Don Mansfield

  • Content count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

0 Neutral

About Don Mansfield

  • Rank
    Platinum Member
  • Birthday 11/04/1972

Profile Information

  • Gender
  • Location
    San Diego, CA

Recent Profile Visitors

66,063 profile views
  1. Government would not be the sole funder. It's "crowdfunded".
  2. The creator chose to use Kickstarter before the Government ever knew of the project. The Government learns of the project through Kickstarter and determines that the reward offered can directly benefit the Government.
  3. That's a good reason.
  4. Correct. I was editing my post when this post popped up.
  5. According to the FAR Open cases report, an interim rule will be issued under FAR case 2016-011 that will implement the $150K exception to the nonmanufacturer rule. FAR 52.219-6 still references the $25,000 exception, so your advice to the OP about ensuring compliance with the nonmanufacturer rule is still good. I need to edit my response to you. I agree that the limitations on subcontracting in the clauses for other set-asides (FAR 52.219-3, -27, -29, & -30) are not dependent on the dollar value of the acquisition.
  6. That doesn't apply under $150K, either. See 13 CFR 121.406( d ): Note that this rule has not yet been implemented in the FAR, so compliance with the nonmanufacturer rule would still apply over $25,000.
  7. Well, now you know where I work. Let me know the next time you come down.
  8. I'm not advocating for it. I just don't see what prohibits it. The reason I posted this in the Section 809 forum is because I was a fly on the wall at the Panel's meeting on Tuesday and this issue was discussed. The speaker, a CCO from a Federal research lab, related a story about how one of the scientists at the lab had asked if they could use the GCPC to purchase items (i.e., the creator's rewards) on Kickstarter. She assumed that this was improper use of the GCPC. When one of the panelists asked why she thought it was improper, she deferred to another panelist (who happened to be the senior procurement executive of the speaker's agency). That panelist explained that it would violate the Anti-Deficiency Act, because the Government would not be guaranteed a deliverable. Everyone else on the panel seemed to buy that explanation and the discussion that followed was how appropriation laws would need to be changed to accommodate that particular use of the GCPC. I don't see how not being guaranteed a deliverable would violate the ADA. The government awards a lot of contracts for R&D where there is no guarantee of a deliverable. The SPE believed that because R&D contracts require a final report, they meet the requirement for having a "deliverable" and thus, there would be no ADA violation. The SPE also thought that the Government could fund a Kickstarter project under grant authority. The argument seemed half-baked. I was disappointed how the rest of the panelists accepted it with little debate. It may be prohibited to use the GCPC on Kickstarter, but it should take more convincing than it did.
  9. But then he won't get to code the action as PBA.
  10. From the Web site:
  11. How about embedding a list from The list would contain ideas to streamline regulations. For example, ideas could be "Hyperlink FAR part 19 to SBA regulations", "Repeal ban on personal services contracts", or "Raise TINA threshold to $50 million". Anyone could submit an idea and vote on other ideas. We can share the list with the Section 809 Panel.
  12. Todd, According to the terms and conditions (see my post above), the creator must complete the project and fulfill each reward. Assume that the Government would fund a project where the reward was the item being developed. The item would be for the direct benefit of the Government. Wouldn't this be a procurement contract? Note that at the time of the "pledge", there's no obligation by either party. The obligation is contingent on a future event (i.e., the creator receiving sufficient pledged funding). If this event occurs, the creator is required to perform in accordance with the terms and conditions and the GCPC is charged for the amount of the pledge.
  13. No. There's no limitation on subcontracting under $150K.
  14. Did you read FAR 52.216-10( c )?
  15. joel, Regarding the existence of a contract, here's what the site says: