Jump to content

Don Mansfield

Members
  • Posts

    3,371
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by Don Mansfield

  1. Take a closer look at the case Carl referenced: International Resources Group, B-286663 January 31, 2001. In determining whether a preaward debriefing request was timely, the GAO only considered when the offeror submitted its request. There's no discussion of when the agency received the request. Given the fact that they did not respond to the request, they may not have received it. As such, I don't believe the date the request is received by the Government is relevant. No, I don't think an interpreter should assume careless drafting if a reasonable interpretation can be made. I stand corrected. But for the reason stated above, I'm still not going to assume careless drafting. Submit does not mean receive.
  2. If the rules were written at different times by different people, you may have a point. However, these two rules came out together in FAC 90-44, 61 FR 69286, December 31, 1996. As such, I'm not inclined to buy the careless drafting theory.
  3. Contrast FAR 15.501(a)(1) and FAR 15.506(a)(1): Submit does not mean receive. If the FAR Council meant "received", they would have written "received."
  4. Boof, I don't think you have the authority to write your own clause and start inserting it in your contracts. 41 U.S.C. 1707 would require you to go through the rulemaking process. See also FAR 1.301( b ).
  5. ChristinaK4, For the production portion, were you envisioning one order for four years or annual orders each of the four years?
  6. ChristinaK4, I don't think that DFARS 217.204(e) would permit an IDIQ with a six-year ordering period. Here's what it says: So, if you awarding the contract pursuant to 10 U.S.C. 2304a and none of the exceptions at DFARS 217.204(e)(ii) apply, then you would be limited to five years without options. I have an idea--why don't you award a multiple-award IDIQ to two contractors for a base period of two years for development with an optional four-year period for production? To downselect, you would exercise the option for one of the two contracts. You would avoid having to go through a formal selection process for production.
  7. I think you would have to evaluate the cost realism of each offeror. Then, you would evaluate the technical acceptability of the offers starting with the one proposing the lowest probable cost plus fee. If it were technically acceptable, then you'd be done. There would be no need to determine the technical acceptability of other offers.
  8. I'm still not seeing a requirement to use FAR 52.211-6 for a commercial solicitation for a "brand name or equal" requirement. That's ok, though. Time to discuss something else.
  9. Carl, Where does CICA say "you must use the clause to afford competition for procurements over the SAT"? ji20874, Your suppositions are both correct, given your assumption that use of the provision is consistent (or not inconsistent) with customary commercial practice. Enjoy your weekend.
  10. joel, If you're saying that, by entering into a CPFF contract, the contractor has implicitly agreed to the administrative burden that the CO wants to impose under this task order, I would have to disagree. I believe such specific terms should be contained in the basic IDIQ contract.
  11. JAG51, This is the kind of question you need to ask the CO.
  12. Carl, The provision is not required because it is not prescribed in FAR part 12. See FAR 12.301( d ): Even if the CO found that use of FAR 52.211-6 was consistent with customary commercial practice, it would still not be required.
  13. joel, JAG51 wrote that the CO wants him to abide by the following terms: JAG51 also wrote that these terms were not included in the basic IDIQ contract--he never agreed to them. That's why I wrote what I did.
  14. Yes. It seems like the Navy is attempting to impose a contract term you did not agree to.
  15. I don't think the re-wording changes the meaning, but I have no quarrel if you want to state the rule that way. I don't read FAR 12.301(a) like you're reading it. When FAR 12.301 is read as a whole, I think that (a)(1) is implemented by FAR 52.212-5 and (a)(2) is implemented by FAR 52.212-4 (including addenda), which are both described in FAR 12.302( b ). Again, I think FAR 12.301( e ) is clear.
  16. No, I'm not saying that. FAR 52.211-6, as well as any other FAR provisions and clauses not prescribed in FAR part 12, may be used in commercial solicitations provided their use is consistent with customary commercial practice (FAR 12.301(e)).
  17. Carl, It's one thing to state a requirement using a "brand name or equal" description. It's another thing to use the provision at FAR 52.211-6 in a solicitation. If you are reading the GAO case and FAR part 11 as requiring the use of FAR 52.211-6 in a solicitation for commercial items using a "brand name or equal" description, then we'll have to disagree. All I can say is that your interpretation conflicts with the clear language of FAR 12.301(e).
  18. Patrick, You are reading it wrong. The sentence that you bolded is not meant to limit the stated price analysis method. It's merely clarifying that the stated price analysis method may also be used in a particular circumstance. Comparison of proposed prices with historical prices has long been a valid method of price analysis for both commercial and noncommercial items.
  19. JFQ, FAR 42.709-6 does not control what a prime puts in its subcontracts--it controls what an agency puts in its prime contracts.
  20. Carl, I see no reason to attempt to infer the required use of FAR 52.211-6, a solicitation provision, from FAR parts 6, 11, and 13, when FAR 12.301(e) is clear and unambiguous.
  21. Carl, FAR 12.301(e) states: FAR 12.302( c ) states: So, if the Government were specifying "brand name or equal" for an item in the solicitation, use of the provision at FAR 52.211-6 would still have to be consistent with customary commercial practice.
  22. That's correct, it would not be required. The CO would still have the discretion to use it consistent with customary commercial practice.
  23. Also, the small business representation of the 8(a) can be protested (see FAR 19.302(a)(2)).
×
×
  • Create New...