Jump to content
The Wifcon Forums and Blogs

Don Mansfield

  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

0 Neutral

About Don Mansfield

  • Rank
    Contributing Member
  • Birthday 11/04/1972

Profile Information

  • Gender
  • Location
    San Diego, CA

Recent Profile Visitors

75,336 profile views
  1. You may want to clarify what would entitle the contractor to the increase. For example, a change order.
  2. FAR 16.306 doesn't need to be in the contract nor does the LOC clause need to state what is otherwise true. The contractor has no entitlement to increased fee if the Government decides to fund an overrun under a CPFF arrangement.
  3. It depends what form of CPFF was used. FAR 16.306(d):
  4. This is not "generally" true, unless you consider award without discussions to be an "exception". When awarding without discussions, the contracting officer may use adverse past performance information to which an offeror has not had an opportunity to respond as long as there's no reason to question its validity. From Competitive Negotiation:
  5. I don't view it as a set-aside because you're not limiting the opportunity to compete. I see it more like status being a go/no-go factor at each tier of evaluation.
  6. The form doesn't contemplate the tiered evaluation approach, so I would just do what I think makes sense. I think I would mark "unrestricted" since the competition isn't limited, it's just that there's no guarantee an offer will be evaluated. I assume the solicitation will contain a provision that explains how the VA will evaluate offers using the tiered approach.
  7. Don't be like Michael Scott or Bill Lumbergh. That should put you in the top 50% of supervisors.
  8. FAR 52.204-25 is listed in FAR 52.244-6 as a flow down to commercial subcontracts. It doesn't state any applicable dollar threshold. FAR 52.204-24 is a solicitation provision.
  9. The contracting officer would actually be prohibited by FAR 15.403-1(a) from obtaining CCPD. This assumes that the mod is only for an increase--not a net increase after addition and subtraction.
  10. The FAR already contains an exception to full and open competition for this reason (FAR 6.302-4).
  11. This is likely to happen when we get a final rule under FAR Case 2016-002, Applicability of Small Business Regulations Outside the United States. The SBA regulations require set-asides when the rule of two is met regardless of place of performance. The proposed rule under FAR Case 2016-002 would make application of FAR part 19 outside the United States optional. FAR 19.000(b) currently contains a blanket exception for acquisitions outside the United States.
  12. There's nothing in FAR part 15 that would prevent the use of this technique.
  13. The Small Business Act as implemented by the SBA regulations and interpreted by the GAO and COFC.
  • Create New...