Jump to content
The Wifcon Forums and Blogs

Don Mansfield

  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Posts posted by Don Mansfield

  1. It seems that ji's definition of "funded" means that the contract document has an accounting classification citation. His reference FAR 4.1005-2(a)(1) proves his claim that the citation is not required on indefinite delivery contracts.

    How is this relevant in answering the OP's question?


    Are you asking whether you can create an obligation for the minimum before you have funding for the minimum?

  2. 15 hours ago, ji20874 said:

    My current agency and the one I worked for before this (both cabinet departments) allow for indefinite-delivery contract awards without funds citations in the contracts and without simultaneous task or delivery orders -- remember, this is legal and honorable, and recordings are made on the books of the agency even though the funds citations are not printed in the contracts.

    There you have it. The logical fallacy known as the appeal to common practice. Not only does ji base his conclusion on past practice, but he concludes that the practice is both legal and honorable based on past practice.

    It's remarkable how ji continues to argue without presenting a shred of evidence to support his claims. Not a shred. It's a nonstop cycle of assertion followed by insistence.

  3. 2 hours ago, ji20874 said:

    Some contract actions (such as some indefinite-delivery contracts) create obligations and cause recordings without providing or citing funds (such as the obligation for the minimum quantity or amount).

    So would there be an obligation of appropriated funds? Yes or no.

    If no, then what would be obligated?

    By the way, when you make a claim, you have the burden of proof. If you can't (or won't) bear the burden, then intellectual humility demands that you retract your claim.


    For fun, I suggest you read this and evaluate how well ji is doing in this thread. Is he supporting his assertions with facts and evidence? Is he responsive to critical questions regarding his claims? Are his assumptions reasonable? Do you see any evidence of intellectual virtues or vices?

  4. I know what I would mean if I used those words, but I don't know what you mean.

    Chapter 7 of the GAO Redbook discusses the creation of an obligation of appropriated funds, recording of an obligation of appropriated funds, but does not cover what you believe to be distinct in the context of contracting--"providing funds" or "funding".

    So, what do you mean by "providing funds"?

  5. 2 hours ago, ji20874 said:

    I don't have a personal definition, but you can figure it out.  An indefinite-delivery contract creates an obligation, and causes a recording, but does not provide funds.  An order under that contract will provide funds (and may also create a further obligation and cause another recording).

    What do you mean by "provide funds"?

  6. 4 hours ago, ji20874 said:

    Obligation happens in a contract.  Funding commonly happens in a contract, but funding (and obligating beyond the minimum) for an indefinite-delivery contract happens at the order level.  Recording happens on the books of the agency.

    Absolutely, these are different.  These are not the same.

    What do you mean by "funding"?

  7. 4 hours ago, Desparado said:

    They don't argue that there can be options... but insist they much be priced.

    They are really just going with the basic concept that any award has to have a negotiated cost/price (even if a ceiling) to be legal and binding.


    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".

  8. On ‎5‎/‎13‎/‎2019 at 9:59 AM, Desparado said:

    I've utilized unpriced options in the past but recently a co-worker has raised that these were determined by GAO back in 1986 ( https://www.gao.gov/assets/150/144237.pdf ) to basically be sole-source contracts.

    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.

  9. 20 hours ago, VipinOwl said:

    Just so I'm clear, does the CO ever need to independently analyze a subcontractor's proposal (cost/cost realism/price analysis)?

    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.

  10. 2 hours ago, Desparado said:

    So does that then mean that we cannot have ANY options in an A&E contract??  Seems pretty restrictive.

    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:


    This subpart prescribes policies and procedures for the use of option solicitation provisions and contract clauses. Except as provided in agency regulations, this subpart does not apply to contracts for (a)services involving the construction, alteration, or repair (including dredging, excavating, and painting) of buildings, bridges, roads, or other kinds of real property; (b)architect-engineer services; and (c)research and development services. However, it does not preclude the use of options in those contracts.

    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)).

  11. 1 hour ago, VipinOwl said:

    Yes, its about consent.  Does the CO's consent involve a CO's independent determination of a fair and reasonable price for the subcontract or can he/she rely on the prime's certification?

    No, consent does not require the CO's independent determination of a fair and reasonable subcontract price. FAR 44.203(a):


    The contracting officer’s consent to a subcontract or approval of the contractor’s purchasing system does not constitute a determination of the acceptability of the subcontract terms or price, or of the allowability of costs, unless the consent or approval specifies otherwise.


  12. 28 minutes ago, Contractor said:

    My question remains:  What should occur when evaluators receive strikingly similar technical and/or management volumes?  Are they scored equally or is there a mechanism to address the obvious issue.

    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.

  • Create New...