Jump to content
The Wifcon Forums and Blogs

Don Mansfield

Members
  • Content Count

    2,564
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

0 Neutral

1 Follower

About Don Mansfield

  • Rank
    Contributing Member
  • Birthday 11/04/1972

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Male
  • Location
    San Diego, CA

Recent Profile Visitors

74,565 profile views
  1. Let's take a look at FAR 18.202: Two different authorities. The authority to treat certain items as commercial (the same authority stated at FAR 12.102(f)(1)) does not apply to acquisitions to support response to an emergency or major disaster. Period. End of story. The authority to use SAP up to $13 million for the purchase of commercial items does apply to acquisitions to support response to an emergency or major disaster. Anyone who reads (c) and (d) and concludes that you can treat an item as commercial because it will be used to support response to an emergency or major disaster is not sharp. The statute is clear. The authority in (b) applies to (a)(1)-(4). The authority in (c) applies to (a)(2) only.
  2. Just stop. The COVID-19 pandemic is not a cyber, nuclear, biological, chemical, or radiological attack. That authority is inapplicable. I would say knock yourself out. Just don't insult people's intelligence by claiming you had the legal authority to proceed based on FAR 12.102(f).
  3. No, that's not the purpose of (e)(1). For example, (b)(1) lists FAR 52.203-6, Alt. I. That clause has a flow down requirement. However, by operation of (e)(1), that clause would not be required to be flowed down to commercial subcontracts.
  4. You're misinterpreting paragraph (e)(1)-- That doesn't mean you are required to flow down everything in (e)(1) to a commercial subcontract. The purpose of the paragraph is to limit the flow down requirements of the applicable clauses in (a)-(d) to commercial subcontracts. So, for commercial subcontracts, you would only flow down a clause listed in (e)(1) if it were incorporated in (a)-(d).
  5. Unless there is a new authority they are relying on, it seems that they are confused. While the authority to use SAP up to $13M for acquisitions of commercial items covers response to national emergencies, the authority to treat any acquisition as an acquisition of commercial items does not. FAR 13.501: FAR 12.102(f)(1): Nothing about emergency or major disaster.
  6. I think joel's point was that contractors shouldn't expect relief for increased costs under their fixed-price contracts. Relief will have to come from elsewhere. Maybe extraordinary contractual relief or an act of Congress.
  7. Do you request past performance information for similar efforts? If so, you could sample the personnel qualifications of employees that are working (or worked) on those contracts. That would probably be a better indicator of the personnel qualifications of the employees that would work on your projects. You'd be evaluating data instead of empty promises.
  8. I asked a question. I did not state anything that should lead you to conclude that a contract should never be FFP. If you decide to answer, stop and think about the question before you start writing. In reading your posts in this thread and others, I've noticed that you tend to take hard positions that you don't know to be true and leave it to others to correct you. Assuming that you're a beginner, let me suggest a different approach. Think through how you could be wrong before posting. If there's something that you don't understand, ask a question. Be more tentative about your conclusions. Practice intellectual humility. Don't state something is true unless you can prove it to be true. Just some advice that you're free to ignore.
  9. Assuming that contract stated that allowability of costs would be determined in accordance with FAR subpart 31.2, wouldn't that be a FAR deviation?
  10. Spring chickens. Mr. Tatigian turns 98 this year and is in his 78th year of federal service. https://www.navsea.navy.mil/Media/News/Article/1326404/sarkis-tatigian-honored-for-75-years-of-navy-service/
  11. Wouldn't delivering the hours at a lower cost increase the contractor's return on revenue?
  12. So one synopsis would cover multiple calls over $25,000? I don't think that would be compliant with FAR 5.201(b)(1): I interpret that as each call over $25,000 requiring its own unique notice.
  13. The FAR 5.001 definition says "within the scope of the contract". So if we assume that a FAR part 13 BPA is not a contract, then a BPA call would not be "within the scope of the contract." Having said that, it doesn't seem consistent to require a synopsis for a call under a previously synopsized BPA, but not task or delivery orders under a previously synopsized indefinite delivery contract.
  14. I don't understand Carl. Assuming a given FAR part 13 BPA does not meet the definition of "contract" at FAR 2.101, what exception to the synopsis requirement would apply to a call over $25,000?
×
×
  • Create New...