Don Mansfield

You don't have to add an optional line item to do what you want. Compare FAR 52.217-6 and -7. I think you would use -6.

You're not harming the contractor. If they experience an excusable delay, they get more time to complete the contract.

FAR 19.502-2(a):

Is the BAA Council a VA thing? Never heard of it. So, from what I understand you're being told that a determination of nonavailability is required for each order because you can't trust that the CO got one approved when planning the original contract. Is that correct?

I don't see anything about BAA waivers in the VAAR. Do you mean Determinations of Nonavailability?

No, because-- 1. Requests for individual waivers of the nonmanufacturer rule are discretionary (see FAR 19.505(c)(4)(i)(B)), and 2. There is no requirement for the CO to request a "waiver" of the BAA under any circumstance.

Here you go... b-262168.pdf

The PGI is just giving an example of compliant numbering--it's not requiring that numbering. The rule is that the numbering be sequential.

"Ok, but I need to confirm that you have the requisite authority to bind the Government." According to FAR 1.602-1(b), this information should be "readily available to the public".

Formalize the informal commitment under FAR 50.103-2(c)?

Me, too. I'm glad you asked the question.

No. It will probably be closer to the CCMA exam.

Good questions. Here's how I see it. Contracting officers have the authority to enter into contracts (FAR 1.602-1(a)). By definition, contracts are in writing "unless otherwise authorized." (FAR 2.101) There are two instances that seem to authorize oral contracts: Purchases under BPAs should be made orally when it is not considered economical or practical to use electronic methods. (FAR 13.303-5(e)(1)) Purchases using imprest funds or third-party drafts should normally be placed orally. (FAR 13.305-4(b)) I don't see a writing requirement as a big deal with the technology we have today. If you can reach someone by phone, you can probably also send an e-mail or text to the same device.

I am not. I'm not seeing a problem. From what your auditors wrote, they seem to think that profit is allocated like indirect costs (e.g. "IDWA can only have profit applied..."). Although the Government's structured approaches to profit analysis assume so, profit is not necessarily a function of cost. Just because it can be expressed as a percentage does not mean that it gets "applied" to costs. The prime should propose the dollar amount of profit it wants for the contract and should not link it to its proposed costs. The prime shouldn't submit an Excel spreadsheet that contains a formula in the "Profit" cell that changes when other costs on the spreadsheet change. If the contracting officer tells the prime that they're not allowed to have profit on a particular cost, the prime should explain that there is no direct relationship between their proposed profit and their proposed cost. As far as what a Government contracting officer would "conclude"--they shouldn't conclude anything regarding "collusion" without a lot more information.

What evidence did the somebody provide to support their assertion?

I already admitted to being the bad guy. What are you trying to prove?

Careless: Less Careless: "Since I haven't read your contract, I can only answer generally. Typically, property acquired by the contractor under a fixed-price contract does not meet the definition of contractor acquired property as defined in the clause at FAR 52.245-1 because the Government doesn't have title. However, if a fixed-price contract provided for contract financing payments, the Government would have title to such property until final acceptance."

Careless: 😦 Careful: 😀 Pedantic types might write something like CAP∈Property acquired by the contractor

Joel, Would it make sense if I said-- "A hammer is not a tool. A hammer is a tool for driving nails into wood."

Ji is writing carelessly, but that's your fault @Vern Edwards & @here_2_help. And I'm a bad guy for pointing it out.

I agree that whoever has the authority to revise the billing rates in @TylerACC's agency should be the one to revise the billing rates, if necessary. However, I don't think it should be done unilaterally unless the parties cannot negotiate an agreement. I don't think @TylerACC would be asking the question if the contractor's employees were teleworking from the contractor's facilities. Maybe @TylerACC can straighten me out if I'm wrong. Yep. ...or the parties could act now to avoid this situation, if necessary.

If they overbill their indirect costs, the Government would be credited. However, you're not going to know that until the final indirect cost rates are determined. I would let that process work itself out. In the meantime, I would consider revising the billing rates (see FAR 42.704(c)). I see this as a billing rates issue--not a cost allowability issue.

Just trying to understand. I get it--the facility is not a physical place. I like it.

So, if the Government provided the platform and the computer it would be Government site?

I thought I'd hear from you. I think you're interpreting my post as an indictment of the contractor. That's not what I intended. I'm assuming the parties did not contemplate the present work arrangement. If the contractor is billing at a rate that is likely to differ significantly from actual rates, then it may be time to revise the billing rate (see FAR 42.704(c)).