Jump to content
The Wifcon Forums and Blogs

Don Mansfield

Members
  • Content count

    2,107
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by Don Mansfield

  1. Neil, See FAR 44.402( b ):
  2. 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.
  3. 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.
  4. 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.
  5. 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?
  6. Unreasonable Price

    Lionel, Your faith in the FAR Council is admirable.
  7. 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?
  8. 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.
  9. 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.
  10. 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:
  11. 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.
  12. TEP = Sum of Labor Rates

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

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

    They probably would do that. Did you ask them?
  15. 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.
  16. 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?
  17. 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.
  18. H - clause vs FAR/DFAR

    Was the contract terminated for convenience or is there no follow-on contract?
  19. 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.
  20. Limitations on Sub-Contracting

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

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

    Pepe, I thought you were dead: https://www.theverge.com/2017/5/8/15577340/pepe-the-frog-is-dead-matt-furie
  24. 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.
  25. Estimated Delivery Order

    Board decisions involving blanket delivery orders: Did the Boards think they were a no-no?
×