Jump to content
The Wifcon Forums and Blogs

Don Mansfield

Members
  • Content Count

    2,701
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

0 Neutral

About Don Mansfield

  • Rank
    Contributing Member
  • Birthday 11/04/1972

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Male
  • Location
    San Diego, CA

Recent Profile Visitors

75,742 profile views
  1. Ok, but what set of rules are trying to apply? There's no universal definition of multi-year contract. Are you asking to determine whether FAR subpart 17.1 applies? If so, then the contract you described would not meet the definition of multi-year contract if you would be purchasing for more than 5 program years.
  2. Assuming the funds obligated for the base year are prior year funds, then you would not be able to use them for new obligations in subsequent fiscal years. That would violate the Bona Fide Need rule.
  3. FP-PPR is not permitted for commercial item acquisitions.
  4. Here you go: https://donacquisition.com/blog/10-blog/23-13-reasons-why-sap-is-simpler Would you cite the exception at FAR 5.202(a)(11)? If so, how would you respond to someone saying that the exception only applies to contracts, not BPAs.
  5. Why not a competitive multiple-award BPA? You can rotate purchases among the awardees. You don't even have to deal with the fair opportunity process.
  6. 1. What would be the value of a typical order? 2. Is the acquisition for a commercial item?
  7. 100% of allowable direct labor, 95% of allowable indirect expense, and 100% of allowable direct materials. It gets applied after application of the price revision in the incentive clause.
  8. Would use of a fixed-price-incentive contract with an economic price adjustment be a deviation from FAR part 16?
  9. Yes, I think ji's regional approach is fine. I just wouldn't call it "multiple-award". I don't see what's described by 52.216-21, Alt. III as multiple-award, because each awardee gets half the requirement. That's different than each awardee getting a contract for potentially the whole requirement.
  10. In the context of FAR subpart 16.5, "multiple award" implies multiple contracts with the same scope. At least that's how the FAR Councils seem to be using the term. I wouldn't describe what you have in mind as "multiple-award". I think what you're describing is a split award.
  11. The following comment and response was contained in the final rule for FAR Case 2008-006 (75 FR 13416): https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2010/03/19/2010-5989/federal-acquisition-regulation-far-case-2008-006-enhanced-competition-for-task--and-delivery-order
  12. @FrankJon, I used to teach the course. It's not really a "how-to-do" source selection course. It's more of a "how-to-think-about" source selection course. We would go in to depth on the concepts underlying source selection that other source selection courses gloss over if they cover them at all. For example, other courses may tell you that you should evaluate x, y, and z in a source selection and use the rating tables stated in this or that instruction. In Source Selection Bootcamp, we'd start with "what is value?", "what is evaluation?", "what is an evaluation factor?", "How do you measu
×
×
  • Create New...