Jump to content

brenadine

Members
  • Posts

    6
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Reputation

0 Neutral
  1. why don't they cite authority under 6.302-1 (a) (ii), which says the same thing but without the limitation to DoD, NASA and the Coast Guard? 6.302-1 -- Only One Responsible Source and No Other Supplies or Services Will Satisfy Agency Requirements. (a) Authority. ... (2) When the supplies or services required by the agency are available from only one responsible source, or, for DOD, NASA, and the Coast Guard, from only one or a limited number of responsible sources, and no other type of supplies or services will satisfy agency requirements, full and open competition need not be provided for. ... (ii) Supplies may be deemed to be available only from the original source in the case of a follow-on contract for the continued development or production of a major system or highly specialized equipment, including major components thereof, when it is likely that award to any other source would result in -- (A) Substantial duplication of cost to the Government that is not expected to be recovered through competition, or (B ) Unacceptable delays in fulfilling the agency?s requirements. (See 10 U.S.C. 2304(d)(1)(B ) or 41 U.S.C. 253 (d)(1)(B ).)
  2. DoD FMR is working on a new chapter (Vol. 10 Chapter 23): "Government Purchase Card (GPC) Program policies and procedures". I have been asking DoDFMR since May when it will be published - in June I got this reply: "Volume 10, Chapter 23 is under review. It will be posted as soon as it comes out of review. Thanks, Rose Dorcely FMR Coordinator" Keep an eye put for it, I think it might eventually help clear up some recurring problems with managing the GPC program in DoD. Right now, our program is coordinated out of RM and its a nightmare. If you still want more info., shoot me an e-mail (humphreyb at marshallcenter.org), I've got a ton of DoD regs, policies and info.
  3. Not exactly. I think the contracting officer would have had the funds certified as available by their resource manager, so that if it turned out the funds were not available, the resource manager would be responsible and you would (in DoD) follow corrective action for the ADA violation, not a ratification? Like I said though - the area causes me great confusion...I just can't see any Contracting Officer not ensuring funds were available before even starting work on the contract. Maybe this is common?
  4. HYPO Facts: KTR awarded project for 100k to build building. KO obligates award but funding doc has only 70K. KTR is paid 50K in progress payments. Later it is determined KO has violated the ADA. What amount of money is the KTR entitled to keep? Will the government have a claim to reimburse the KTR only on the basis of quantum meruit or will the contract be treated as a T4C? Please discuss. OK, I'm very new and this question really has me confused. As I read it, the hypo situation is that a contract was awarded to a contractor to build a building for 100K. Before awarding the contract, hasn't the contracting officer certified funds available from his/her Resource Manager? If the fiscal authority certified funds were available for 100K - isn't the resource manager the one responsible for any potential ADA violation. Is it likely that a contracting officer would award a contract w/o ensuring funds were available? That seems a very basic thing to do first. So, for me the confusing part is - doesn't FAR 1.602-3(c )(6) say that to ratify an unauthorized commitment, "Funds are available and were available at the time the unauthorized commitment was made". Doesn't this seem to imply that you can not ratify an ADA violation, since by definition, to be an ADA violation there must NOT have been appropriate funds available at the time of obligation? Is this really an unauthorized commitment in terms of ratification? FAR 1.6023 definitions says "Unauthorized commitment,? as used in this subsection, means an agreement that is not binding solely because the Government representative who made it lacked the authority to enter into that agreement on behalf of the Government" Am I reading this too narrowly? To me it seems that the contracting officer would have had authority to enter into the agreement so it seems to not be an unauthorized commitment in terms of ratification, but an ADA issue that might need a completely different solution. For the DoD, the solution would seem to be listed in the corrective actions section in DoD FMR Vol. 15 Ch.5.
  5. I have seen purchase card holder's with two different delegations here; one for "procurement authority" and one for "contract authority". I always wondered what the difference was...in both cases, they are not warranted CO's, just card holder's limited to micro-purchase threshold of 3k. anyone know if there is a difference in authority? maybe the contract authority implies ability to negotiate and sign agreements? -b
  6. There are industry standards for translation services. http://www.thelanguagetranslation.com/tran...on-quality.html lists standards for translation services from different countries. Here's the link to the ASTM Standard Guide to Quality Assurance in translations: http://www.astm.org/Standards/F2575.htm. It costs about $40.00. If the COR and PM are complaining, something is wrong... Are the complaints about grammar or word choice? Did you provide a glossary of terms that they are not following? Is it a problem with the same translator or the whole translation service company? Are their reviewers and proof readers qualified? Is that specified in the contract - certification or qualifications of the personnel performing Q/A for the translation service? Also, I just Googled GSA translation services and got a list of over 85 GSA contracts for translation. Why not use these? Late to the party but hope it might help. -B
×
×
  • Create New...