Jump to content

Don Mansfield

Members
  • Posts

    3,133
  • Joined

  • Last visited

2 Followers

About Don Mansfield

  • Birthday 11/04/1972

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Male
  • Location
    San Diego, CA

Recent Profile Visitors

80,842 profile views
  1. Just wondering...do our automated systems tolerate BPAs without maximums or estimated amounts?
  2. The way the contract's work requirements are described--in terms of outcomes.
  3. I suspected you had a DoD background when I read your original post and that you probably haven't been in the field more than 10 or so years. DoD cracked down on use of "local clauses" ~10 years ago, which culminated in the current policy stated in DFARS PGI 201.301. Going forward, any local clauses would have to go through the same rule making process as FAR or DFARS clauses if they met the stated criteria (most probably did). The belief that the Services and Defense agencies would comply with the publication requirements is adorable. What happened is the contents of Section H, traditionally the dumping ground for local clauses, became the focus of review teams. Local clauses began to disappear from section H, which is probably why Vern was able to find a DoD RFP with nothing in that section. However, these clauses didn't go away, nor was a local clause ever published for comment in the Federal Register. Instead, they started appearing in SOWs. This was not because they describe the work in any meaningful way--it was merely a workaround. We're now at a point where the Navy prescribes standard "SOW language" in the NMCARS to implement policy. So, what you are seeing in practice in DoD has less to do with a thoughtful application of UCF policy, and more to do with stealthy bureaucratic maneuvering.
  4. One other thought. You may already be doing this, but when you are doing the weighted guidelines you can assign below normal value for contract type risk if some or all of the costs have already been incurred (like proposal prep costs).
  5. You don't have to agree to the proposed fee. You can break precedent. New sheriff in town.
  6. What do you mean by "fee-bearing"? Have you agreed to pay fee as a percentage of their proposal costs?
  7. That may be true, but what's a guy to do when the discussion starts going over his head and he still wants to contribute and seem wise?
  8. I don't see a definition of "specification" in FAR part 11.
  9. I'm pretty sure agencies post most solicitations online and prospective offerors download them. Unless the acquisition was a set-aside, I don't know how a contracting officer would know who would be responding.
  10. I tried getting a score for this, but it came back as undefined: This was the excerpt from FAR 52.215-1 that I used for The Plain Language Writing contest a few years ago.
  11. Did I say it should? All I said was it didn't. The Court does not address the issue of whether the implementing clause can be read in by operation of law. So, it's inapposite.
  12. No, I don't. I said that I thought it would be inconsistent to read in the implementing clause by operation of law, but not the applicable wage determination. That case sheds no light on that issue.
×
×
  • Create New...