Don Mansfield

1. A profit exceeding 10-15% is not necessarily unreasonable. The Weighted Guidelines method is required in some instances for the Government to arrive at a prenegotiation objective, but it does not limit what a prospective contractor can propose. It has as much relevance to the negotiation as the method the prospective contractor used to develop their prenegotiation profit objective. As far as what the contracting officer said about the board, that may be true. But that doesn't mean you have to lower your profit. The Government will need to decide if what they need is worth agreeing to what they consider an unreasonable profit. Is the Government ok with your bottom line price? 2. See FAR 31.205-7 regarding the inclusion of contingencies in cost estimates.

17.205 is preaward.

DoD uses the clause at DFARS 252.204-7022, Expediting Contract Closeout.

@chadinark If you want to demonstrate knowledge of the FAR, then I would recommend getting a CFCM from NCMA.

No need for a written determination and I see no benefit in doing one. Condition yourself to avoid red tape whenever possible.

Well, ASN(RDA) relieved STRL from the burden of the making the determination. How do you think they would react if you did it anyway?

I'm confused, too. It doesn't make sense. Having said that, I think the deviation relieves STRL from having to comply with FAR 7.107-2 for contracts < $50 million.

Yes, you can--by conducting discussions and getting revised proposals.

Why would these be FAR/DFARS clauses? Why wouldn't the prime use its own payment clause?

I think I wasn't clear. I was referring to the list of FAR/DFARS in the subcontract--not all clauses.

It's a common tactic by primes, and I'm sure many subcontractors put up with it. It can take a lot of time and effort to determine which particular clauses should be flowed down and mistakes can be made, so one can understand why primes do this. You could go back and forth with the prime on each clause that you don't think applies and some subcontractors do that. I think a more elegant solution is to get the prime to agree that, notwithstanding the list of clauses in the subcontract, the only clauses that apply are those that are 1) included in the prime contract and 2) require inclusion in your subcontract.

A lot has already been written here about what they like and don't like about the DEA's procedure and the GAO's decision that I won't repeat or challenge. However, I think the most remarkable part of the Logan decision was the DEA's rotation procedure. They disclosed their intent to rotate purchases among BPA holders in the solicitation and nobody protested before quotes were due. When Logan tried to protest the rotation procedure after establishment of the BPAs, the protest was untimely. So it seems DEA was home free to rotate purchases among the BPA holders.

Me too.

I don't think Formation is right on this point. I would not consider T&M/LH contracts to be "level of effort" contracts. I agree with @ji20874's description. But this is beside the point.

So, effort is time spent working?