Jump to content

Don Mansfield

Members
  • Posts

    3,362
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by Don Mansfield

  1. 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.
  2. So, effort is time spent working?
  3. @Seeking2Award Are you familiar with the concept of forbearance? https://www.wifcon.com/discussion/index.php?/topic/16491-forbearance-vs-change-order/
  4. You didn't say that. It was from the guidance you quoted.
  5. I think there is a comparison between what was promised in the contract and what was delivered. That's the purpose of a CPAR. I think what Vern is referring to is the kind of BS you find in technical proposals (e.g., technical approach) that tends to weigh heavily, probably too heavily, in source selection decisions. If we were to compare that information to actual results, I think we would find two things. First, there is not much correlation between a proposed approach and the actual one used. Second, it doesn't matter that a contractor didn't use their proposed approach during contract performance. Contract performance depends more on the contractor's ability to adapt to changing circumstances than their adherence to a preconceived approach based on speculation of what the future will be. Hopefully, we would draw the conclusion that evaluating technical approaches is a waste of time.
  6. I think that's an overstatement. Some modifications require consideration, some don't. A lot of modifications that adjust contract terms pursuant to a clause don't require any new consideration.
  7. What exactly are you requesting? Guidance on writing better evaluations?
  8. No, but some bankruptcies involve reorganizations. Those costs would seem to be unallowable according to FAR 31.205-47(f)(2) and 31.205-27.
  9. Why couldn't the Government suspend or T for C and re-evaluate?
  10. If the purpose of the trip is business, then one should fly business class. Anything else would not make logical sense. This should apply to Government, too.
  11. FAR 31.205-6 refers to the cost to the contractor for compensating its employees. FAR 37.104 refers to personal service contracts awarded by the Government. Two different things.
  12. Is the overall estimated cost fair and reasonable?
  13. @FLContracts, Did the prime do a price or cost analysis of the subcontractors' proposals? Does the prime have an approved purchasing system?
  14. If the rule were to check them off if I determined that the clause was consistent with standard commercial practice, then I don't see how any would apply. Imagine the howling by SBA if a CO decided not to check off the small business subcontracting plan clause, or DoL if a CO decided not to check off Service Contract Labor Standards clause, or domestic sources if a CO didn't check off Buy American.
  15. I see. Instead of the FAR and DAR Council making the call, the contracting officer would make the call on a case-by-case basis. I'm having a hard time imagining how any clause required to implement a statute or executive order would be consistent with standard commercial practice. Isn't FAR case 2018-013 addressing this issue? You know, the one whose status says "awaiting CAAC concurrence" of a proposed rule as of 2/19/2020?
  16. There doesn't need to be an exception, because you can tailor FAR 52.212-4 to be consistent with customary commercial practice.
  17. FSS contracts have maximums, correct? If so, wouldn't orders under a FSS BPA count against the maximum? If so, wouldn't FSS BPAs be limited to an amount at or below the FSS contract maximum?
  18. I'm not sure whether to help you or just let you continue to believe that.
  19. For a good illustration of the flexibility a contracting officer has when using SAP, see https://www.gao.gov/products/b-281512.
  20. You're not going to find such a case. So what are you going to conclude? The rules of FAR 15.306 apply to SAP, even if the solicitation expressly says they don't?
  21. The agency didn't tailor FAR 52.212-1 for SAP. So, they brought in the discussions rules by virtue of paragraph (g). This can be avoided. See here for examples of how to tailor FAR 52.212-1 for SAP:
  22. I don't understand this. What does the Government have to do with the pandemic?
×
×
  • Create New...