Jump to content
The Wifcon Forums and Blogs

Don Mansfield

Members
  • Content count

    2,090
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by Don Mansfield

  1. Voting member of a source selection board?

    Seeker, Reading between the lines, FAR 7.503(c)(12)(ii) assumes the fiction that a source selection board uses voting to make decisions. However, there's no requirement to use voting to make decisions and some source selection boards use other methods to make decisions or recommendations. The DoD guide is just thoughtlessly repeating what's in the FAR. You may want to check The Source Selection Answer Book by Vern Edwards (if you can find a copy). My copy is on loan.
  2. I don't see how you would be a subcontractor under the prime contract. Once a contract is awarded to the prime, what part of the contract work do you perform?
  3. A little guidance/advice please

    AZBuman, Only you can answer your question. However, I think you may be undervaluing your experience as a QA specialist. I see that as setting you apart from other 1102s (in a good way).
  4. Price Analysis - Modifications

    The FAR doesn't require a price analysis of the cumulative value of the contract as a result of a proposed modification.
  5. business development and contingent fees

    Pepe, Contingent fee arrangements are ok if they are with "bona fide employees" or "bona fide agencies". By definition, these classes do not exert "improper influence". It doesn't matter if a "business development person" is an employee or an independent contractor, what matters is whether or not they exert improper influence. I think this answers your questions.
  6. Read this. Read it NOW!

    For the real reason why we have sticklers for blue rules see
  7. Read this. Read it NOW!

    For more blue rules, see
  8. Read this. Read it NOW!

    Kelman did not write the article. It was written by David Eaves, Lecturer in Public Policy at the Harvard Kennedy School.
  9. So what? Any contracting officer requiring a prime to include clauses other than those identified in FAR 52.244-6 in subcontracts for commercial items or commercial components would be deviating from FAR 44.402(b). If the contract contained DFARS 252.244-7000, then the prime would not be required to flow down any DFARS clauses in subcontracts for commercial items unless the DFARS clause specifically stated that it was to be included in subcontracts for commercial items.
  10. Neil, See FAR 44.402( b ):
  11. Paragraph (b) is a different cost--the cost of the employee's salary. It is not the cost of tuition, etc. From what you have written, I don't think FAR 31.205-44 makes the cost unallowable. However, it would be unallowable if it were unreasonable. FWIW, the cost of tuition for graduate education at University of San Diego is ~$1,500/credit. $100K would buy you ~66 credits. You need about twice that for a Ph.D. So, $100K for a Ph.D. doesn't sound unreasonable.
  12. I don't. FAR 31.205-44( c ) clearly applies to costs "in connection with full-time graduate level education". If the employee is enrolled in part-time graduate education, paragraph ( c ) does not apply.
  13. Acquisition Reform ― It’s Soylent Green!

    Melissa, If the Panel wants to find out the types of things that are impeding people at the working level, setting up the web site is nice, but it's not enough. People at the working level are working. Most have already filed away or deleted the e-mail from the Panel soliciting feedback that had already been forwarded three or four times. If the Panel wants to know how the regulations are impeding people's ability to get their work done, they should read the kinds of questions being asked in the Wifcon forums or in Ask-A-Professor. Many of the questioners are being impeded by the regulations, but they don't know it. The Panel should read the Nash & Cibinic Report, which contains recommendations for improving the regulations in every issue. Also, you'll reach more people if you don't make them write out their problem and justify why it should be changed. Most people at the working level are young, they would respond to something interactive and fun like Ranker.com.
  14. H - clause vs FAR/DFAR

    Gabriel, If the property was transferred to the follow-on contract, why would it cost the contractor so much to perform property closeout on the predecessor contract?
  15. Unreasonable Price

    Lionel, Your faith in the FAR Council is admirable.
  16. H - clause vs FAR/DFAR

    Gabriel said it was 52.245-1 Government Property (Deviation) (June 2007) in his first post. That's what I quoted from. Gabriel, Is the Government property going to be transferred to the follow-on contract?
  17. 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.
  18. 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.
  19. 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:
  20. 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.
  21. TEP = Sum of Labor Rates

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

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

    They probably would do that. Did you ask them?
  24. 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.
  25. 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?
×