Jump to content
The Wifcon Forums and Blogs

Don Mansfield

  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by Don Mansfield

  1. Assume you are soliciting quotes for an item of supply. Suppliers A, B, and C each sell the item for about $100/unit. However, the probability of late delivery is different for each supplier. Supplier A has a 31% chance of delivering late, Supplier B has a 21% chance of delivering late, and Supplier C has a 4% chance of delivering late. There’s a 100% chance that all suppliers will deliver no later than one week after the delivery date and any damages due to late delivery will be negligible. Your solicitation requests that vendors quote both a unit price and a per-unit delivery incentive. The supplier can only earn the delivery incentive if delivery is on time. Otherwise, the Government only pays the unit price. Supplier A quotes a per-unit price of $71 and a $41/unit delivery incentive. Supplier B quotes a per-unit price of $65 and a $41/unit delivery incentive. Supplier C quotes a per-unit price of $59 and a $41/unit delivery incentive. Considering only the total amount the Government would expect to pay, which quote do you think is best?
  2. I've chosen the winners of the Plain Language writing contest. The following entry from @Jamaal Valentine was the acceptable entry with the best readability score: The most humorous entry came from @apsofacto: There were some others I really liked that didn't win. If we slightly change @bentley78's entry, we get: Thank you all for participating!
  3. Don Mansfield

    Exercising Options during shutdown

    If a third party knew they could force a competition by protesting such an issue, I would expect to see someone try. You are misrepresenting your conclusion--that the proposed course of action is a violation of CICA--as a matter of fact. You've made a convincing argument in support of your conclusion, but we don't really know whether the GAO or COFC would go along if they haven't been presented with the same facts. Maybe they would see a reasonable distinction between prior cases dealing with improper option exercises and cases where all parties acted as if the option were exercised and the late notice was just an "oops!"
  4. Don Mansfield

    Exercising Options during shutdown

    Do you know of any cases where: 1) Government did not exercise option on time 2) Contractor kept working/Government kept overseeing 3) Government sent notice of option exercise late 4) No change to contract terms and conditions 5) Third party protests that Government violated CICA 6) Third party won case? If what your saying is true, I would expect there to be such a case.
  5. Don Mansfield

    Exercising Options during shutdown

    For purposes of interpreting FAR 52.217-9, I think the contract expires when the period of performance is over. That seems to be what the Board assumed in American Contract Servs., Inc., ASBCA 46788, 94-2 BCA ¶ 26,855, recons. denied, 94-3 BCA ¶ 27,025, aff'd, 53 F.3d 348 (Fed. Cir. 1995). I don't think it's illegal, it's just not in compliance with the contract. The contractor can waive Government noncompliance, just like the Government can waive contractor noncompliance.
  6. Have you seen this? https://www.dau.mil/partnerships/Pages/StrategicPartnerships.aspx
  7. Don Mansfield

    Exercising Options during shutdown

    I think the best you can do is exercise the option late and request that the contractor waive its right to object to an improper exercise. If the right to object to an improper option exercise can be waived implicitly through performance, then it can be waived expressly. Here are some cases where the contractor waived its right: If the contractor objects to the improper exercise and wants to renegotiate terms, then I think you would have a CICA issue (i.e., you would have to justify negotiating on a sole source basis).
  8. Don Mansfield

    Exercising Options during shutdown

    @MAY-D-FAR-B-WIT-U, Is the contractor working, or are they waiting for the Government to re-open to continue work?
  9. @PepeTheFrog, There is now a Data Item Document for "Small Business Utilization Report." A reporting requirement could be in a CDRL.
  10. Don Mansfield

    Problem of the Day--Pricing Delivery Incentives

    I said B, too. Expected Price of A = $71 + (.69)($41) = $99.29 Expected Price of B = $65 + (.79)($41) = $97.39 Expected Price of C = $59 + (.96)($41) = $98.36
  11. The general rule would be to treat all items as commercial. An exception would be if the contractor was performing or had performed within the last year a fully-covered CAS contract or subcontract.
  12. Contractors don't have to assert that their pricing is fair and reasonable, like they have to assert that something is commercial. The contracting officer makes a determination of fair and reasonable pricing based on the information provided.
  13. Multiple accounting classifications under a single line item is also permitted when using separately identified subline items. DFARS 204.7104-1(b)(1)(i): Contrast the examples at DFARS PGI 204.7104-2(e)(6) and (7).
  14. Why couldn't the Government obtain the data from the contractor? Doesn't the Government obtain data from the contractor to determine price reasonableness? I think it's called cost or pricing data or something like that.
  15. I think its a huge savings of time and resources for both the Government and contractors. A suggested improvement--change the rules such that an item is commercial until proven otherwise. As it is now, commerciality has to be proven.
  16. Why must the type of funds be the same? Couldn't ry_lock use informational sublines--one for each appropriation (one for RDT&E, one for O&M)--under the same line item?
  17. @Hammspace, Harris IT Service Corporation, B-411699; B-411796, October 2, 2015, is the only case I know of where the issue of an "IDIQ under an IDIQ" was addressed. The test the GAO applied was whether the original task order contained the information required by FAR 16.505(a)(7). In that case, the GAO determined that the original task order did not. Therefore, they concluded that the task order was an improper IDIQ under an IDIQ. The auditor seems to be applying a different standard--probably one they thought up.
  18. @ry_lock, Why not just have one line item for the SOW and informational sublines for the different accounting classification citations? Look at the example at DFARS PGI 204.7104-2(e)(7).
  19. @Hammspace, Does the original task order contain the information at FAR 16.505(a)(7)?
  20. Why do you think that? Modifying contracts to provide more detail is not new. It predates the existence of IDIQ contracts.
  21. @Joe2713, The FAR regulates a lot that goes on in acquisition, but not everything. The FAR excerpt provided by Matthew provides guidance on what you do when you want to do something that the FAR has nothing to say about. It's very important to how you approach acquisition. Instead of looking for permission to do something in the regulations, assume that you have permission unless prohibited by prohibited by law (statute or case law), Executive order or regulation. If you are a beginner, print out FAR 1.102-4(e) and post it somewhere you can see it when working on your computer. From now on, read it before looking something up in the FAR.
  22. What if the Government wanted to consider the information? Do you think they wouldn't be allowed?
  23. @Joe2713, Assume that the regulations are silent on this matter. What do you think is the answer to your question?
  24. @Lukevan, Can you post the relevant language from the RFP?
  25. Maybe. If it were that important, the Government could make your use of a proposed subcontractor a term of the contract.