Jump to content
The Wifcon Forums and Blogs

Don Mansfield

Members
  • Posts

    2,963
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by Don Mansfield

  1. If the Government believes that contractors should not earn "excess profits" on Government contracts, then it would only be consistent to ensure contractors don't suffer "excess losses" on Government contracts. You can't have it both ways. Also, requiring a contractor to include cost information does not mean the prospective contractor would be required to change its price.
  2. Why must there be a BPA in place? Can't agencies just order off of your new GSA MAS?
  3. If the successful awardee requests a debriefing, ask them what information they would like.
  4. I wasn't referring to the specific EO. I meant if the Federal Government were to mandate vaccinations for anyone to gain access to a Federal facility.
  5. I see a new safety requirement for anyone entering a Government facility as an act of the Government in its sovereign capacity. I'm not sure this would necessarily require a contract modification.
  6. Look up the definitions of provision and clause in the FAR and let us know what you find.
  7. Well, sole source awards are authorized under HUBZone, SDVOSB, and WOSB programs. However, they're not referred to as "direct". Unlike other socioeconomic programs, the contracting agency awards contracts to the SBA under the 8(a) Program. Some agencies have entered into partnership agreements with the SBA that permits them to make "direct" awards to 8(a) contractors, without having to include the SBA as a signatory. Since the SBA is not a party to sole source contracts under other socioeconomic programs, there's no need to make a distinction as "direct" or not.
  8. I have no words. https://cafc.uscourts.gov/opinions-orders/21-1257.OPINION.11-17-2021_1866318.pdf
  9. That's for the contractor to argue when they get the show cause.
  10. This reminds me of when I used to teach contracting newbies at DAU. As they learned more about the FAR/DFARS, sometimes the more thoughtful students would come to the realization that their organizations didn't always follow the rules. They wouldn't know what to do with that information, because they had assumed that people knew what they were doing where they worked. We ended up adding the following to the course material: Admittedly, this hardly scratches the surface of what training acquisition professionals need. Most training is of the "don't take bribes" variety.
  11. It should matter to the Government, because a court or board may not enforce the clause. See, for example, La Gloria Oil & Gas Co. v. U.S., 56 Fed. Cl. 211 (2003).
  12. Do you think that the DoD class deviation and the executive order have the force and effect of law?
  13. No, it's not. I can't really tell what you're talking about. If you don't understand something, you should ask questions. You shouldn't try to explain it like you understand, then ask if you're right.
  14. I would say no, because the underlying policy was not published for comment in accordance with 41 U.S.C. 1707.
  15. That was my thought. However, I think it would be ok if there was a maximum stated. So, "$0.10 for every dollar of actual material costs up to $10,000."
  16. I think DoD violates 41 USC 1707 as a matter of course when it issues class deviation memoranda. They have been used as an interim measure until they get around to incorporating the rule in the FAR/DFARS. The statute doesn’t allow for that. It does allow for interim rules when necessary, but those still must be published in the Federal Register.
  17. Fat Leonard podcasts have been released.
  18. This would apply if there were a conflict between the order and the contract. If the contract were silent on whether orders would be subject to the availability of funds, then an order issued subject to the availability of funds would not necessarily conflict with the contract.
  19. Why distinguish #2 and #3 if they are both primarily the responsibility of the contracting office?
×
×
  • Create New...