Jump to content

Don Mansfield

Members
  • Posts

    3,370
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by Don Mansfield

  1. Let's think this through. 1. If you executed a modification for overrun funding, certified cost or pricing data would not be required. Correct? 2. If you executed a separate modification to extend the PoP pursuant due to late delivery of GFP, certified cost or pricing data would not be required. Correct? Assuming the contractor is not requesting an increase in estimated cost and fee due to the late delivered GFP, why would certified cost or pricing data be required if, for administrative convenience, you made both changes in one modification?
  2. Did your solicitation contain FAR 52.215-1? If it did, paragraph (f)(3) notifies offerors of the Government's intent to waive informalities and minor irregularities in proposals. Verify the mistake, then, if it is an informality or minor irregularity, waive it.
  3. Your contract should contain FAR 52.232-22, Limitation of Funds. Paragraph (l) of the clause states: Regardless of what was funded, what percentage of the work contemplated by the contract did you complete?
  4. Does it have to be one or the other? What about spending a few days a week in the contracting office and a few days a week in the program office?
  5. diverdave, You said that the task orders would be T&M/LH. Did you read FAR 12.207 ( b )?
  6. The inspectors are wrong. In Griffin Services, Inc., ASBCA 52280, 02-2 BCA P 31943, the Board ruled that a contracting officer's discretion to exercise an option under FAR 52.217-8 is not limited to the circumstances described at FAR 37.111. Here's an excerpt:
  7. What do you expect the Government to do?
  8. Steward, I think the fact that you are talking about task orders under an IDIQ matters greatly. Pursuant to the contract, is the contractor required to prepare proposals for task orders?
  9. Infoseeker, I think your comment about Shay Assad is out of line. There are rules to posting in this forum. They are posted under "Terms of Use." One of the rules is: You agreed to the terms of use when you registered. I think that you need to delete that comment from your post. ----------------------------------------- I deleted the offending language. Bob Antonio, Owner Wifcon.com LLC
  10. That's one way to do it. Alternatively, the SSP can define the types of deviations that are permissible.
  11. dcarver, Your beliefs about the force of source selection plans are outdated. See http://www.wifcon.com/cofc/09-602c.pdf.
  12. H2H, We can say that it's in the penumbra of DFARS 252.244-7000. Or do you think that the clause needs to specifically needs to say "no splitting subcontracts to avoid thresholds"?
  13. It would only be defective pricing if you didn't disclose the $50/hour rate.
  14. H2H, I don't know what a functional specialist might allege. While they may not be able to cite a specific rule that has been violated, I think that a practice is not in the Government's interests and should factor in to the Government's assessment of the prime's purchasing system.
  15. Is there any rule that prohibits a prime contractor from splitting subcontracts to avoid the application of CAS to those subcontracts? Consider the following scenario: In order to avoid the application of CAS to a subcontract, a prime contractor awards two $5 million subcontracts to the same subcontractor instead of one $10 million subcontract. The subcontractor has no CAS-covered contracts in its preceding or following accounting period. What rule did the prime violate?
  16. DAMB, That's not what the DoL guide says. The part about issuing a WD only if the place of performance is known applies to shipbuilding, not ship repair. For other than naval vessels, shipbuilding, alteration, and repair are covered by DBA. Ship maintenance is covered by SCA. As far as what clauses to use, I don't know what civilian agency practice is. DoD must not have thought the clauses in the FAR were adequate for ship repair, which is why we have the clauses prescribed at DFARS 217.7104. I don't have a problem with NAVSEA taking the position that they will treat their ship repair contracts as supply contracts as a matter of policy. What I have a problem with is the argument that ship repair, by its nature, is a supply rather than a service. The attorneys at NAVSEA used to insult my intelligence with such arguments as "Ship repair is a supply because the contractor is delivering a repaired ship to the Government." (Following that logic, the repair of anything would be a supply). As the GAO stated, it's illogical.
  17. Acquisition is acquiring by "contract", which is defined at FAR 2.101 as follows:
  18. Deaner, See "What Transactions fall outside the FAR's coverage?" on page 5 of this report: http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/R42826.pdf.
  19. DAMB, Just because the Navy applies Walsh-Healy to its ship repair contracts doesn't mean that they treat those contracts as supply contracts for all purposes. As I stated before, the Navy reports ship repair contracts to FPDS as service contracts. You asked: According to the DoL Field Operations Handbook (Chapter 15, 15d11): Interesting stuff about NOAA. Thanks for sharing.
  20. DAMB, You had a reference, which is good. However, you'll notice that the reference doesn't say that ship repair is a supply--it just says that it is subject to the Walsh-Healy PCA. Having said that, the statement is not in accord with the GAO decision: Here's what the GAO had to say about that: The current version of 10 U.S.C. 7299 reads: Apparently, the Navy has not accepted the GAO's interpretation of 10 U.S.C. 7299 and continues to apply Walsh-Healy to ship repair. Fair enough. However, that does not mean that naval ship repair is a supply. In fact, the repair of supplies, systems, or equipment is listed as an example of a "service contract" at FAR 37.101. 10 U.S.C. 7299 exists because the Navy doesn't want to deal with Davis-Bacon, which applies to repair of other than naval vessels.
  21. DAMB, You asserted that ship repair contracts are considered "noncommercial supply." Who considers them noncommercial supply contracts and for what purpose? Before you answer, double-check whether you use an FSC code for supplies when you report ship repair actions to FPDS. Also, why is ship repair listed as a service at FAR 25.401? Read http://www.gao.gov/products/420843#mt=e-report. Here's an excerpt: "It is most significant, in our view, that the Coast Guard makes no argument that the classification of such a repair contract as one for supplies is logical. We do not understand how it can be argued that as between the two categories-- supplies or services-- a contract for the repair of a vessel is classified as one for the vessel itself rather than for the repair services to be performed on that vessel. Since we think the solicitation was properly one for services, the protester's failure to complete the Small Business certification does not affect the responsiveness of the bid. BCI Contractors, Inc., B-232453, Nov. 7, 1988, 88-2 CPD Para. 451. We therefore conclude that the protester's low bid was improperly rejected and we sustain the protest."
  22. Yes, you can factor in transportation costs as a price-related factor in your evaluation. See Volume 1, Chapter 5, Section 5.4, of the Contract Pricing Reference Guides regarding the use of transportation costs as a price-related factor. The example is written for a supply contract, but it is easily adaptable to your situation.
×
×
  • Create New...