Jump to content

Don Mansfield

Members
  • Posts

    3,370
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by Don Mansfield

  1. Wouldn't the fact that the CO used the clause also indicate that they did not think an exception applied? I'm looking at DFARS 225.1101(2)(i)(C).
  2. Assuming you meant 15 USC 638, I don't think so. I think that is just clarifying that the procedure complies with CICA. But I'm just guessing.
  3. Would you say that is an exception to the rule?
  4. I think that FAR 13.106-1(a)(2)(i) implies that price is a required evaluation factor when issuing a solicitation:
  5. It sounds like the IDIQ contract doesn't have prices--the task orders have prices. If that's the case, I don't see how one could argue that the task orders are competitively awarded FFP contracts.
  6. I was referring to the author of the LinkedIn article and the guy he was arguing with. The LinkedIn article reads like a post in r/iamverysmart subreddit.
  7. I answered "yes" because it was a better answer than "no". Acquisition planning is in the front and contract management is in the back, but do "Bonds and Insurance" come before "Taxes" in the acquisition process? Do "General Contracting Requirements" come before "Special Categories of Contracting" in the acquisition process. However, I think it's more of a stretch to say the FAR has no coherent structure. What a strange hill to die on.
  8. @old51C, To add to what ji wrote--FAR 4.804 pertains to the closeout of contract files (like the title says).
  9. His question #2 was specifically about travel costs.
  10. 1. No, nothing that precise that I know of. 2. Yes, see Volume 3, Chapter 8, Section 8.2.4, of the Contract Pricing Reference Guides.
  11. Here are my thoughts: 1. I am in favor of removing the GAO from the bid protest process. I've always held this opinion. The Legislative Branch has no business reviewing individual solicitations and award decisions of agencies. 2. I am in favor of a venue like an agency board of contract appeals that an interested party can appeal to after receiving a decision on a protest from the contracting officer--like the disputes process. 3. I am not in favor of eliminating the COFC's bid protest jurisdiction. From a balance of powers perspective, I think that executive branch decisions regarding how it plans to conduct an acquisition and how it chooses a contractor should be subject to judicial review.
  12. Because it's not. It's being done for administrative convenience.
  13. Two ideas: 1. Don't ask for resumes. 2. If you do ask for resumes, don't ask for resumes of people who the offeror says will perform the work. Ask for resumes of people who are currently performing similar contracts for the offeror.
  14. Because not all documents with the header "BPA" are actually BPAs. FAR part 13 BPAs are required to contain the terms and conditions at FAR 13.303-3(a), including-- (2) Extent of obligation. A statement that the Government is obligated only to the extent of authorized purchases actually made under the BPA.
  15. How is the contractor getting paid--contract financing or just delivery payments?
  16. A friend of mine told me that the training contracts awarded by FAI use LPTA.
  17. The Government is typically accepting the seller's terms in a GCPC purchase. What are the seller's terms for partial cancellation?
  18. I don't know why that would not be coded as a flow-down clause in the matrix--it obviously is. So what? In a contract between the prime and the sub, wouldn't the sub be the contractor? In any case, the "substance" of the clause needs to flowed down--it doesn't need to be verbatim.
  19. @joel hoffman, What do you expect a contracting officer to do? It seems like Fara Fasat is trying hard to do more than just rely on a self-certification, but is getting nowhere.
  20. I'm not saying it couldn't be used--I'm just questioning how useful it is in assessing an offeror's ability to perform a contract. I'm all for considering an offeror's "reasonable and cooperative behavior" in performing Government contracts. However, I don't think it's reasonable to impute an offeror's behavior in competing for contracts to their expected behavior when performing a contract. It seems needlessly punitive.
  21. BTW, yes I know that Congress made the Pilot Program permanent. Yes, I know that some civilian agencies issued class deviations. Yes, I know there is a FAR case pending. None of those things detract from my point.
  22. Only three votes? Oh, well. The reason I posted was that I thought the clause prescription was remarkably incomplete. The scope of the subpart at FAR 3.900 reads: The clause prescription merely says to insert the clause in solicitations and contracts over the SAT. Nothing about the clause applying to civilian agencies other than NASA or the Coast Guard. Nothing about the clause not applying after January 1, 2017. So much for the guidance for writing clause prescriptions in the FAR Drafting Guide:
×
×
  • Create New...