is there really no requirement to have funds available prior to issuing an RFP? I've gone through the FAR and haven't seen anything in Part 15. When I issue an RFQ I am ultimately only requesting information, and technically a non-CO (unwarranted person) can request quotes, but only a warranted CO can request proposals. What am I missing?
  12. This is a standalone contract. I think Don’s found the source of the confusion. Thank you for the feedback!
  13. Good afternoon Wifcon, I have a disagreement w/ a coworker about when to synopsize to the GPE and when not to. I have a construction requirement under the SAT which I am about to synopsize, but I'm told I nothing in the FAR requires me to, and they cited FAR 5.202(a)(13😞 as well as the below "Ask the Professor" answer: My thought is that 5.202(a)(13), as confusing as it is, still requires a notice to be posted in some form or fashion. Am I missing something here?
×
×
  • Create New...