Jump to content
The Wifcon Forums and Blogs

Don Mansfield

Members
  • Posts

    3,048
  • Joined

  • Last visited

2 Followers

About Don Mansfield

  • Birthday 11/04/1972

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Male
  • Location
    San Diego, CA

Recent Profile Visitors

79,418 profile views
  1. I may be hurting my reputation as "The Deviation Guy", but I don't think what Vern is proposing would constitute a deviation. He would just be notifying offerors of a possibility despite the Government's intent.
  2. Jamaal, There's series of courses on Wondrium (used to be The Great Courses) called "Law School for Everyone". The course on Contracts has a 30-minute lecture on consideration. It's the best explanation (and critique) of consideration that I know of. https://www.wondrium.com/law-school-for-everyone-contracts
  3. Doesn't FPDS-NG have a help desk or something?
  4. How is that Elliot Branch's fault? He said "review". Can you post the memo?
  5. What do you mean "acceptable"? Are you asking if the FAR prohibits it? If so, the FAR does not prohibit it.
  6. Did you read what is stated directly below FAR 47.207 (before the subsections begin)?
  7. I still remember 20+ years ago when I first read the Nash & Cibinic Report. My PCO shared an article about something we had been debating as a team (I think it had to do with clarifications v. discussions). I couldn't believe there were smart people writing thoughtfully about the seemingly mundane work we were doing. It brought my work to life. The trajectory of my career was forever changed. I wanted to be like those guys.
  8. Why not compare the proposed rates to the rates they pay on similar contracts? I think there would be a higher correlation between those data and the actual cost of performance than proposed rates and the actual cost of performance. If your task is to determine the probable cost, you're ignoring a significant piece of the puzzle. In competitive cost-reimbursement service contracting, it's not uncommon for an offeror to attempt to get a cost advantage by proposing the use of lower-paid personnel without an intention of actually using those proposed personnel during performance. The Government typically determines what the proposed individual would probably get paid if they were to work on the proposed contract, but they don't consider the probability of the lower-paid personnel actually working on the contract. They assume the proposed personnel will actually work on the contract and conclude that the offeror is a cheaper alternative. Savvy offerors know this. Some may say this is a dishonest practice by offerors. An economist would probably say it's a rational response to incentives.
  9. Did the offeror provide performance information on similar contracts that they are currently performing or recently performed?
  10. This has been all cleared up by the FAR Councils. From today's Federal Register So we all know what this means now, right?
  11. I would suspect that the offeror is trying to recover a nonrecurring cost within the first two years. Maybe they have a high expectation that you'll exercise Option Year 1, but are not sure about the others. There could be a good reason. I wouldn't make an assumption that it's a clerical error.
  12. Good article on contract clarity: https://www.worldcc.com/Resources/Blogs-and-Journals/Contracting-Excellence-Journal/View/ArticleId/11251/If-we-wrote-our-contracts-for-ten-year-olds-would-our-eternal-search-for-contract-clarity-end
  13. @Lionel Hutz, Was on hiatus for a while. I wanted to get back to you, but don't feel that you need to respond. No, the UN recognizes countries as LDCs. Under delegation from the President, the USTR designates countries as LDCs pursuant to the TAA 19 U.S.C. 2511(b)(4). Not all LDCs recognized by the UN have been designated as LDCs by the USTR. Your argument seems to be that the clause cannot implement the TAA because it implements the BAA. I don't follow that logic. Why can't the clause implement both? I think the clause implements the BAA and most of the statutes listed at FAR 25.400(a). That's why the clause usually needs to be revised each time the list at FAR 25.400(a) is revised or some action is taken pursuant to the authority in those laws (e.g., when the USTR designates a country as an LDC). I assume you are referring to the "domestic content" test for BAA and the "substantial transformation" test associated with TAA. The clause has both tests. The definition of domestic construction material uses the BAA domestic content test. The definitions of Caribbean Basin country construction material, Free Trade Agreement country construction material, least developed country construction material, and WTO GPA country construction material all use the "substantial transformation" test. In any case, I appreciate the discussion and apologize for taking so long to respond.
×
×
  • Create New...