Jump to content
The Wifcon Forums and Blogs

Don Mansfield

  • Content count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

0 Neutral

1 Follower

About Don Mansfield

  • Rank
    Platinum Member
  • Birthday 11/04/1972

Profile Information

  • Gender
  • Location
    San Diego, CA

Recent Profile Visitors

66,575 profile views
  1. Parts received after Task Order PoP end date

    Completion contracts don't necessarily require actual completion--they could just require a contractor's best efforts to achieve completion. The terms "completion" and "level-of-effort" are used to describe how the contract describes the scope of work. There's a good discussion of the distinction in the FAR as it relates to CPFF contracts at FAR 16.306( d ): In a cost-reimbursement contract, either form obligates the contractor to provide its "best efforts". This obligation is stated in either the Limitation of Funds or Limitation of Cost clause. See FAR 52.232-20( a ): Make sense?
  2. Parts received after Task Order PoP end date

    You meant "level-of-effort" not "best effort", right?
  3. Cost Monitoring Plans

    (1) Don't know of any provision or clause. Nothing would prevent the contractor from telling the Government "N/A". However, take a look at So, it looks like the plan would be to ding a business system if the ACO didn't like your lack of a strategy. Probably estimating system. (2) If the contractor had such information, I think it would be part of their estimating system, correct? If so, then I would go with DFARS 252.215-7002, Cost Estimating System Requirements.
  4. PTA above ceiling price — how big a deal, really?

    No. In my scenario, once costs get up to $3,437,500 the contract becomes a FFP contract for $3,250,000.
  5. PP Neutral Rating

    I don't think you'd have to be that explicit. The solicitation could just say that respondents who fail to follow the instructions herein will be evaluated unfavorably under "compliance with solicitation requirements".
  6. PTA above ceiling price — how big a deal, really?

    Did you read that case Vern posted?
  7. PTA above ceiling price — how big a deal, really?

    I assume your reference to FAR 16.403-1(a) was to "when final cost is more than target cost, application of the formula results in a final profit less than the target profit, or even a net loss." As far as cost allowability, one of the standards at FAR 31.201-2( a ) is "Terms of the contract". Why couldn't the parties enter into an advance agreement that would disallow a portion of costs by the amount of any negative profit? So the answer to the original poster's question--"PTA above ceiling price — how big a deal, really?"--seems to be a big deal.
  8. PTA above ceiling price — how big a deal, really?

  9. PTA above ceiling price — how big a deal, really?

    Yes, I think you understand.
  10. PTA above ceiling price — how big a deal, really?

    If the contractor incurs another dollar above $3,250,000, the Government pays $0.40 and the contractor's profit goes down $0.60. The total amount the Government pays is $3,175,000.40.
  11. PTA above ceiling price — how big a deal, really?

    Yes, that's wrong. If the contractor incurred $3,250,000 in cost, the Government would only pay $3,175,000. See my first calculation above. Cost sharing would continue up to $3,437,500. At that point and above, the Government would pay $3,250,000 (the ceiling price).
  12. PTA above ceiling price — how big a deal, really?

    I'm sorry, Vern. My example above disproves that assertion. In my example, the ceiling price is $3,250,000, but the PTA is $3,437,500. Your assertion is only true if profit will be >= $0 at the ceiling price.
  13. PP Neutral Rating

    I disagree that OMB has interpreted the law as not applying to RFPs. The PRA regulations expressly apply to RFPs. 5 CFR 1320.3( c )(1) states: I also disagree that agencies would necessarily have to get OMB approval for each individual RFP. An RFP contains dozens of information collections--some approved by OMB, some may not be. If an RFP contained an information collection that was not approved by OMB, then approval would be required for that specific information collection.
  14. PTA above ceiling price — how big a deal, really?

    Yes, the ceiling price of $3,250,000 is the most that the Government will have to pay the contractor. The parties are cost sharing up to $3,437,500.
  15. PP Neutral Rating

    Just to be clear, I did not call such an opinion a penalty. In my hypothetical, failure to distribute questionnaires to references would have no bearing on an evaluation of past performance--it would affect a factor such as "compliance with solicitation requirements." Suppose an agency issues an RFP that requires an offeror to submit past performance information in the form of a list of contracts and a brief description of the work required under each. For each contract identified, the offeror is required to send a PP questionnaire to a POC for each contract. The agency does not comply with the display and notice requirements contained in 5 CFR 1320.3(f) and 1320.3(b) when requesting the information. The RFP contains an evaluation factor for "compliance with solicitation requirements." An offeror submits an offer with the list, but does not send any of the questionnaires to its POCs. The agency now has to contact the POCs to obtain the information that would have been in the questionnaire. Accordingly, the offeror gets an unfavorable rating for "compliance with solicitation requirements." Putting aside the issue of whether it would be stupid in doing so, it would be justified under the terms of the RFP. I think that an argument can be made that the agency's actions constituted a "penalty" under the PRA. Note that under "Obligation to Respond" in the Information Collection for Past Performance Information: Responses During Source Selection it states "Required to Obtain or Retain Benefits." So, it seems that a contract is viewed as a "benefit". I don't agree with that assessment. A given RFP contains dozens of information collections. Some of these have been cleared by OMB, some have not. Most of the entries on the list at FAR 1.106 are provisions and clauses. A representation or certification will typically have an associated OMB Control Number. Most forms in the FAR/DFARS display an OMB Control Number if they require an offeror to complete them. In fact, there is an OMB Control Number for collecting past performance information during source selection--9000-0142--but I doubt anybody is complying with the display and notice requirements contained in 5 CFR 1320.