Don Mansfield

Did the contractor receive a termination or cancellation notice?

@C CulhamNice detective work. I suspected the arrangement would make payment systems go haywire, but I couldn't find any prohibition.

@Voyager, I think your original point--the Guide overstated the effect of quantity of one on payment--is well-founded. I also think that what you described about making and paying for partial deliveries when the quantity is one is ok. However, I think you have one thing wrong. I think you concluded that progress payments under FAR 52.232-5 and -10 are payments for accepted services because they are excluded from the definition of contract financing payment at FAR 32.001. You may have even concluded that they are delivery payments. If so, I think you are misinterpreting the definition of contract financing payment. Progress payments based on percentage or stage of completion are a form of contract financing. However, for purposes of the Prompt Payment Act, progress payments under FAR 52.232-5 and -10 are specifically excluded from the definition of contract financing payment so they will bear an interest penalty if paid late. This does not mean they are payments for accepted services. If that were true, there would be no reason to specifically exclude them from the definition of contract financing payment (or specifically include them in the definition of invoice payment).

@Voyager, do you think that Table 30 in the Guide would be ok if the contract had the milestone schedule in Section E that you described?

Aren't you describing progress payments based on percentage or stage of completion?

@C CulhamThat's ok. That was my next question.

Are you referring to contract financing payments or payments for partial deliveries? If the latter, how do you partially accept a quantity of 1?

Yes, but as you can see opinions differ. @REA'n Maker and @formerfed give good advice on what you should consider in choosing an 1102 job. I would also add how much they care about training and developing employees.

Had to go back and read it a few times, but I think you're right.

@jayandstacey, I think you are interpreting the definition too narrowly. An item need not to have been sold or offered for sale to be a commercial product--it just needs to be like one that is. That's what "of a type" means.

My sentiments are similar to @formerfed. If I had believed that my first position as an 1102 was representative of 1102 work in general, I would not have stayed in the field. I moved a few times and ended up doing and seeing some cool stuff. It sounds like you have a thankless job with limited responsibility that's starting to wear on you. May be time to look elsewhere.

@C CulhamCan you find this?

But the first sentence is just plain wrong. "Technically", an IDIQ contract is a contract. Period. It doesn't have to be pre-priced to be a contract. Regardless of whether an order is ever placed, it's a contract. There's an offer, acceptance, consideration--the whole shebang. A BOA is not a contract. There's no exchange of enforceable promises. I think the author knows this but didn't explain it well.

What?

Take a look at comment #31 of this Federal Register notice. The FAR Councils asserted that you can't have both CAS-covered and non-CAS-covered task orders under the same contract. They didn't explain why.

Joel, Wake up. We're discussing a subcontract.

From the definition of "commercial service": It's entirely possible for a service to meet that definition and be priced on a cost-reimbursement basis. The cost or pricing arrangement for a given subcontract is dependent on the circumstances. The same service that is priced on a FFP basis under normal circumstances, may, under different circumstances, be more appropriately priced on a T&M or cost-reimbursement basis. This has nothing to do with whether the service is commercial or not.

The services don't have to meet those criteria. They just have to be "of a type" of services that do.

I'm afraid I have some bad news about Vern. He injured his one good eye a few weeks ago and it has become very difficult and time-consuming for him to write on a computer. He tried dictation, but it was just too much of a hassle. From now on, the little writing that he can do he will do for the Nash & Cibinic Report. He will share those articles with Bob to post on Wifcon. I think we owe him a debt of gratitude for all that he has shared in the discussion forums and on the analysis page. I can't think of anyone who has freely shared their knowledge as much as Vern. I ask that we keep intellectual standards high in our discussions, ask good questions, back up our claims with facts, etc. In other words, follow Vern's example. Vern will probably still read the forum discussions now and then. I'll make sure he reads this thread in case you want to wish him well.

What you are referring to involves two responses. I'm talking about one response to a solicitation.

Me, too. I was thinking through some of the implications of this decision, which I think the COFC got right. A proposal revision would only include changes to the part of a solicitation response that was binding (i.e., the proposal). If that's true, then changes made to the part of a solicitation response that was not binding (i.e., information) could be made without discussions. I don't recall the GAO ever making this distinction in clarifications v. discussions cases. Do you?

Do you think the FAR is inconsistent with use of "proposal" and definition of "proposal"?

What rule or contract clause prohibits it?

Then the CO may have created an unauthorized commitment.

Not that I know of.