Jump to content
The Wifcon Forums and Blogs


  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

0 Neutral

About jjj

  • Rank

Recent Profile Visitors

The recent visitors block is disabled and is not being shown to other users.

  1. Does the clause at FAR 52.229-3 provide your contractors with the protection from tariffs they are seeking?
  2. The sub’s failure is the prime’s failure. The sub’s failure (if uncorrected by the prime) can and should affect the prime’s CPARS report (both rating and narrative). If so, maybe that prime won’t use that sub anymore, which will contribute to the original poster’s goal. That’s why I introduced the clause after asking about debarment.
  3. Did you know that unsatisfactory performance of one or more {sub}contracts is a basis for debarment? If you use a clause like FAR 52.209-6 in future contracts, it might help keep the firm from getting more subcontracts.
  4. report the prime's failures in CPARS, as sub's failures are prime's failures evaluate the prime's subcontracting approach (if not sealed bid) debar the subcontractor
  5. Thanks for feedback! Vern Edwards, 1. Yes. 15 months might be a little excessive, and we might want to use a shorter period. 2. Just wondering, not asserting. It is already clearly established that we have some reach back ability in a T4D situation. We're wondering if that flexibility can apply in other situations when an awarded contract does not complete. here_2_help, 3. No, I never said that. 4. No, I never said that. Retreadfed, The discussion on p. 14 of the decision at https://law.justia.com/cases/federal/district-courts/federal-claims/cofce/1:2013cv00071/27748/128/ is instructive. If you have time, please look at it. Neil, There are no cost or pricing data or certification concerns in a competitive acquisition, and if there were, extending the validity of an offer is a wholly voluntary action. C Culham, There is no deviation. Yes, we're looking at it as a provision, because it only has meaning in an unaccepted offer. All, In simplest terms, the purpose is to give notice to unsuccessful offerors that, after award of the first contract, the Government might approach them and invite them to extend the validity of their offer in case the first contract doesn't complete. In some cases, this approach will be more advantageous to everyone than starting an entirely new acquisition.
  6. Reaching back into a pool of competitive offers for a second award from that pool is permissible after the first award is terminated for default (GAO bid protest decision Maersk Line, B-410445; B-410445.2, December 29, 2014) -- this is rather commonly done. The Court of Federal Claims allowed this reach back (instead of a new competition) after the first award was terminated for convenience (Coastal Environmental Group, No. 13-71C, August 13, 2014) -- this is probably done only rarely. My contracting office is thinking of drafting a provision for use in solicitations for service contracts to put offerors on notice that we may may want to exercise this reach back flexibility (instead of a new competition) if we terminate the first awarded contract for default or convenience, or otherwise choose not to exercise an option, within 15 months of the date of the first award. One might say that we already have this flexibility even if we're silent (at least for terminations), but we have no problem with being transparent and providing a notice. I'm interested in any thoughts on this approach from the WIFCON community. Here's the draft of our provision-- AWARD OF A REPROCUREMENT CONTRACT (a) The Government intends to make one contract award resulting from this solicitation to the offeror that provides the best value to the Government. At any time within fifteen months after award of that contract (the first contract), the Government may award a reprocurement contract to another offeror (based on the evaluation conducted for award of the first contract) if the Government— (1) terminates the first contract; or (2) does not exercise a performance period option under the first contract. (b) Award without discussions. If an identification of a second-ranked offeror was made for award of the first contract, the contracting officer may rely on that ranking to select the offeror to be awarded the reprocurement contract. If a ranking of offerors was not made, the selecting authority may re-visit the evaluation results and select the best value offeror. In either case, if the period for acceptance of offers has ended and the prospective awardee does not agree to extend its offer acceptance period, another offeror may be selected. (c) Award with discussions. The contracting officer may establish a competitive range of the most highly rated proposals based on the evaluation that supported the first contract award. The procedures of FAR 15.306 and 15.307 will apply. The offeror’s final proposal revision shall specify the period for acceptance of its offer.
  • Create New...