Jump to content

Don Mansfield

Members
  • Posts

    3,369
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by Don Mansfield

  1. PhiSig615, The term "collection of information" is more completely defined at 5 CFR 1320.3( c ). In relevant part-- [bold added]. As such, there's no doubt that the PRA applies to conducting acquisitions.
  2. Section 1331 of the Small Business Jobs Act of 2010 (Pub.L. 111-240) recognizes the significant opportunities that exist to increase small business participation on multiple award contracts and the ability of set-asides— the most powerful small business contracting tool—to unlock these opportunities. Under Section 1331, Federal agencies may: (1) set aside part or parts of multiple award contracts for small business; (2) reserve one or more awards for small businesses on multiple award contracts that are established through full and open competition; and (3) set aside orders under multiple award contracts awarded pursuant to full and open competition that have not been set-aside or partially set-aside, nor include a reserve for small businesses. You can download the article "Section 1331 Authorities: A Primer" by clicking here.
  3. FYI, I received the following response to my suggestion for technical amendment today:
  4. If I were going out for a round with the vendors, I would not use LPTA.
  5. I don't think the prescription was drafted properly. The FAR Drafting Guide states: I will suggest a technical amendment.
  6. Steward, I need to correct you on one point. The definition of "price" at FAR 15.401 is preceded by "As used in this subpart--". Thus, that definition only has that meaning when used in FAR subpart 15.4. The definition is not applicable to the word "price" as it is used at FAR 15.101-2( a ).
  7. A governmentwide rule is on the way. FAR Case 2013-014 was established to create a Federal standard for line item numbering. The FAR case status report says they are reviewing the draft proposed rule.
  8. The Court of Federal Claims said that it was a claim. See K-CON Building Systems, Inc., v. U.S. In relevant part:
  9. Under which OMB control number are you collecting that information?
  10. Is this a claim? “This letter serves as our request for cost modification in the amount of $50,325.00 for extended overhead due to delays outlined in our request for time extension letters dated 25 February 2005.” That's all. Don't look up or cite any cases, just look at the statement and compare it to the definition of "claim":
  11. ipod24, I am familiar with your situation. Like ji20874 says, you are looking at it backwards. Regarding 10 U.S.C. 7299, the GAO has rejected the argument that it covers ship repair. From G. Marine Diesel Corp., 68 Comp. Gen. 411, B-234196 (May 1, 1989): In Matter of: Century Marine Corporation--Reconsideration; Century Marine Corporation—Protest, B- 233574, B- 234255, B- 234256, B- 233574.2, 89-1 CPD P 505 (May 25, 1989), the Comptroller General further explained his position: Despite these decisions, the position of the Naval Sea Systems Command is that ship repair is a supply because Walsh-Healey applies to it.
  12. Yes. However, that's not how DPAP operates. First they make the rule effective using a memo, then they comply with 41 U.S.C. 1707.
  13. joel, Also, consider FAR 9.104-6. It discusses using FAPIIS as a source for determining responsibility, but does not use the term "prospective contractor" at all. ji20874, My conclusion is that I was wrong to think that the term "prospective contractor" necessarily meant the offeror or quoter who was selected for award and who is the subject of a responsibility determination. As such, I won't tell people that it always has that meaning.
  14. Do the ship repair services meet the definition of "commercial item" at FAR 2.101?
  15. I used to think like ji20874--prospective contractors are a subset of offerors--the offerors that you've selected for award and are undergoing a determination of responsibility. When I was challenged on it, I really couldn't find anything definitive in the FAR to back me up. There are 19 uses of "offeror" or "offerors" in FAR subpart 9.1. Sometimes it seems to be used to distinguish them from "prospective contractors", other times it seems synonymous with the term. If you look at other parts of the FAR, "offerors" could be interpreted as a subset of "prospective contractors"--the prospective contractors that submit offers. For example, FAR 15.203( c ) states: Strange.
  16. Nothing in the FAR or DFARS prohibits soliciting offers prior to funds being certified as available, nor do I know of any requirement to alert prospective contractors to the fact.
  17. For DoD, one advantage is that the FARsite embeds the DoD class deviations in the text of the FAR/DFARS. Another advantage is that you can access both the FAR and DFARS from one site. Lastly, the DFARS on the FARSite is easier to navigate than the DFARS on the DPAP site.
  18. The deviation adds the requirement for the contracting officer to make a determination of fair and reasonable prices for orders not requiring a statement of work (FAR 8.405-1).
  19. Why not use SAP to fulfill your requirements until you become more familiar with the vendors' work?
  20. Why do you think the fact that "There is actual work effort and cost will be incurred by contractors running these tests" precludes the use of a two-step proposal process?
  21. Are all offerors "prospective contractors" as that term is used in FAR subpart 9.1?
×
×
  • Create New...