Jump to content

Vern Edwards

Members
  • Posts

    2,651
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by Vern Edwards

  1. I am not aware of, and could not find, any court decision dealing with a case in which an agency knowingly issued a class deviation that was contrary to statute. That may be because FAR 1.402 states: Emphasis added. Statute trumps regulation.
  2. @Fara Fasat You probably know this, and perhaps you have explained it to your "order management people," but I thought I would pass it on: In the sentence in 52.203-12(g)(1): The bolded phrase reflects the fact that subcontracts will be awarded at various times during the life of the prime contract and that the dollar threshold in FAR 3.808 will periodically change in accordance with FAR 1.109. The intent of the phrase is to instruct primes to apply the dollar threshold in effect on the date of subcontract award, not the threshold in effect on the date of prime contract award, when determining whether to seek the "declaration" mentioned at the beginning of the sentence. See FAR 1.109(d). It is not intended to indicate the date on which the subcontractor must sign the declaration. Finally, according to FAR 52.203-11(e), the declaration (certification) is a "prerequisite" to award, which means it must be signed and submitted before an award may be made. However, signing at the time of award should satisfy that requirement.
  3. So what were you hoping for? It strikes me that your "order management people" are trying to tell the prime how to administer its contract with the government. The prime has told your order management people what it wants and that it wants it because government people have said that's how it must be. The interpretation of the FAR seems wrong. But how are they going to change the prime's position? Through lessons in English syntactical analysis that they can pass on to the government people? You have not mentioned any significant and insurmountable legal objections to doing what the prime wants. So it appears that the problem boils down to this: Your order management people have an administrative process that makes it hard for them to do what what the prime wants and they cannot fashion a work-around. What organization does that sound like?
  4. Sorry about the pay wall. Just my two cents worth: A subscription to the NYT isn’t very expensive, and you don’t have to read the political stuff. The science, travel, book, art, philosophy, culture, and food stories alone are worth it. Just sayin’.
  5. It appears that you do not have a deep-seated legal reason to object to what the prime wants and that it is your "process" that prevents you from meeting your prospective customer's requirement. Oh well, I guess your employer and the prime won't be doing business on this occasion. But if what you are hoping for is someone at Wifcon to write something here that you can take to the prime and say, "See, someone from Wifcon.com says you're wrong," then hang around. Someone might step up, and the prime might change its mind. Best to you. Signing off.
  6. I think the QA reviewer is being bone headed. But, that said, it's an entry in an acquisition plan. In my experience, the main purpose of an AP is to get approval to initiate the contract formation process. This is not an issue I would bother about. Besides, since FFP is the preferred pricing arrangement, and since the contract will be FFP, the fact that the contract will be IDIQ may be more significant. Most of the people who have responded to your opening post seem to agree with you, but it appears that the QA has more bureaucratic go-power than you. So my advice is to put this behind you and just do what you gotta do to get the plan signed so you can get on with the process.
  7. I think the QA reviewer is being bone headed. But, that said, it's an entry in an acquisition plan. In my experience, the main purpose of an AP is to get approval to initiate the contract formation process. Besides, since FFP is the preferred pricing arrangement, and since the contract will be FFP, the fact that the contract will be IDIQ may be more significant. Most of the people who have responded to your OP seems to sympathize with you, but it appears that the QA has more go power than you. My advice is to just do what you gotta do to get the plan signed and then get on with the process.
  8. I think your interpretation is almost certainly correct, but I'm curious: In seeking a certification from you, the prime is interpreting a clause in their own contract. Why are you arguing with them about their interpretation of their contract? Why not just sign the certification on the date they request, even if they have misinterpreted the clause? What if they said, "We're going beyond what the clause requires of us, just for our won protection, just because that's the way we want it." Would you walk away from the subcontract? And since the clause must be is flowed down to you, and you must get certifications from your own subs, why not interpret the clause as the prime requests? Why make an issue of it? Does it really make a difference to you? If so, how?
  9. Just to be clear, I did not mean to posit that there is no such thing as objective truth. I meant to speculate that perhaps Guardian could not define objective truth because there might not be any such thing. There are several theories of truth with respect to what makes statements true or false.
  10. See "School Is for Wasting Time and Money," by Prof. Bryan Caplan, George Mason University, in The New York Times, Guest Essay, Sept. 1, 2022: https://www.nytimes.com/2022/09/01/opinion/us-school-knowledge.html A taste:
  11. See page 33. The PIL created a podcast entitled, "A Brief Explanation of Brief Explanations: Policy and Practice in Action." The podcast was an explanation of FAR 8.405-3(d), "If an unsuccessful offeror requests information on an award that was based on factors other than price alone, a brief explanation of the basis for the award decision shall be provided." See also FAR 13.106-3(d). What does it say about the state of a college-educated workforce (and DHS "culture") when the PIL felt the need to create an hour-long podcast (a silly one) to explain "brief explanation"? What does it say about American college education?
  12. Maybe you can't define "objective truth" because there is no such thing. Maybe there is no such thing as objectivity.
  13. What's your definition of "objective truth"? Your definition. Not a quote from someone else.
  14. Yes. I don't know of any "piece of technology" that could do routine contracting administrative tasks. Just hire high school grads. No, I'm not thinking of them as "feeders" into the 1102 series, although some might become so. I'm not sure whether there would be a shortage of such folks, but it sure would help solve the student loan crisis if we stopped requiring college degrees for simple work such as issuing purchase orders and delivery orders for small and routine buys. I'm leaving on a long road trip in about an hour and won't be back for a week or so. Have fun with the thread. Vern
  15. Why do you want technology? Just bring back a workforce position that used to do administrative work: procurement clerk and procurement technician, GS-1106, and hire and train high school grads to do that work. The position description needs updating and the duties should be expanded, but here is how the PD currently describes them as they were in 1992: https://www.opm.gov/policy-data-oversight/classification-qualifications/classifying-general-schedule-positions/standards/1100/gs1106.pdf The work includes - preparing, verifying, abstracting, controlling, or closing out procurement documents, files, reports, or records; - updating and maintaining the currency of procurement documents or related information; - sorting, compiling, typing, and distributing requisitions, contracts, orders, modifications, etc.; - tracking the status of requisitions, contracts, and orders using automated or manual files and through contacts with vendors, supply technicians, inventory managers, engineers, etc.; - attending bid openings and abstracting bid information; - maintaining bidder mailing lists by adding or deleting vendor information in the system; - assembling contract file information and entering purchase order or contract data into a management information system; - reviewing reports and researching errors or conflicting information in procurement documentation; - assembling and preparing procurement management reports by gathering and consolidating pertinent information; - monitoring contractor performance and recommending modifications to the contract; - investigating customer or vendor complaints of errors in shipment, payment, and/or contract documentation; - developing manual and/or assisting in the development of automated procurement procedures; and - reviewing purchase order or contract files for inclusion of specific documents or clauses as defined in procedures.
  16. With what explanation? There can be legal consequences for the government if the the CO unduly delays issuance of a notice to proceed. That having been said, the PM and the CO should plan the timing of an NTP before the solicitation is released.
  17. Wouldn't it be nice if FAR were consistent? FAR 15.304, Evaluation factors for award, says that the following four factors must be evaluated, as prescribed: price or cost to the government, quality of the product or service (including management capability, personnel qualifications, technical excellence, and experience), past performance, and proposed small business subcontracting. But FAR 15.305, Proposal evaluation, lists the following four categories of proposal evaluations: cost or price, past performance, technical (mentioning assessment of each offeror's ability to accomplish the technical requirements, but not mentioning the quality of the proposed product or service), and small business subcontracting. Why don't those sections match up? They were written at the same time. Given the way 15.304 is written, why doesn't FAR 15.305 say "quality evaluation?" instead of "technical evaluation"? Is seems to me that regulations should be written so as to make the rules clear even to novices and to citizens seeking to compete for contracts.
  18. That would be consistent with the use prescribed by the revised DOD Source Selection Procedures.
  19. @Busymom44You are a contracting officer?
  20. Extend the scope of what? The contract or an order under the contract? See FAR 15.000, Scope of part: Now see the definition of "contract" in FAR 2.101.
  21. We still see references to "technical evaluations" and "technical factors" applied to proposals with non-technical content. In fact, such references are very common. And see the newly-revised DOD source selection procedures, page C-4: So factors like key personnel qualifications are "technical."
  22. You might want to think about that again. Begin with this: What does "guarantee" mean? Is a guarantee anything other than a promise? If a guarantee is a promise, and if by proposal you mean offer, then why can proposals never guarantee success? Look up guarantee in Black's Law Dictionary, 11th ed., and then in Garner's Dictionary of Legal Usage, 3d ed. And what do you mean by "Proposals demonstrate. That is all they do."?
  23. A discrete cost estimate is an engineering estimate of a specific cost, like materials or labor. Such discrete estimates are assembled into a total cost estimate. An "other than discrete cost estimate" would be a parametric estimate, which is obtained from an equation based on a cost estimating relationship (CER), in which some cost is a function of some independent independent variable like weight or size. If the estimate is based on a CER, the offeror should identify the independent variable, the cost function, and the derivation of the function. At least, that's what I think it means.
×
×
  • Create New...