-
Posts
3,369 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Blogs
Events
Store
Breaking News
Posts posted by Don Mansfield
-
-
3 hours ago, Jamaal Valentine said:
A price or cost evaluation factor is not always required. See FAR 13.106-1(a)(2)(iv). The subdivision in the original post seems to simply say keep SAP simple.
Would you say that is an exception to the rule?
-
I think that FAR 13.106-1(a)(2)(i) implies that price is a required evaluation factor when issuing a solicitation:
QuoteWhen soliciting quotations or offers, the contracting officer shall notify potential quoters or offerors of the basis on which award will be made (price alone or price and other factors, e.g., past performance and quality).
-
It sounds like the IDIQ contract doesn't have prices--the task orders have prices. If that's the case, I don't see how one could argue that the task orders are competitively awarded FFP contracts.
-
14 hours ago, Jamaal Valentine said:
I wouldn’t choose to defend or die on this hill. (This poll is because I’m interested in seeing if there is any consensus)
I was referring to the author of the LinkedIn article and the guy he was arguing with. The LinkedIn article reads like a post in r/iamverysmart subreddit.
-
I answered "yes" because it was a better answer than "no".
Acquisition planning is in the front and contract management is in the back, but do "Bonds and Insurance" come before "Taxes" in the acquisition process? Do "General Contracting Requirements" come before "Special Categories of Contracting" in the acquisition process.
However, I think it's more of a stretch to say the FAR has no coherent structure.
What a strange hill to die on.
-
@old51C,
To add to what ji wrote--FAR 4.804 pertains to the closeout of contract files (like the title says).
-
On 12/15/2023 at 2:29 PM, Fishpaw said:
I have a small business that has responded to a Broad Agency Announcement. They've performed some small work for the government under SBIR programs, but they've never established their indirect rates. The proposal came as FFP, but included "estimated" indirect costs of 10% and some separate costs for fringe. I suspect the owner/operator (a former professor) set it at 10% due to the allowance to do this under grants.
Since this is a BAA, how could I proceed to issue an award? Send in an auditor to establish what the indirect rates should actually be? Can I accept an obviously low rate? The proposed costs (labor, materials) otherwise seem to be supported by my research.
Do you intend to do cost analysis?
-
11 hours ago, C Culham said:
Based on a FFP contract would Volume 3 be applicable or would it be Volume 1?
His question #2 was specifically about travel costs.
-
On 12/7/2023 at 5:44 PM, Tim_H_ said:
1. Is there anything I can point him to that stipulates that the government has the authority to fund the CLIN without an estimate from us? It's an NTE number anyway, the government approves each trip, and we can only bill cost, so I fail to see any risk to the government. I understand that doesn't necessarily make this possible, but it's logical.
2. Is there some guideline for evaluating travel cost proposals so I can ensure our methodology aligns with requirements?
If no to both, does anybody have a suggestion for how to handle this situation?
1. No, nothing that precise that I know of.
2. Yes, see Volume 3, Chapter 8, Section 8.2.4, of the Contract Pricing Reference Guides.
-
Here are my thoughts:
1. I am in favor of removing the GAO from the bid protest process. I've always held this opinion. The Legislative Branch has no business reviewing individual solicitations and award decisions of agencies.
2. I am in favor of a venue like an agency board of contract appeals that an interested party can appeal to after receiving a decision on a protest from the contracting officer--like the disputes process.
3. I am not in favor of eliminating the COFC's bid protest jurisdiction. From a balance of powers perspective, I think that executive branch decisions regarding how it plans to conduct an acquisition and how it chooses a contractor should be subject to judicial review.
-
16 hours ago, L_Richardson said:
Can a labor hour contract have a specific labor category (e.g. administrative assistant) with multiple fixed hourly rates when all work will be performed by the prime contractor?
Yes, because it is not prohibited. See FAR 1.102(d).
-
3 hours ago, ArrieS said:
I'm fairly new but after reading and seeing the examples in the PGI this doesn't seem correct.
Because it's not. It's being done for administrative convenience.
-
Two ideas:
1. Don't ask for resumes.
2. If you do ask for resumes, don't ask for resumes of people who the offeror says will perform the work. Ask for resumes of people who are currently performing similar contracts for the offeror.
-
9 hours ago, Neil Roberts said:
I know of no case that stands for the proposition that any document with a header "BPA" is automatically not a contract.
Because not all documents with the header "BPA" are actually BPAs. FAR part 13 BPAs are required to contain the terms and conditions at FAR 13.303-3(a), including--
(2) Extent of obligation. A statement that the Government is obligated only to the extent of authorized purchases actually made under the BPA.
-
How is the contractor getting paid--contract financing or just delivery payments?
-
9 hours ago, REA'n Maker said:
The FAC-C training providers weren't even presenting the correct subject matter and could have cared less when informed of that fact (e.g., teaching and testing DFARS/DoD PGI and the proper use of WPN funding to an audience of DHS employees, among other patent absurdities).
A friend of mine told me that the training contracts awarded by FAI use LPTA.
-
23 hours ago, Matthew Mitchell said:
So, interpretation of terminology, but again, we already have a detailed QA Plan in place.
Why not present that to the COR as your QASP?
-
52 minutes ago, govt2310 said:
Contractor has already charged the card. Contractor has already performed 2 of the 10 training sessions.
Yes it is "2 and 2" that ji20874 asked.
C Culham, thanks for the N&C cite, I will try to find it.
We don't want a voucher, we want our money back. I'm surprised that there isn't a standard training practice out there, by any agency, that trains purchase card holders to put termination clauses that favor the Government into micro-purchases, just in case things go wrong. Or is there?
The Government is typically accepting the seller's terms in a GCPC purchase. What are the seller's terms for partial cancellation?
-
9 hours ago, Z-Mil said:
Thoughts on whether the reporting requirements under 52.230-6 apply to 2nd tier subcontractors?
The opening statement appears to limit the application of the clause to the contractor: For the purpose of administering the Cost Accounting Standards (CAS) requirements under this contract, the Contractor shall take the steps outlined in paragraphs (b) through (i) and (k) through (n) of this clause:
Additionally, the DAU Clause and Provision Martix does not show that this is a flowable clause. DCMA is stating that "all subs need to include the substance of the clause in their lower tier subcontracts even though it is not a flowable clause". Would love to hear your thoughts on this position.
I don't know why that would not be coded as a flow-down clause in the matrix--it obviously is.
6 hours ago, Z-Mil said:There is no definition for 'contractor' in 2.101 nor in 52.230.
So what? In a contract between the prime and the sub, wouldn't the sub be the contractor?
In any case, the "substance" of the clause needs to flowed down--it doesn't need to be verbatim.
-
What do you expect a contracting officer to do? It seems like Fara Fasat is trying hard to do more than just rely on a self-certification, but is getting nowhere.
-
I'm not saying it couldn't be used--I'm just questioning how useful it is in assessing an offeror's ability to perform a contract. I'm all for considering an offeror's "reasonable and cooperative behavior" in performing Government contracts. However, I don't think it's reasonable to impute an offeror's behavior in competing for contracts to their expected behavior when performing a contract. It seems needlessly punitive.
-
BTW, yes I know that Congress made the Pilot Program permanent. Yes, I know that some civilian agencies issued class deviations. Yes, I know there is a FAR case pending.
None of those things detract from my point.
-
Only three votes? Oh, well.
The reason I posted was that I thought the clause prescription was remarkably incomplete. The scope of the subpart at FAR 3.900 reads:
QuoteThis subpart implements various statutory whistleblower programs. This subpart does not implement 10 U.S.C. 4701, which is applicable only to DoD, NASA, and the Coast Guard.
(a) 41 U.S.C. 4705 (in effect before July 1, 2013 and on or after January 2, 2017). Sections 3.901 through 3.906 of this subpart implement 41 U.S.C. 4705, applicable to civilian agencies other than NASA and the Coast Guard, except as provided in paragraph (c) of this section. These sections are not in effect for the duration of the pilot program described in paragraph (b) of this section.
(b) 41 U.S.C. 4712 (in effect on July 1, 2013 through January 1, 2017). Section 3.908 of this subpart implements the pilot program, applicable to civilian agencies other than NASA and the Coast Guard, except as provided in paragraph (c) of this section.
The clause prescription merely says to insert the clause in solicitations and contracts over the SAT. Nothing about the clause applying to civilian agencies other than NASA or the Coast Guard. Nothing about the clause not applying after January 1, 2017. So much for the guidance for writing clause prescriptions in the FAR Drafting Guide:
QuoteInclude in the prescription all conditions, requirements, and instructions for using the provision or clause and any alternates.
-
On 9/16/2023 at 7:16 AM, formerfed said:
Some agencies tie this into items like demonstrated cooperation, communications, collaboration, partnering, etc. It can be assessed through several means including conversations with clients, customers, and other business partners.
I think that makes perfect sense. FAR 42.1501(a)(4) includes the contractor's record of "reasonable and cooperative behavior and commitment to customer satisfaction" on previously and current contracts as part of past performance information. However, an offeror's record of protesting is not within the scope of such an evaluation.
A SBIR Phase III IDIQ “satisf[ies]… competition requirements,” but are its sole-source FFP TOs subject to CPSR?
in Subcontracts & Subcontract Management
Posted
Assuming you meant 15 USC 638, I don't think so. I think that is just clarifying that the procedure complies with CICA.
But I'm just guessing.