Jump to content
The Wifcon Forums and Blogs

Don Mansfield

Members
  • Content Count

    2,488
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by Don Mansfield

  1. Vern, Wouldn't jtolli's contract be a FFP level of effort term contract? She's indicated that once the contractor has delivered 1,920 hours of support, they have met their commitment.
  2. jtolli, You said that the contract doesn't include any payment clauses, but then you said that it does include FAR 52.212-4. Did you look at the title of paragraph (i) of 52.212-4? According to the contract, after the contractor has worked 1,920 hours are they still required to do something (e.g., complete a project) or have they fulfilled their commitment?
  3. Hi, NavyKGuy, Thanks for commenting. Your argument fails to address two key questions: If the FAR required price analysis always, then 1) why would it qualify the price analysis requirement at FAR 15.404-1(a)(2) with "when cost or pricing data are not required" and 2) why the use of "should" at FAR 15.404-1(a)(3)? In order to perform a price analysis, you need some basis of comparison. However, there can be situations where such information is not available because the supply or service being purchased is so unique. In such situations, the contracting officer would have to rely on cost analysis alone to determine a fair and reasonable price. My point is simply that, despite what many people think, the FAR does not require price analysis for all acquisitions. If this blog entry caused some people to open up the FAR and rethink what they had been told or taught about the FAR, then perhaps they will be less likely to take what they are told or taught at face value. In general, I don't think that we (members of the Federal contracting community) do a good job at scrutinizing information--we tend to believe what we hear if it sounds reasonable or if it is spoken or written by someone of "experience." This is why our field is so rich with misinformation. While this is fun to write about, it's also somewhat disheartening. I'd prefer having less material.
  4. "ADP Software" is classified under Federal Supply Class 7030. However, if you're classifying for your own internal purposes, classify however you want.
  5. License fees for what? For what purpose are you trying to classify them?
  6. K-Law Atty, I don't understand the point you are trying to make. You don't think that FAR 52.212-1 should be incorporated in RFQs for commercial items?
  7. leo1102, Yes. That's why I added the warning at the top of the blog entry. I wouldn't use the table for now.
  8. brian, What do you mean by "the overpayment inherent in any noncompetitive situation"?
  9. joel, When using the DD Form 1547 to develop a prenegotiation profit objective, FCCOM is not included in the total cost objective (Block 20)--as required by FAR 15.404-4( c )(3).
  10. wiscco, The question was whether the prime is required to analyze the subcontractor's price. The rule that you are quoting deals with whether a Government ordering activity has to analyze a GSA schedule price. Two different things.
  11. No. See FAR 15.403-4(a)(1)(ii). No. Read it again. It does not require the prime contractor to perform cost analysis on all subcontracts.
  12. I think that Vern is correct. The rule in ( c )(3) applies to the development of a prenegotiation profit/fee objective, while the rule in ( c )(4) applies to the amount of fee the contracting officer can negotiate. Developing a prenegotiation profit/fee objective is not the same as negotiating profit/fee. Consider the following example. A contracting officer is developing a prenegotiation profit objective using the numbers above. The CO excludes FCCOM from the cost objectives when applying profit factors as required by ( c )(3) and comes up with prenegotiation profit objective of $150,000. During negotiations, the Government and the contractor agree to the estimated costs as proposed. However, the contractor offers some concession (let's say Government-purpose rights to some of its proprietary data) if the CO is willing to pay $151,500 in fixed fee. Can the CO make the deal? To answer this, we have to apply the rule which limits what the CO can negotiate. That rule states: The applicable rule says "estimated cost", it does not say "estimated cost excluding facilities capital cost of money." 15% of estimated costs ($1,010,000) would be $151,500. Thank you all for playing.
  13. Another interesting thing about the OMB memo is that it assumes that agencies have been following, and will now continue to follow, SBA's regulations regarding parity between the HUBZone and SDVOSB programs: There is no acknowledgement that the FAR gives priority to HUBZone set-asides over SDVOSB set-asides and sole source actions. This raises the question: If a contracting officer intended to ignore the HUBZone priority in the FAR, wouldn't they be required to obtain approval of a FAR deviation?
  14. You are a Government contracting officer and you are negotiating a cost-plus-fixed-fee contract for research work and have come to an agreement with the contractor on the following elements of his cost proposal: Estimated Cost (excluding FCCOM): $1,000,000 Facilities Capital Cost of Money (FCCOM): $ 10,000 What is the statutory maximum fee (in dollars) that you can agree to under this contract? A. $150,000 B. $151,500 Here is a relevant excerpt from FAR 15.404-4( c ) that may help you answer the question:
  15. Try requesting it through the agency's FOIA office.
  16. VA Junior CO, The terms "Fixed-price", "cost-reimbursement", "time-and-materials", etc. are used to describe a contract's pricing arrangement. The terms "definite quantity", "requirements" and "indefinite quantity" are used to describe a contract's delivery arrangement. A contract's delivery arrangement and its pricing arrangement are two different, unrelated, aspects of the contract. Let's say you have a baseball. The baseball is white. The baseball is round. Both are true statements about the baseball, but they describe different aspects of the baseball--one statement describes its color, the other its shape. So, you could have a contract with a fixed-price pricing arrangement and an indefinite delivery arrangement (i.e., Definite quantity, requirements, IDIQ) and you could have another contract with a fixed-price pricing arrangement and a definite delivery arrangement. This would be like having one round ball that was white and another round ball that was black.
  17. NptAcq, Why do you say that the estimates were faulty? Did the estimator fail to consider reasonably available information when making the estimates? Did they miscalculate something? Or is it more accurate to say that the costs turned out to be higher than what the Government reasonably expected them to be when they made the estimate?
  18. Vern, Part of the reconsideration states the following: Are you saying that GAO should defer to an implementing agency's interpretation of a statute even if that interpretation is unreasonable?
  19. Desparado, What mistake do you think the GAO made?
  20. RIR, You should know that such practices (recording obligations for changes based on the mere anticipation of changes) violate the Recording Statute (31 USC 1501). I suggest you read the following DoD IG reports: http://www.dodig.mil/Audit/reports/fy09/09-025.pdf http://www.dodig.mil/Audit/reports/fy08/08-083.pdf
  21. TAP, Under the FSS program, GSA awards indefinite quantity contracts (FAR 38.101(a)). The consideration in such contracts is the Government's promise to order a minimum quantity in exchange for the contractor's promise to deliver the supplies or perform the services when ordered to by the Government up to the contract maximum (assuming orders are placed in accordance with the Ordering, Indefinite Quantity, and Order Limtations clauses). The contractor also promises to abide by the terms and conditions of the contract. According to Carl Culham, a frequent contributor to this forum, the following clause is contained in a number of FSS contracts: I'll quote Vern to explain the consideration in this arrangement:
  22. TAP, You are doing the same thing the GAO did--asserting that, in general, BPAs are not contracts and supporting your assertion by referencing things that are true about FAR Part 13 BPAs, but not necessarily true about FAR Part 8 BPAs. Have you been paying attention to this thread? If you think that FAR Part 8 BPAs are not contracts, per se, then please explain the contractual elements that they lack. I recommend that you read the thread that I referenced in my initial post.
  23. So the original contract obligates funds for change orders that haven't been issued yet? Let me guess, you are contracting for ship repair?
×
×
  • Create New...