Don Mansfield

What rule or contract clause prohibits it?

Then the CO may have created an unauthorized commitment.

Not that I know of.

No comprendo. Why would you remove an optional line item (instead of just not exercising the option)?

You need to ask the contracting officer. Nobody here can answer your question without reading the solicitation.

If you are a beginner, let me suggest a learning exercise. Don't ask to see other people's checklists. Make your own checklist based on the contents of FAR 4.803(a). Then, check to see if there's anything in your agency's FAR supplement that adds to the list at FAR 4.803(a). Then, look it over and ask yourself if you forgot anything. Share it with some colleagues to see if they can think of anything you forgot. Post it on Wifcon and ask for feedback. Once you've done that, then look at other checklists and compare them to yours. Maybe you forgot something. Maybe they forgot something that you remembered. In the end, you will have learned more than if you just looked at others' checklists. Why reinvent the wheel? Because if you're a beginner you don't know enough about wheels to be taking shortcuts.

Why is this a contracting office problem and not a payment office problem?

My guess is a thoughtless copy and paste.

There's a relic of referring to contract changes as "amendments" at FAR 50.103-2(a): "Amendments without consideration".

Wouldn't you just apply the dollar threshold to the brand name portion?

Vern, I don't think you are saying that all applicable provisions should be included in a task order solicitation, but how does one know that this provision should go in task order solicitations and not other provisions that are prescribed for use "in solicitations" (based on the language of the FAR)?

The decision says that the provision at FAR 52.222-46 is applicable to the contract. However, by definition, a provision is "a term or condition used only in solicitations and applying only before contract award." Is the GAO saying that provisions included in the original IDIQ solicitation apply to task order solicitations by operation of FAR 52.216-18? If so, should task order solicitations include reps and certs?

Good question. I never thought of that.

Yes, unless the contract says something about working in excess of the specified LOE.

I think that you are assuming that a contract would be created if the Government accepted out-of-scope work (i.e., hours above the stated LOE). Is that correct?

Have you read the Limitation of Cost clause at FAR 52.232-20 (which should be in your contract)? Paragraphs (d) & (e) in particular?

Let's say you do that and want to get paid for the extra hours. What contractual right do you have to payment? The burden is on you to prove you have the right to payment--not that you worked extra hours.

Are you familiar with the limitation on subcontracting and the nonmanufacturer rule?

In your sample Section M, the offeror just had to have "sufficient" experience. How is that a higher threshold than the standard of responsibility for experience?

Under a typical CPFF LOE, no. It would be like delivering more widgets than the contract required. There would have to be something in the contract obligating the Government to pay for hours in excess of the specified level of effort. Supply and construction contracts can have variation in quantity clauses. Maybe your contract has something like that. I think you should probably inform the contracting officer that adding the extra person will cause you to deliver the LOE early.

Wouldn't you just be providing the agreed-to level of effort sooner than expected?

So, you're effectively awarding to the responsible offeror with the lowest price. Correct?

What do you mean by "best"? The offeror with the lowest price?

Why do you think that?

Isn't the Government already making this determination when applying the responsibility standard stated at FAR 9.104-1(e)?