Jump to content
The Wifcon Forums and Blogs

Don Mansfield

  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by Don Mansfield

  1. You can certainly ask to compete in the 8(a) and HUBZone pools.
  2. Yes, the leading alpha character identifies the exhibit. Exhibit A contains data items A001, A002, A003,... Exhibit B contains data items B001, B002, B003,...
  3. The question doesn't make sense. An offeror or contractor has a small business status--not a contract.
  4. Or you could use the Governmentwide commercial purchase card. The price would be the amount of the shipping costs. Limit the government's liability to the replacement cost of the items. Commit--do not obligate--funds to cover this contingent liability.
  5. Both a change order and an option exercise are changes that can be issued unilaterally. However, an option is for purchasing additional supplies and services or extending the contract term (see definition of "option" at FAR 2.101). A change order is not for the same purpose, although the corresponding adjustment could result in an extension to the contract term.
  6. @here_2_help I don't have any real world examples. I can imagine a situation where the parties contemplate the possibility of a future change order based on the occurrence of Event A. There's a 50% chance that Event A will occur. If Event A occurs, it will increase the cost of performance by an amount than can be easily estimated from currently known conditions. As such, the parties agree to the amount of the price adjustment in anticipation of a future change order.
  7. @C Culham, A bailment agreement that did not involve the obligation of appropriated funds would not meet the definition of "acquisition" at FAR 2.101. Thus, the FAR would not apply by operation of FAR 1.104.
  8. @ji20874, that's a good example. How did you verify availability of funds before issuing the orders? No, a change order can be forward priced. FAR 43.204(a) contemplates such a thing by starting "When change orders are not forward priced..."
  9. Is your Government contract cost-reimbursement?
  10. Are you talking about a solicitation that instructs offerors to use predetermined hours and material costs in their cost proposals?
  11. Assuming you are asking about a DoD contract, then see DFARS PGI 204.7105(c)(1): DFARS 204.7103-1(a)(4) states:
  12. This is difficult to answer in the abstract. Is there a specific scenario that you have in mind? If the contractor misrepresented or falsely certified in response to a solicitation provision, the Government could potentially argue that the contract was void ab initio. Some clauses are worded such that the applicability of certain requirements are dependent on how a rep or cert was completed. Beyond that, I'm having a hard time imagining how reps and certs matter after award.
  13. 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
  14. 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.
  15. You may want to clarify what would entitle the contractor to the increase. For example, a change order.
  16. 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.
  17. It depends what form of CPFF was used. FAR 16.306(d):
  18. 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:
  19. 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.
  20. 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.
  21. Don't be like Michael Scott or Bill Lumbergh. That should put you in the top 50% of supervisors.
  22. 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.
  • Create New...