Jump to content
The Wifcon Forums and Blogs

Don Mansfield

Members
  • Content Count

    2,407
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by Don Mansfield

  1. Propose a goal that is acceptable to them and make a good faith effort to meet it.
  2. Desparado, I don't think unpriced options are binding, either. They lack the requirement for certainty of terms. We probably shouldn't call them "options" at all, because they don't meet the FAR definition of "option". I understand them as an agreement to negotiate the price of work that may or may not be defined in the contract. For an A-E contract, you select your contractor and then negotiate the price. I don't know of anything that requires you to price the entire contract all at once. I think you can price some contract work now (for work you want done now) and some later (for work you want done later). Call the work you haven't priced "unpriced work"--don't call it an "unpriced option".
  3. The GAO report resulted in a change to FAR 17.207(f) (see FAC 84-37, 53 FR 17858; Miscellaneous Amendments: Item X - Options). The change had no effect on options in A-E contracts.
  4. Yes. For example, if the CO is pricing a contract or contract modification and the subcontractor does not share cost information with the prime. In that case, the CO would have to perform any required cost analysis.
  5. Not at all. You can have options in an A-E contract, but the rules in FAR subpart 17.2 don't apply. FAR 17.200: The use of options in A-E contracts is not regulated by the FAR. Nothing says you can't do it, so you can (FAR 1.102(d)).
  6. No, consent does not require the CO's independent determination of a fair and reasonable subcontract price. FAR 44.203(a):
  7. Yes, it would. What Pepe quoted doesn't apply to A-E contracts. See FAR 17.200.
  8. @ConfusedIntern, For what purpose are you trying to make the classification?
  9. There is no rule that addresses your question, if that's what your asking for. The Government encourages the type of behavior that you describe by reducing source selections to essay-writing contests. The Government should stop doing this.
  10. I recommend this, too: https://www.vitalsmarts.com/crucial-accountability-training/
  11. How about contracting for "gas as a service"? Make the contractor responsible for ensuring there's always gas when it's needed. They can bill a fixed price for each tank used.
  12. https://www.vitalsmarts.com/crucial-conversations-training/
  13. I agree with you. FAR 5.202(a)(4) is using the same language that is used at FAR 6.302-5. The only difference is the list of examples is shorter. Neither list is exhaustive.
  14. What outcomes? Was his point that the selection process for cool kids organizations are ineffective?
  15. If the data were not required to be submitted by the FAR, then they would not be "certified cost or pricing data."
  16. From Formation of Government Contracts, Chapter 9, Section V, "Level of Effort Contracts": From The Government Contracts Reference Book:
  17. The plan is to change the FAR. If you mean they should issue an interim rule instead of the letter, I totally agree.
  18. The Limitation of Funds clause limits the Government's liability to the amount "allotted by the Government to the contract".
  19. First, there's a difference between creating an obligation and recording an obligation. The amount recorded doesn't change the amount created and vice-versa. The Recording Statute requires that agencies record of obligations reflect the amount of obligations created. So, if the contract creates an obligation for half the estimated cost or $100, then that's the amount that should be recorded. If the contract doesn't create any obligation at the time of award (like in a requirements contract), then no obligation should be recorded.
×
×
  • Create New...