Jump to content

Don Mansfield

Members
  • Posts

    3,369
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by Don Mansfield

  1. joel, I'm not saying that the rule is practical or realistic. I'm just interpreting it as it is written.
  2. Major premise: A COR has no authority to make any commitments or changes that affect price, quality, quantity, delivery, or other terms and conditions of the contract nor in any way direct the contractor or its subcontractors to operate in conflict with the contract terms and conditions. Minor premise: Person A has the authority to make commitments or changes that affect price, quality, quantity, delivery, or other terms and conditions of the contract. Conclusion: Person A is not a COR.
  3. Answer 1: If the contract does not specify a particular method to perform the work, then a COR can't impose one. That would require a contract modification. Answer 2: Yes, the term "contracting officer" as defined at FAR 2.101 includes CORs acting within the scope of their delegated authority.
  4. A suspension of work operates in conflict with the existing contract terms by design. For example, the contract says to perform construction and the suspension of work says to stop performing construction. That changes the contract. As such, FAR 1.602-2( d )(5) would prohibit a COR from issuing a suspension of work. Further, FAR 1.602-5 ( d )(5) are the only limitations that I know of in the FAR regarding what can be delegated to a COR.
  5. Some days you're Michael, some days you're Fredo.
  6. Yes, that's it. Not necessarily. FAR 25.103(e) is an exception to the Buy American Act, not the Trade Agreements Act. The purchase restriction at FAR 25.403( c ) would still apply.
  7. Ask them if the listed experience or education is required, yes or no.
  8. JDYoung, I can't find a definition of "quotation" that would include a response of "No quote". The FAR does not define "quotation". The Government Contracts Reference Book defines "quotation" as follows: Merriam-Webster.com defines "quotation" as: So, while "No quote" is a response to a solicitation in the general sense, it is not a "quotation". Nice try.
  9. Have you read the Limitation of Cost clause?
  10. Carl, Here's I-FSS-646, which I'm copying from one of your earlier posts: Blanket Purchase Agreements (BPA's) can reduce costs and save time because individual orders and invoices are not required for each procurement but can instead be documented on a consolidated basis. The Contractor agrees to enter into BPA's with ordering activities provided that: (a) The period of time covered by such agreements shall not exceed the period of the contract including option year period(s); (B ) Orders placed under such agreements shall be issued in accordance with all applicable regulations and the terms and conditions of the contract; and ( c) BPAs may be established to obtain the maximum discount (lowest net price) available in those schedule contracts containing volume or quantity discount arrangements. I read that as a binding promise to enter into a BPA provided the stipulated conditions are met. However, I don't see anything about what the legal effect of the BPA will or must be. In my experience with FSS BPAs, the BPA was little more than a discount off the FSS price. In my opinion, those lacked consideration and probably weren't enforceable. However, that wouldn't support a general proposition that FSS BPAs are not contracts. There may be some out there that are contractually enforceable.
  11. That's correct. Even though the DFARS doesn't specifically say this, the final rule makes it clear as to the DAR Council's intent. Also, you are misinterpreting the "Notwithstanding..." sentence at FAR 12.301( d ). Read it like "Regardless of the prescriptions contained elsewhere in the FAR..." Lastly, in case you are working on a commercial solicitation, see my Solicitation Preparation Guide.
  12. The blurb "including solicitations and contracts using FAR part 12 procedures for the acquisition of commercial items" is a DFARS convention--I don't think you'll find it in the FAR. Every provision/clause prescription that contains that blurb is listed at DFARS 212.301. Only those provisions and clauses listed at DFARS 212.301 are required in solicitations and contracts for commercial items. As far as FAR clauses, the general rule is that if a provision or clause is not prescribed in FAR part 12, it's not required in a solicitation or contract for commercial items. See FAR 12.301( d ). You would not separately cite FAR 52.222-50 in a solicitation/contract for commercial items, since it's already incorporated by reference at FAR 52.212-5( a ).
  13. Offeror: I don't have to submit additional information because the subcontracts are for commercial services. DCChris23: I'm not requesting certified cost or pricing data, which I'm prohibited from obtaining from you for commercial subcontracts. However, I still need to determine the reasonableness/realism of your proposed costs. I am unable to do that with the information that you have provided. Unless I can determine the reasonableness/realism of your proposed costs, the Government will be unable to award you a contract. Offeror: Thank you for clarifying this, DCChris23. Please let me know what you need and I'll see if we have that information. DCChris23: Great. Please send me...
  14. When pricing subcontracts, there's nothing wrong with requesting additional information to determine a fair and reasonable price. The fact that the subcontracts are commercial would prohibit you from obtaining certified cost or pricing data, but not all cost or pricing data. Price the subcontracts the way you would at the postaward stage.
  15. Thanks, joel. I must have been thinking of the recent thread you posted--not a recent case. Good description of the issue in the Briefing Paper. Thanks for the link.
  16. Thanks, joel. The case I thought I read had to do with noncompliance with either the BAA or the TAA. I haven't run that to the ground yet. If I find it I'll post it here.
  17. Vern, I don't think that FAR 46.103 and FAR 46.104 address Buy American compliance, either. I was responding to your reference to FAR 52.246-2 and your question : "But what CO would say that he or she has no duty to inspect deliveries to ensure conformity?"
  18. joel, What you describe seems to be problems with people misusing numerical scoring systems--not the systems themselves.
  19. That's the one I found, but I could have sworn there was something more recent. Fifty cents if you find it.
  20. Administration refers to a very old NASA BCA case, but I remember something more recent. Yes, this question was prompted by the discussions in my blog post. I was preparing for the argument that determining BAA compliance is part of inspection. We can continue our discussion there.
  21. I'm having trouble finding a case that I'm sure I once read. Either a court or board held that acceptance acknowledged that supplies/services conformed to contract quality requirements, but not necessarily that the contractor complied with the terms and conditions of the contract. If I recall correctly, a contractor's items were deemed noncompliant with either the Buy American Act or the Trade Agreements Act after acceptance. The court or board held that the Government's acceptance of the items was not an acknowledgement that the contractor complied with the Buy American or Trade Agreements clause of the contract. Please help me find it. You will make my day.
  22. "DFARS 252.225-7001(a)(ii)(A)" "DFARS 252.225-7001(a)(ii)(A)" is not a valid citation, either. Paragraph ( a ) isn't broken down into (i), (ii), (iii), etc. Some of the definitions use (i), (ii), (iii), however. A CO's duty to inspect deliveries to ensure conformity of supplies or services is stated at FAR 46.103( d ) and FAR 46.104( b ). I'm not angry with the IG. I'm disappointed with the ACC's reaction. Instead of making the IG substantiate their position, they are going to make all of their contracting personnel take a three-hour online course that doesn't address what the IG thinks it does.
×
×
  • Create New...