Jump to content
The Wifcon Forums and Blogs


  • Posts

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Recent Profile Visitors

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

  1. Perhaps I'm reading 31.205-18 wrong when it says "required in the performance of a contract." When I say performance, I'm saying performing a portion of the PWS. What I believe is being mentioned here, however, is where a proposal is expressly "required" to be submitted once under contract for various things. When I look at it this way, it makes more sense. It's not the performance of work that's being referred to, but rather, whether the contract signed has a express clause requiring a proposal to be submitted for some attribute.
  2. FAR 31.205-18 Independent research and development and bid and proposal costs defines B&P as: Bid and proposal (B&P) costs means the costs incurred in preparing, submitting, and supporting bids and proposals (whether or not solicited) on potential Government or non-Government contracts. The term does not include the costs of effort sponsored by a grant or cooperative agreement, or required in the performance of a contract . Small Business with a Small Business Set-Aside award. CAS does not apply to small businesses. No certified cost or pricing applies. Compensation is T&M and within DoD. The effort is for General Services (not construction, not professional services). Contract term is base 5 years with 5 one year option periods, total 10 years. A Letter Contract (per FAR 52.215-25 Contract Definitization) has been entered into while the broader contract is being definitized / negotiated (there are some insurance anomalies associated with aircraft services). Question - the costs (time / hours) associated with contract negotiations on the broader contract - should these hours be charged to as B&P or charged as G&A / Overhead? Reason asking, B&P excludes costs (time / hours) associated with "performance of a contract." Does a Letter Contract constitute "performance of a contract" and thus because limited performance is taking place under the Letter Contract, therefore, any costs in furtherance of the Letter Contract, which would include negotiations of the broader contract, should be considered other than B&P? According to DoD, contract negotiations should be considered B&P https://www.acq.osd.mil/dpap/policy/policyvault/usa002866-11-dpap.pdf
  3. This would be for non construction. Thanks for clarifying.
  4. Usually with RFP's comes a question and answer period where prospective Offerors may ask questions with regard to the RFP and receive answers back from the Gov't. What if no time period for Q&A expressly exists within the RFP under a DoD Commercial Acquisition? I researched FAR 52.212-1 Instructions to Offerors (which is in the RFP) and did not find any standard language that addresses such. Is the Q&A period right up to the very end of the submission time if not indicated otherwise in a DoD Commercial Acquisition (SF1449)?
  5. Per DoD Memo, https://www.acq.osd.mil/dpap/policy/policyvault/USA001998-21-DPC.pdf, DoD is providing the KO's an option as to roll in the DFAR clause into contracts, task orders, etc. awarded before October 15, 2021. To me, this is further evidence that merely issuing a bilateral mod at the ID/IQ level does not automatically apply to the awarded task orders and a subsequent bilateral mod must be performed at the Task Order level.
  6. With the issuance of the COVID DFAR clause, the Gov't is issuing bilateral mods to various DoD ID/IQ's, among other. There's a common belief by a number of KO's that issuance of a bilateral mod at the ID/IQ level naturally and automatically applies to all (Task) Orders issued thereunder. When pressed for the authority, the KO's tend to cite FAR 52.216-18 ( b ) Ordering or DFAR 252.216-7006( b ). There appears to be no evidence within this clause stating a modification at the ID/IQ level also constitutes a (bilateral or unilateral) modification at the (Task) Order level. I see only the authority to issue Orders themselves and a conflict provision. Wouldn't each Task Order have to be modified separately through a bilateral to include the newly minted DFAR clause?
  7. What I'm gathering is that there's really nothing wrong with the FPH approach (that I've laid out). Whether the Contractor receives 100% of its fee (per year) early under a FPH approach, is not really relevant.
  8. Vern. Nope, no percentage stated. Just hours and dollars.
  9. here_2_help. What would I do about it? Nothing. The fact that I and or others may believe it may be a CPPC is to no avail. Need a board or court to ultimately make a determination.
  10. Retreadfed = factor (2) does not appear to be present. There is no percentage being billed, just the $2.02 per hour.
  11. Most certainly going to bring it up with the KO. Neil - your approach is what I was thinking as well. Answer the mail, but at same time, indicate that such does not apply.
  • Create New...