-
Posts
3,371 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Blogs
Events
Store
Breaking News
Posts posted by Don Mansfield
-
-
Carl,
The OP wrote that the acquisition was a small business set-aside awarded to an SDVOSB--not a SDVOSB set-aside. As such, it would not contain FAR 52.219-27.
-
Carl,
If you look at page 4-B of the document, it looks like successful completion of CON 090 is recognized as meeting part of the suggested testing component.
-
If you're not using SAP, then, with the exception of the authority at FAR 6.302-7, you can't cite FAR 6.302-1 as authority for other than full and open competition if another exception applies. FAR 6.302-1( b ):
Application. This authority shall be used, if appropriate, in preference to the authority in 6.302-7; it shall not be used when any of the other circumstances is applicable. -
SSKO,
What's wrong with using an IDIQ?
-
How would you be compliant with FAR 17.207(f) before exercising the option?
-
SSKO,
You wrote:
I'm selecting a CPFF contract fover a IDIQ/task order contract because of the uncertainties in performance, funding and scope are way beyond determination of quantities.
That doesn't make sense. It's like saying I've chosen to buy a red car instead of a foreign car. CPFF is a pricing arrangement. IDIQ is a delivery arrangement. Two different attributes of a contract. Read this:
-
I came across this statement in MANCON, B-405663, Feb. 9, 2012, posted on the Wifcon home page today:
In addition, while an agency may provide for the technical evaluation of responsibility-type factors, such as a small business subcontracting plan, it may only do so when it is making a comparative assessment of those plans. See Computer Sciences Corp.; Unisys Corp.; Northrop Grumman Info. Tech., Inc.; IBM Business Consulting Services-Federal, B-298494.2 et al., May 10, 2007, 2007 CPD ¶ 103 at 10. A comparative evaluation means that competing proposals will be rated on a scale relative to each other rather than on a pass/fail basis. Zolon Tech, Inc., B-299904.2, Sept. 18, 2007, 2007 CPD ¶ 183 at 8. Here, the plans were evaluated on a pass/fail basis, and therefore, the agency’s evaluation of those plans concern an offeror’s responsibility.I have long taught that it is unwise to evaluate traditional responsibility-type factors on a pass/fail basis, because a "fail" is the equivalent to a nonresponsibility determination, which would give a small business concern the right to apply for a COC. However, the GAO seems to be going one step further by saying that an agency may only use responsibility-type factors as part of its technical evaluation when making a comparative assessment--an agency may not evaluate such factors on a pass/fail basis. The FAR clearly contemplates such a practice at FAR 15.101-2( b )(1) where, regarding the evaluation of past performance, it states:
I looked up the case that was cited in support of the statement, and as is typical of many GAO decisions, it does not stand for the proposition stated.
-
No change in requirements. I extended the deadline because I had reason to believe that doing so would result in more competition. It's not my intention to consider late proposals. I only intend to consider proposals received before the new deadline.
-
Carl,
Back to my post #13--the Geo-Seis decision prohibits consideration of the 9 February proposal. My question is whether the CO can consider the 10 February proposal.
-
The issue is not the extension after the deadline has passed. The issue is the consideration of the proposal.
Let's say that the CO sets a deadline for receipt of proposals of February 9 @ 3:00p. Offeror A submits its proposal (dated 9 February) @ 3:15p and none of the conditions for considering a late proposal apply. According to Geo-Seis Helicopters, the CO cannot consider the February 9 proposal, even if he extends the deadline after the fact. Instead, the CO extends the deadline to February 10 @ 3:00p and Offeror A submits another proposal (dated 10 February) @ 2:00p. Couldn't the CO consider Offeror A's February 10 proposal?
-
In Varicon, the CO received a late proposal and then tried to consider it by extending the deadline. In my scenario, the CO receives a late proposal and does not consider it. Instead, the CO extends the deadline and the offeror submits another proposal before the revised deadline.
-
Vern,
I don't know of any cases since the Geo-Seis Helicopters decision that interpret the "late is late" rule.
Darby,
For argument's sake, let's assume that the other judges on the COFC would follow Geo-Seis Helicopters in factually similar cases. I think that the contracting officer in my scenario has found a permissible way around the COFC's strict interpretation of the "late is late" rule.
-
Darby,
The COFC rejected the GAO's interpretation of the "late is late" rule in the Geo-Seis Helicopters decision. See http://www.uscfc.uscourts.gov/sites/default/files/LETTOW.GEO073007.pdf. The Varicon case that you referenced is specifically mentioned in the decision.
-
Scenario: FAR Part 15 competitive negotiation. Offeror A submits a late proposal that cannot be considered by the Government. The contracting officer wants an offer from Offeror A, so he extends the deadline for receipt of offers by issuing an amendment to all parties that received the solicitation. The Government will accept offers from all sources, or revised offers from those that have already submitted offers, by the revised deadline for receipt of offers.
Question: Can the Government consider a timely proposal from Offeror A?
I'm familiar with the Geo-Seis Helicopters decision. The facts in my scenario are different.
-
If the contracting officer requires you to install outlets that the Government no longer needs, then he/she is being a jackass unreasonable.
-
I believe 5.203? applies to non-commercial sole source procurements, and always allow the contractor 30-days to respond to our request for proposal. But I often get the proposal in less time than 30 days, and I proceed with negotiations and award as soon as I receive the proposal.
Do you wait to award until at least 30 days after the FedBizOpps announcement? If not, then I think that you would have a problem if you received a timely capability statement from a potential offeror after you awarded the contract.
-
I had always thought that the solicitation response times stated at FAR 5.203 did not apply to sole source acquisitions. However, a recent decision of the CAFC suggests that they do. In that case, an agency published a FedBizOpps notice stating their intent to negotiate on a sole source basis and gave potential offerors five days to submit a capability statement. Although they didn't decide the issue, the court referred to FAR 5.203( for guidance on determining solicitation response times (the acquisition was for a commercial item), which requires the Government to "establish a solicitation response time that will afford potential offerors a reasonable opportunity to respond . . . .? This was a nonissue because the protester had waited 20 days to submit a capability statement.
Read the decision here.
So let's say I intend to enter into negotiations on a sole source basis (under the authority of FAR 6.302-1) for a noncommercial item exceeding the SAT. Must I give potential offerors at least 30 days to submit capability statements from the date of the synopsis IAW FAR 5.203( c )?
-
Ironically, most reports would have you believe that the impending exodus of "experienced" 1102s is a bad thing.
-
verygreen,
I asked myself the same questions when I was about half-way through my internship. I decided to finish the program (and get my annual promotions). However, I spent that time planning my next move. An external rotation was required as part of my intern program, so I set one up with a contracting office that I thought I would like. I did like it (and they liked me, too). Within three months of graduating from my intern program, I was working at that office.
-
-
Regarding sections L & M, see FAR 15.002(a).
-
See FAR 4.703?
Ok. Here's what it says:
Nothing in this section shall be construed to preclude a contractor from duplicating or storing original records in electronic form unless they contain significant information not shown on the record copy. Original records need not be maintained or produced in an audit if the contractor or subcontractor provides photographic or electronic images of the original records and meets the following requirements:(1) The contractor or subcontractor has established procedures to ensure that the imaging process preserves accurate images of the original records, including signatures and other written or graphic images, and that the imaging process is reliable and secure so as to maintain the integrity of the records.
(2) The contractor or subcontractor maintains an effective indexing system to permit timely and convenient access to the imaged records.
(3) The contractor or subcontractor retains the original records for a minimum of one year after imaging to permit periodic validation of the imaging systems.
Where is the requirement to "keep original hard copy records for one year before we can shred them and rely completely on the electronic copy"?
-
We are, however, required by FAR to keep original hard copy records for one year before we can shred them and rely completely on the electronic copy.
Cajuncharlie,
Where in the FAR is that requirement?
-
Vern,
Why do you say that the turbines were never in the possession (under the control of) of the contractor? RIR said the contractor has the ship at their facility.
Subcontracting Plan for a Commercial Item Subcontract
in Subcontracts & Subcontract Management
Posted
I don't think you're missing anything.