Jump to content
The Wifcon Forums and Blogs

Don Mansfield

Members
  • Content count

    2,084
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by Don Mansfield

  1. A Problem within Soliciations - IDIQs

    Is the agency explicitly directing you to rely on government estimates in arriving at your prices? If so, the agency will be liable for inaccurate estimates. See Admiral Elevator v. Social Sec. Admin., CBCA 470 07-2 BCA ¶ 33,676
  2. A Problem within Soliciations - IDIQs

    I'm not seeing the unfairness. The Government says they have a requirement for the widgets above what they purchased on Contract A. How do you know they won't be buying these parts off of Contract B? What evidence do you have? Why would it be to the Government's advantage to lie about its intentions?
  3. Reserving MACs for SBs

    I don't know. GSA tends to do what they want.
  4. I always thought that the FAR Matrix was a good idea that was poorly executed. To begin with, it's notorious for containing errors. Second, most of the entries in the "Principle Type and/or Purpose of Contract" columns are "A", Required when applicable, which means you have to look up the prescription anyway. Lastly, the matrix isn't going to tell you if your agency deviates from the FAR prescription, which DoD does a lot. As such, I created a matrix that I think overcomes these problems. A few things about the matrix: It contains every provision and clause in the FAR, DFARS, and in DoD Class Deviation memoranda. It doesn't have any "Principle Type and/or Purpose of Contract" columns except for a Commercial Items column. It contains the actual prescription of the provision or clause. For readability, I removed the number and title of the provision or clause in the block and just wrote "use this provision..." or "use this clause..." The identifying information for the provision or clause is already contained in the row. For DoD, it contains additional instructions for the use of FAR clauses that is contained in the DFARS or in a class deviation. This information appears in bold. If you work for a civilian agency, just ignore what's in bold. In the "IBR" column (Incorporation by Reference), there are no "N" entries for "no", with the exception of the provisions and clauses prescribed at FAR 52.107. This may cause some people to freak out, so I'll explain. FAR 52.102(c) states: Thus, if the FAR Matrix contained a "Y" in the IBR column, my matrix will also contain a "Y". If the FAR Matrix contained an "N" in the IBR column, or the provision or clause came from the DFARS or a DoD class deviation, then my matrix will contain a "Y*". The key at the top of the matrix contains an explanation for the "Y*" entry. If you're wondering how to incorporate a provision or clause that contains fill-in material or something the offeror must complete, see FAR 52.102(a) and FAR 52.104(d). You can see the matrix on the DAU Acquisition Community Connection. I'm open to suggestions for making it better. Also, I would like to think that it doesn't contain any errors. However, if you spot one please let me know. As an incentive, I will add your agency's provisions and clauses (the ones in Title 48 of the CFR) to the matrix if you point out a mistake.
  5. First on my list is FAR part 19. I'm not saying eliminate small business programs, but the FAR Councils shouldn't be implementing SBA regulations. Just provide cross-references to the applicable SBA regulations for topics in FAR part 19.
  6. Waiver of Amounts Due the Government

    here_2_help, What you're looking at should not be described as an "official agency clause." It's a local clause developed by a suborganization of an agency that has not been vetted through the rulemaking process like a FAR or DFARS clause. It's not contained in Title 48 of the CFR. Don't be fooled by the fact that the contracting activity is identified and it's dated. Such clauses have been held to have no contractual effect, even though they are agreed-to by the parties. See, for example, La Gloria Oil&Gas Co.v.U.S., 56 Fed.Cl. 211 (2003). In my opinion, a CO should always treat local clauses with some suspicion. Usually, they are someone's great idea within a contracting office to solve an immediate problem. However, they aren't always thought through. If a CO doesn't have the authority to waive amounts due by law, a local clause is not going to give it to them.
  7. Does the contracting officer have the authority to waive amounts due to the Government? For example, some COs will waive an amount due to the Government at contract closeout if that amount is below a certain dollar figure. Here's an example of such a clause accomplishing that purpose: I see the wisdom of such a clause, but my question is whether the CO has this authority.
  8. FAR/DFARS/DoD Class Deviations Provision and Clause Matrix

    How about here.
  9. According to the DFARS, the public can make recommendations for FAR and DFARS changes directly to the DAR Council. From DFARS 201.201-1(d)(ii):
  10. Reserving MACs for SBs

    1. Reserves for more than one small business are for less than the whole requirement. A reserve for one small business is for the whole requirement. See the discussion of reserves here.
  11. Park the money

    This is what I would write: "I can only record an obligation for the amount of the obligation created by the task order. If you want to commit the funds that were not obligated, then you should speak to the financial management folks because I don't have that authority. If you need any help, let me know." I prefer to assume the engineer is just ignorant of the rules, not that they are knowingly intent on doing something illegal. Help them solve their problem.
  12. I think the CO forwards the protest to the SBA and stays out of it. It's not the CO's call.
  13. Right. See also FAR 52.204-8( d ) or 52.212-3( b )(2).
  14. joel, The person I asked didn't see an inherent problem with target price = ceiling price, either.
  15. joel, Thanks for the second post. I was having trouble figuring out what your question was. So, there would be a target profit and a target cost stated in the contract. When added together, they would equal the ceiling price. There would be sharing under the target cost, but not over. In other words, the target cost is the PTA. I don't see an obvious problem with that. I'm going to ask someone who knows more than me about FPI(F) contracts.
  16. Buy American Act and Services

    At this point, why does it matter? He already has the contract and neither FAR 52.225-3 nor -5 apply to services--they apply to end products.
  17. Zag, FAR 22.603 should be read like this: The requirements in 22.602 apply to 1. contracts (including for this purpose, indefinite-delivery contracts, basic ordering agreements, and blanket purchase agreements) and 2. subcontracts under Section 8(a) of the Small Business Act Remember, under the 8(a) Program, the agency has a contract with the SBA. The SBA subcontracts to the 8(a) Participant. The requirements of FAR 22.602 apply to the subcontract between the SBA and the 8(a) Participant.
  18. Buy American Act and Services

    Actually, Bahamas is a designated country, so that would be ok. But your statement would be true with a nondesignated country.
  19. Buy American Act and Services

    FAR 52.225-5 requires the contractor to deliver U.S.-made or designated country end products. It does not require or prohibit the performance of services by a contractor established in any particular country or class of countries. Paragraph (b) states: FAR 25.403( c )(1) restricts the purchase of other than U.S. or designated country services, but subsequent to award no FAR or DFARS clause requires or prohibits the contractor from using sources from nondesignated countries to perform work.
  20. They protested a solicitation on August 1. I don't know the result, though. They've been banned from my inbox.
  21. Buy American Act and Services

    Neither the FAR nor DFARS contain any provisions or clauses that implement the TAA for services.
  22. Parts received after Task Order PoP end date

    Completion contracts don't necessarily require actual completion--they could just require a contractor's best efforts to achieve completion. The terms "completion" and "level-of-effort" are used to describe how the contract describes the scope of work. There's a good discussion of the distinction in the FAR as it relates to CPFF contracts at FAR 16.306( d ): In a cost-reimbursement contract, either form obligates the contractor to provide its "best efforts". This obligation is stated in either the Limitation of Funds or Limitation of Cost clause. See FAR 52.232-20( a ): Make sense?
  23. Parts received after Task Order PoP end date

    You meant "level-of-effort" not "best effort", right?
  24. Cost Monitoring Plans

    (1) Don't know of any provision or clause. Nothing would prevent the contractor from telling the Government "N/A". However, take a look at 3.2.1.9: So, it looks like the plan would be to ding a business system if the ACO didn't like your lack of a strategy. Probably estimating system. (2) If the contractor had such information, I think it would be part of their estimating system, correct? If so, then I would go with DFARS 252.215-7002, Cost Estimating System Requirements.
×