Jump to content
The Wifcon Forums and Blogs

Don Mansfield

Members
  • Content Count

    2,672
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by Don Mansfield

  1. I think if we think in normative terms (i.e., the way things ought to be), then there's not much debate that a debriefing should provide the offeror with enough information to understand how they were evaluated and why they were or weren't selected. What if we thought of this issue like an economist? In other words, let's assume contracting officers are generally rational creatures that respond (consciously or unconsciously) to incentives. What is the incentive to provide more information in a debriefing than the minimum required by the FAR? In other words, what is irrational about t
  2. I don't think a contracting officer would be able to release the contractor from future claims involving fraud, so I don't believe a complete release would be enforceable. Otherwise, I can't think of why a contracting officer couldn't sign such a release. Not a lawyer.
  3. You may want to clarify what would entitle the contractor to the increase. For example, a change order.
  4. FAR 16.306 doesn't need to be in the contract nor does the LOC clause need to state what is otherwise true. The contractor has no entitlement to increased fee if the Government decides to fund an overrun under a CPFF arrangement.
  5. It depends what form of CPFF was used. FAR 16.306(d):
  6. This is not "generally" true, unless you consider award without discussions to be an "exception". When awarding without discussions, the contracting officer may use adverse past performance information to which an offeror has not had an opportunity to respond as long as there's no reason to question its validity. From Competitive Negotiation:
  7. I don't view it as a set-aside because you're not limiting the opportunity to compete. I see it more like status being a go/no-go factor at each tier of evaluation.
  8. The form doesn't contemplate the tiered evaluation approach, so I would just do what I think makes sense. I think I would mark "unrestricted" since the competition isn't limited, it's just that there's no guarantee an offer will be evaluated. I assume the solicitation will contain a provision that explains how the VA will evaluate offers using the tiered approach.
  9. Don't be like Michael Scott or Bill Lumbergh. That should put you in the top 50% of supervisors.
  10. FAR 52.204-25 is listed in FAR 52.244-6 as a flow down to commercial subcontracts. It doesn't state any applicable dollar threshold. FAR 52.204-24 is a solicitation provision.
  11. The contracting officer would actually be prohibited by FAR 15.403-1(a) from obtaining CCPD. This assumes that the mod is only for an increase--not a net increase after addition and subtraction.
  12. The FAR already contains an exception to full and open competition for this reason (FAR 6.302-4).
  13. This is likely to happen when we get a final rule under FAR Case 2016-002, Applicability of Small Business Regulations Outside the United States. The SBA regulations require set-asides when the rule of two is met regardless of place of performance. The proposed rule under FAR Case 2016-002 would make application of FAR part 19 outside the United States optional. FAR 19.000(b) currently contains a blanket exception for acquisitions outside the United States.
  14. There's nothing in FAR part 15 that would prevent the use of this technique.
  15. The Small Business Act as implemented by the SBA regulations and interpreted by the GAO and COFC.
  16. It would be unlawful for a contracting officer to deviate from the FAR without authorization. If a local policy were inconsistent with the FAR, it would be a deviation. I wrote an article for the September 2015 issue of the Nash & Cibinic Report on the conflict between the FAR and SBA regulations regarding the "overseas exception" at FAR 19.000(b). Here's a section on conflicts between the FAR and SBA regulations: I should have written that last sentence to say that the CO would have to deviate from the FAR to follow the law.
  17. I agree with @ji20874. DoD did issue a class deviation to implement the SBA rule. The CAAC also issued this.
  18. I think something like that should be accounted for in the solicitation. If it goes to the GAO, they will probably fall back on their FAR part 15 case law to fill in the blanks.
  19. So the solicitation is silent on what to do if a proposed key person becomes unavailable?
  20. I would respond to this with: "Prove it." I would respond to this with an explanation of how your company ensures that payments received are credited to the right contracts, how this system is periodically reviewed, and how there was no finding of crediting Contract 2 with a Contract 1 payment (assuming that's true).
  21. Why do you have to prove a negative? The Government is claiming they reimbursed you under Contract 2. Ask for proof.
  22. No, you keep getting confused by considering the information you have on hand. That's irrelevant. Forget about that. If certified cost or pricing data are required by FAR 15.403-4(a)(1) or (2), then cost analysis is required. If you think that you don't need certified cost or pricing data (even though it's required by the regs) because you can determine a fair and reasonable price without it, then request a waiver from the HCA.
  23. @aordway, Does the contractor meet the definition of "nontraditional defense contractor" at DFARS 202.101: If yes, then DFARS 212.102(a)(iii) permits you to treat the acquisition as commercial. That would be an exception to certified cost or pricing data.
×
×
  • Create New...