Jump to content
The Wifcon Forums and Blogs

Don Mansfield

  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by Don Mansfield

  1. What if instead of the Government structuring the FPIF, offerors were allowed to propose the parameters (target cost, target profit, ceiling price, and share ratios)? Let the invisible hand of competition do its thing?
  2. The reason I asked is because if you considered the difference in PTA between offerors proposing different amounts for target profit, you may not be as concerned about an offeror proposing an "excessive" profit. Think it through.
  3. This approach is fundamentally flawed, but it seems like that ship has sailed and you're not asking for a better approach. From what I understand, the problem you're trying to avoid is that two offerors can have the same TEP even though one can propose a higher target profit. If that were the case, which offeror's point of total assumption would be lower--the offeror who proposed the higher target profit or the lower target profit?
  4. Does the RFP dictate any of the parameters of the FPIF arrangement (e.g., share ratios, ceiling price as a percentage of target cost, etc.)?
  5. Contractor A isn't "ineligible". Rather, they are no longer contractually required to comply with the Government's task orders. They could waive that limitation. The question would then be whether the work to be ordered was within the scope of the original competition for the MAC. Just wondering what was the value of the original acquisition? What was the maximum in each contractor's contract?
  6. Who knows? But, you should probably lower your expectations.
  7. If that's your goal you will have to try a different country.
  8. DoD implemented a Clause Control Policy in 2015 that would require the same degree of transparency in the development and use of "local clauses" by the military departments and defense agencies as FAR and DFARS clauses (see PGI Case 2015-P003 and attached). Specifically, local clauses would be subject to publication for comment in the Federal Register and codified in the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR). However, not a single local clause has been incorporated in the CFR since the new policy was implemented. At the same time, there seems to be a lot more requirements in statements of work tha
  9. To maximize opportunities for Government contracting consultants.
  10. The Government Property clause (FAR 52.245-1) allows the contracting officer to unilaterally decrease the amount of government-furnished property provided to the contractor and allows for a corresponding equitable adjustment to the contract. It also provides for an equitable adjustment if GFP is delivered late or is unsuitable for use. If the contract contains the basic version of the clause, the Government generally assumes the risk of loss of Government property. If you use your own company's equipment, then your company assumes the risks of loss, unsuitability of equipment, and la
  11. Max Planck suggested that science progresses one funeral at a time. In other words, much faster than procurement policy.
  12. Since the language isn't very clear, I would interpret it in a way that creates the least amount of work for the contracting officer. Old habit. So, I would not interpret a combination of contract types as a distinct contract type. I think "combination" in this context means that some line items are one permissible contract type and other line items are another permissible contract type. I also think that "contract type" in this context is referring to cost or pricing arrangement.
  13. Good idea. In the interim, let's change the last sentence in FAR 16.102(b) to say: "Contract types not described in this regulation shall not be used, except as a deviation under subpart 1.4, unless market research demonstrates a different contract type is consistent with customary commercial practice."
  14. Is it a Government call center staffed with contractor employees (or a mix of government/contractor employees)? Or is it a contractor call center?
  15. The way I see it, @DCDOD2020 has a requirement for temporary staffing. Shouldn't he conduct market research to see how staffing agencies price their services for temporary employees and then use a pricing arrangement that is consistent with customary commercial practice?
  16. DoD didn't ban local clauses, they just created more red tape for the military departments and defense agencies. Also, DoD was just trying to implement 41 U.S.C. 1707.
  17. Let's suppose that you're right. What do you think is preventing people from putting needed contract text in Section H? Assume the needed contract text is a local clause that doesn't describe any particular work.
  18. You mean without providing a fair opportunity notice to other contractors?
  19. I think that it's an improvement in that DAU's 200- and 300- level courses will no longer be required for certification. The memo states that mandatory training hours went down from 650 to 200. To that I say "Great, now let's make it zero." I still like the way the Actuarial profession does it better:
  • Create New...