Krimz

Great distinction and good reads/views. I think it's possible each party made a mistake in OP's case, but it's not a "mutual mistake".

Yeah, it sounds like both sides were operating on autopilot, which isn't great. At risk of over simplifying -- the buyer issued a solicitation for one item, the seller provided a quote for an alternative item, the buyer mistakenly issued an offer for the solicited item, and the seller mistakenly accepted the offer for the solicited item. I'm making a lot of assumptions here, so maybe there are details in between that can put more fault on one party, but it sounds like both made mistakes, with the seller's mistake being more severe (in my opinion). Whether they realized it or not, if they accepted the offer from buyer, the seller entered into a binding contract for whatever was in the contract that they signed or delivered against. I think each side should admit to their mistake and move on.

Since it was an RFQ I assumed we all knew it was a quote (information) and not a proposal (offer). I should've been more clear in my response.

So, the RFQ requested one specification, Company A offered a different specification, and the award was made to Company A for the solicited specification? If Company A offered something other than what was requested, why was the award made to them? I assume you're Company A. If you received an award for one item, and then provided a different item, you are in breach of contract (assuming you signed or delivered your product, which binds you).

Why not contact a former colleague?

I see what you're saying. There is a place for contractor sig, but we've never had one refuse.

Hi @Voyager, No clue how I missed these replies, but apologies for the delay. I've never been in the situation you're describing, but whether it's a missed 1/1 delivery or 1/50 delivery, the contractor is in breach of contract and therefore at risk of being terminated. Whether it's in your best interest to offer to allow contractor to proceed in forbearance is up to CO & the circumstances. Forbearance is both the carrot & the stick. Hi @C Culham We issue the letter, sans mod. We do not modify the contract since the only reason to modify the contract would be to extend the POP, which would effectively excuse the contractor of their late performance and defeat the purpose of forbearance. I guess the contractor need not perform in forbearance, but the only other option is termination. We're not in this situation very often, but we discuss w/ the contractor when we are. They're typically happy to receive a second chance vice a termination for ktr breach.

For certain contracts, such as construction or services, I place in Section H "general" requirements of my locality (state, county, etc). In Section C, I place the requirements of the particular service(s) being performed. For example, fire protection requirements, which are issued by the state, go in Section H. The statement of work/specifications go in Section C. Section H is fairly boilerplate for my office.

Vern & Joel probably have better feedback, so I'll defer to them for the "right" answer, but this my personal experience: My office has a forbearance letter template in which we state we will abstain from terminating the contract (as is our right at this point since the POP has ended), but we do not forfeit that right. If we were to issue a modification extending the period of performance, the contractor would technically not be breach of contract, so we would forfeit the Government's right to terminate at a later date. We forbear our right to terminate, allow the contractor to continue performance, but we will terminate the contract if the contractor is unable to complete the work. We rarely allow a contractor to perform in forbearance unless the work is nearly complete, or we have some kind of assurance that the work will be completed within a reasonable amount of time beyond the original completion date.

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.

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.

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.

Thank you, everyone!

Thanks, Vern. That was my understanding, but I wanted to ask the question in case we're going rogue without realizing it.

Can CO's write their own clauses, or is that a no-no?

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?

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.

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?

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.

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.

Thank you both!

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?

This is a standalone contract. I think Don’s found the source of the confusion. Thank you for the feedback!

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?

For the record, my agency's contracting system allows the CS/CO to choose which number goes in the box. We can choose either the vendor's DUNS number, or their Vendor Number (ie, a local number assigned to that vendor by our system).