Jump to content
The Wifcon Forums and Blogs

Don Mansfield

  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

0 Neutral

1 Follower

About Don Mansfield

  • Rank
    Contributing Member
  • Birthday 11/04/1972

Profile Information

  • Gender
  • Location
    San Diego, CA

Recent Profile Visitors

71,843 profile views
  1. I've chosen the winners of the Plain Language writing contest. The following entry from @Jamaal Valentine was the acceptable entry with the best readability score: The most humorous entry came from @apsofacto: There were some others I really liked that didn't win. If we slightly change @bentley78's entry, we get: Thank you all for participating!
  2. Don Mansfield

    Problem of the Day--Pricing Delivery Incentives

    I said B, too. Expected Price of A = $71 + (.69)($41) = $99.29 Expected Price of B = $65 + (.79)($41) = $97.39 Expected Price of C = $59 + (.96)($41) = $98.36
  3. The general rule would be to treat all items as commercial. An exception would be if the contractor was performing or had performed within the last year a fully-covered CAS contract or subcontract.
  4. Contractors don't have to assert that their pricing is fair and reasonable, like they have to assert that something is commercial. The contracting officer makes a determination of fair and reasonable pricing based on the information provided.
  5. Multiple accounting classifications under a single line item is also permitted when using separately identified subline items. DFARS 204.7104-1(b)(1)(i): Contrast the examples at DFARS PGI 204.7104-2(e)(6) and (7).
  6. Why couldn't the Government obtain the data from the contractor? Doesn't the Government obtain data from the contractor to determine price reasonableness? I think it's called cost or pricing data or something like that.
  7. I think its a huge savings of time and resources for both the Government and contractors. A suggested improvement--change the rules such that an item is commercial until proven otherwise. As it is now, commerciality has to be proven.
  8. Why must the type of funds be the same? Couldn't ry_lock use informational sublines--one for each appropriation (one for RDT&E, one for O&M)--under the same line item?
  9. @Hammspace, Harris IT Service Corporation, B-411699; B-411796, October 2, 2015, is the only case I know of where the issue of an "IDIQ under an IDIQ" was addressed. The test the GAO applied was whether the original task order contained the information required by FAR 16.505(a)(7). In that case, the GAO determined that the original task order did not. Therefore, they concluded that the task order was an improper IDIQ under an IDIQ. The auditor seems to be applying a different standard--probably one they thought up.
  10. @ry_lock, Why not just have one line item for the SOW and informational sublines for the different accounting classification citations? Look at the example at DFARS PGI 204.7104-2(e)(7).
  11. @Hammspace, Does the original task order contain the information at FAR 16.505(a)(7)?
  12. Why do you think that? Modifying contracts to provide more detail is not new. It predates the existence of IDIQ contracts.
  13. @Joe2713, The FAR regulates a lot that goes on in acquisition, but not everything. The FAR excerpt provided by Matthew provides guidance on what you do when you want to do something that the FAR has nothing to say about. It's very important to how you approach acquisition. Instead of looking for permission to do something in the regulations, assume that you have permission unless prohibited by prohibited by law (statute or case law), Executive order or regulation. If you are a beginner, print out FAR 1.102-4(e) and post it somewhere you can see it when working on your computer. From now on, read it before looking something up in the FAR.
  14. What if the Government wanted to consider the information? Do you think they wouldn't be allowed?
  15. @Joe2713, Assume that the regulations are silent on this matter. What do you think is the answer to your question?