Jump to content
The Wifcon Forums and Blogs

Don Mansfield

  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by Don Mansfield

  1. Don Mansfield

    Exercising Options during shutdown

    @MAY-D-FAR-B-WIT-U, Is the contractor working, or are they waiting for the Government to re-open to continue work?
  2. @PepeTheFrog, There is now a Data Item Document for "Small Business Utilization Report." A reporting requirement could be in a CDRL.
  3. 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!
  4. Assume you are soliciting quotes for an item of supply. Suppliers A, B, and C each sell the item for about $100/unit. However, the probability of late delivery is different for each supplier. Supplier A has a 31% chance of delivering late, Supplier B has a 21% chance of delivering late, and Supplier C has a 4% chance of delivering late. There’s a 100% chance that all suppliers will deliver no later than one week after the delivery date and any damages due to late delivery will be negligible. Your solicitation requests that vendors quote both a unit price and a per-unit delivery incentive. The supplier can only earn the delivery incentive if delivery is on time. Otherwise, the Government only pays the unit price. Supplier A quotes a per-unit price of $71 and a $41/unit delivery incentive. Supplier B quotes a per-unit price of $65 and a $41/unit delivery incentive. Supplier C quotes a per-unit price of $59 and a $41/unit delivery incentive. Considering only the total amount the Government would expect to pay, which quote do you think is best?
  5. 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
  6. 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.
  7. 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.
  8. 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).
  9. 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.
  10. 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.
  11. 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?
  12. @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.
  13. @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).
  14. @Hammspace, Does the original task order contain the information at FAR 16.505(a)(7)?
  15. Why do you think that? Modifying contracts to provide more detail is not new. It predates the existence of IDIQ contracts.
  16. @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.
  17. What if the Government wanted to consider the information? Do you think they wouldn't be allowed?
  18. @Joe2713, Assume that the regulations are silent on this matter. What do you think is the answer to your question?
  19. @Lukevan, Can you post the relevant language from the RFP?
  20. Maybe. If it were that important, the Government could make your use of a proposed subcontractor a term of the contract.
  21. @Michael11, The point I was making was that the regulation you cited applies after award. If you are responding to a solicitation, the proposal preparation instructions are what matter. These may or may not require that your subcontract cost estimate be based on an actual competition. The instructions could just request that you provide a basis for your estimate, in which case you could potentially use another reasonable basis (e.g., competitive prices of past subcontracts, prices obtained through market research, etc.).
  22. Why do you think this must be done before award? The section you are referencing is in Subpart D--Post Federal Award Requirements.
  23. Don Mansfield

    Problem of the Day--Pricing Delivery Incentives

    You may be making things too complicated. I suggest you just work out the problem for 1 unit.
  24. Don Mansfield

    Validation Problem

    @hallowed, Just stumbled across this at DFARS 225.872-3(a):
  25. Don Mansfield

    Validation Problem

    1. I don't know what you mean by set-aside "code". If the solicitation doesn't contain FAR 52.219-6, then it's not a small business set-aside. 2. That would be a first. Pay attention to FAR clauses in a solicitation that start with "52.219-" and contain the word "set-aside" or "8(a)" in the title. Don't respond to those solicitations.