Jump to content
The Wifcon Forums and Blogs

Don Mansfield

  • Content count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by Don Mansfield

  1. H - clause vs FAR/DFAR

    Retreadfed, What if the contract expires and there is a follow-on? Would the contractor be required to perform property closeout tasks? The H clause doesn't say the Government will require performance of the listed tasks or cover reimbursement of costs in that circumstance.
  2. Unreasonable Price

    Lionel, FAR 2.101(a) states: In the context of FAR subpart 15.4, I think a different meaning is required. In addition to the meaning given at FAR 2.101, the "contracting officer" is organizationally beneath others, such as the "head of the contracting activity". For example, FAR 15.403-4(a)(2) states: See also FAR 15.403-1 which relieves the contracting officer of the requirement to obtain cost or pricing data if they obtain a waiver from the HCA. I think that in the context of FAR subpart 15.4, the contracting officer is clearly an agent of the HCA or other higher-level official. There's more to it than just meeting the criteria in the FAR 2.101 definition. I agree with Vern's interpretation of "contracting officer" to mean "working-level COs" in this context.
  3. H - clause vs FAR/DFAR

    I agree that you should first try to harmonize the clauses, but I don't think you can in the case. Here's the wording of the clause: Your interpretation renders meaningless the words in bold. From U.S. Attorneys Manual:
  4. H - clause vs FAR/DFAR

    If you're at a stalemate with the contractor, then issue a final decision pursuant to FAR 33.211 setting forth the Government's interpretation of the contract and directing the contractor to perform the property closeout tasks. Does the contract include FAR 52.233-1, Alternate I? If so, paragraph (i) states: Based on what you've written, I think the Government's position is unreasonable.
  5. TEP = Sum of Labor Rates

    Yes, but DoD will have statutory authorization to do it.
  6. H - clause vs FAR/DFAR

    Will they enter into a supplemental agreement to perform the property closeout tasks?
  7. H - clause vs FAR/DFAR

    They probably would do that. Did you ask them?
  8. H - clause vs FAR/DFAR

    I think it does. The Government instructed the contractor not to include the costs for property closeout in its price. Now that the Government wants the contractor to perform property closeout, the contractor wants to be compensated for these costs. I wouldn't submit a final voucher until that matter was settled, either.
  9. H - clause vs FAR/DFAR

    Retreadfed, Paragraph (f)(1)(x) of the applicable version FAR 52.245-1 states: Pursuant to the H clause, the contractor doesn't have to do that. How is that not a conflict?
  10. H - clause vs FAR/DFAR

    The problem with the ACO/PCO interpretation is that the first sentence of the H clause doesn't limit its applicability: "No requirement" means no requirement. The second and third sentences discuss how the contractor is to be compensated in two specific situations where the Government will require performance of the listed tasks. It's silent on requiring performance of the tasks in other situations. I think it's unreasonable to interpret the clause to mean the contractor won't be compensated for performing closeout tasks unless the contract is terminated or there's no follow-on. The contractor is right about the order of precedence.
  11. H - clause vs FAR/DFAR

    Was the contract terminated for convenience or is there no follow-on contract?
  12. sjst1 has a good question, but she didn't ask it well. Here's the relevant text of the clause (FAR 52.222-54(b)(1)): She needs to flow that requirement down to her subcontractor. Appropriately modifying the clause for identification of the parties, I presume she wants to flow it down like this: The subcontractor is taking exception to the language in bold. They think the bold language should also be modified for identification of the parties. If the subcontractor can enroll as a "Federal Subcontractor" or something similar, then this would be an easy fix. If not, then I think the subcontract would have to require the subcontractor to enroll as a "Federal Contractor." The use of "Federal Contractor" in the clause is to refer to a status in the E-Verify program, it's not being used to refer to a party to the subcontract.
  13. Limitations on Sub-Contracting

    Would you include the clause in contracts that it wasn't prescribed for?
  14. competitor not performing

    That's good to hear. Viva Pepe, indeed.
  15. sjst1, Is there an option to enroll as a Federal subcontractor or something similar?
  16. competitor not performing

    Pepe, I thought you were dead: https://www.theverge.com/2017/5/8/15577340/pepe-the-frog-is-dead-matt-furie
  17. Estimated Delivery Order

    Searching, Your thinking is correct--the case that your legal counsel is relying on is inapposite--you are not issuing an order under a multiple-award contract.
  18. Estimated Delivery Order

    Board decisions involving blanket delivery orders: Did the Boards think they were a no-no?
  19. Estimated Delivery Order

    Searching, you understand that your legal counsel offered an opinion, correct? Did you ask for the factual basis of their opinion? Perhaps you would arrive at a different conclusion if you reviewed those facts. That's what someone who was searching for answers would do.
  20. R&D contracting

    Will you be awarding procurement contracts under broad agency announcements?
  21. FrankJon, What do you mean by "this stuff"? How to compete an order under FSS BPAs?
  22. joel, Here is the relevant excerpt from the Pricing Guides: Italics added for emphasis.
  23. Generally, the Government wouldn't take into account differing transportation costs when the delivery terms are FOB destination. See Volume I, Subchapter 5.4, of the Contract Pricing Reference Guides regarding transportation costs.
  24. RFI ... Evaluations and ... Down-Selects? Huh?

    I don't think you could eliminate anyone from the competition based on the RFI responses, without justifying other than full and open competition. However, you could advise the potential offerors where they stand, as described in FAR 15.202(b). If someone were notified that they wouldn't be a viable competitor and still submitted an offer, and you received offers from the three offerors that you invited to compete, then you could eliminate the one you didn't invite for purposes of efficiency IAW FAR 15.306(c)(2).