Jump to content
The Wifcon Forums and Blogs

Don Mansfield

  • Posts

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by Don Mansfield

  1. I wonder if the laptops would be considered "incidental to the place of performance" as described at FAR 45.000(b). Government property that is incidental to the place of performance, when the contract requires contractor personnel to be located on a Government site or installation, and when the property used by the contractor within the location remains accountable to the Government. Items considered to be incidental to the place of performance include, for example, office space, desks, chairs, telephones, computers, and fax machines.
  2. Ok, if we're talking SAP, quote FAR 13.106-2(b)(1).
  3. Is the KO the source selection authority?
  4. How are you going to compare the test group to the control group? What are you going to measure? I think that one thing you have to account for in the test group is the effect a predetermined fee % would have on a contractor's cost estimates. It's possible that cost estimates would become more pessimistic (i.e., higher estimated cost would mean higher fixed fee). The time saved by foregoing fee negotiation may be spent on negotiating estimated costs.
  5. As I read it, the bottom line of the report is that agencies should just dictate fee percentages in their BAAs and R&D RFPs. The cost of negotiating fee is not worth it. Ok, let's test the hypothesis. Conduct a pilot, collect data, and report back. Maybe the hypothesis is correct. Right now all we know is that the contractors interviewed consider factors other than fee when deciding whether to respond to a solicitation.
  6. I think in Federal acquisition, an "entity" has a unique entity identifier, which is defined at FAR 2.101 as: "a number or other identifier used to identify a specific commercial, nonprofit, or Government entity." Contractors in the United States and its outlying areas would also have unique Commercial and Government Entity (CAGE) codes. In United Valve Company, the GAO relied on CAGE codes to determine the identity of the offeror. Here's an excerpt: So, if segments have different unique entity identifiers or CAGE codes, then I think that they could be considered distinct entities.
  7. Obsolescence management is a big deal in the DoD. That's why Diminishing Manufacturing Sources and Material Shortages (DMSMS) management is a thing. Since you're new, I recommend familiarizing yourself with SD-22. Come back if you have any questions.
  8. I don't interpret the question like that. I'm assuming that the parent has multiple segments--some with CAS-covered contracts, some without.
  9. Careful. The Federal Register notice for the final rule contained the following:
  10. Good question. There's no definition of "entity". If we assume that means "offeror" and the offeror is the segment, then I think it would be possible.
  11. It depends what the solicitation says. FAR 15.305(a)(2)(iii) says the past performance evaluation "should take into account past performance information regarding predecessor companies, key personnel who have relevant experience, or subcontractors that will perform major or critical aspects of the requirement when such information is relevant to the instant acquisition." Some agencies will attribute a proposed subcontractor's qualifications to the offeror, some won't. Either way, the solicitation should state the agency's intention. I think it's reasonable to attribute a proposed subcontractor's experience to the offeror if that experience was gained performing a past subcontract with the offeror. If the offeror never worked with their proposed subcontractor and was "using" their experience to win a competition, then I don't think information about the experience of the proposed subcontractor would have that much predictive value.
  12. 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.
  13. 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
  14. Doesn't FPDS-NG have a help desk or something?
  15. How is that Elliot Branch's fault? He said "review". Can you post the memo?
  16. What do you mean "acceptable"? Are you asking if the FAR prohibits it? If so, the FAR does not prohibit it.
  17. Did you read what is stated directly below FAR 47.207 (before the subsections begin)?
  18. 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.
  19. 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.
  20. Did the offeror provide performance information on similar contracts that they are currently performing or recently performed?
  21. This has been all cleared up by the FAR Councils. From today's Federal Register So we all know what this means now, right?
  • Create New...