Jump to content
The Wifcon Forums and Blogs

Don Mansfield

Members
  • Content Count

    2,670
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by Don Mansfield

  1. I'm just wondering what GAO will title their 2010 report to Congress on the misspending of the Stimulus funds. Any ideas?
  2. If you're asking if a small business is exempt from submitting cost or pricing data, the answer is no.
  3. ERS, What makes you think that you must use competition to select your subcontractors? Is it the Competition in Subcontracting clause (FAR 52.244-5)? That's not much of a requirement. Read paragraph (a): "(a) The Contractor shall select subcontractors (including suppliers) on a competitive basis to the maximum practical extent consistent with the objectives and requirements of the contract." [italics added]. There's a heck of a lot of wiggle room there. Also, if you're a contractor you shouldn't be worried about a "justification for using Other than Full and Open Competition." CICA does n
  4. Normally, you can award contracts using either competitive or noncompetitive procedures in accordance with 10 USC 2304 and FAR Part 6. This bill would only allow the use of competitive procedures.
  5. No, I don't think the bill would allow for the use of FAR 6.302-1 at all. As written, the bill wouldn't allow for HUBZone or SDVOSB sole source awards, either.
  6. Yes, I've heard of them in theory, but I've never heard of an agency awarding one.
  7. I think that the bill specifically precludes the use of funds to pay for contracts awarded on a sole-source basis, not restrict funds for contracts awarded using other than full and open competition. Use of other than full and open competition does not necessarily mean that a contract cannot be awarded using competitive procedures.
  8. "Presumably these business rules are written as an interpretation of policy and regulation." That's a questionable presumption. If what you've written is correct, then all we can conclude is that the folks who developed the business rules did not want obligations on basic IDIQ contracts reported in FPDS. This does not mean that obligations are not created or that obligations should not be recorded in the agency's accounting records when IDIQ contracts are awarded.
  9. Some of you were confused when I classified the following statement as myth-information in the Federal Contracting Myths thread: Let me explain where I was coming from. In April of 1994, OFPP used a variation of the word neutral with the term "past performance" in a Federal Register notice soliciting comments on their proposed pilot program to increase the use of past performance information in source selections. The notice stated: In November of 1994, the Federal Acquisition Streamlining Act (FASA) (Public Law 103-355) amended 41 USC 405 to include a new subsection (j) implementin
  10. Correct. Correct, with a caveat. Some MATOCs may require contractors to submit proposals in response to task order solicitations. In theory, the Government could hold a task order competition, receive proposals from all MATOC holders except contractor A, then issue an order to contractor A on a noncompetitive basis (provided one of the exceptions to fair opportunity applied) and contractor A would have to perform.
  11. That's wrong. The only FAR clauses required in a commercial solicitation are FAR 52.212-4 and -5. The requirement for CCR registration is stated at FAR 52.212-4(t).
  12. Mr. Warren, If a contract contains the Indefinite Quantity clause (FAR 52.216-22), then the contractor is required to perform if the Government issues a task or delivery order, provided the Government complies with the Ordering (FAR 52.216-18) and Order Limitations (FAR 52.216-19) clauses. This requirement is in no way conditioned on the method the Government uses to select the contractor for an order under a MATOC (i.e., competitively or noncompetitively). So to answer your question, if the Government issued an order to a MATOC holder, they would have to perform whether the Government prov
  13. You have a prime contract or are you competing to win a contract?
  14. In case you missed it, I've started analyzing myth-information in my blog.
  15. No, the claim does not have to be paid for it to be a false claim. Presentment is sufficient. There are other considerations such as specific intent and materiality. You should really consult with an attorney.
  16. dwgerard, When you awarded MSMO contracts, did you consider the options to be priced or unpriced?
  17. Vern, I don't believe that NAVSEA's MSMO contracts violate the CPPC prohibition because fee is not paid as a percentage of incurred cost. At award, the parties have agreed to a percentage for base and award fee. After award and before the option is exercised, the parties agree to an estimated cost for that option and apply the predetermined percentages to determine the amount of base fee and the size of the award fee pool. After this negotiation, the parties will have agreed to an estimated cost, a base fee amount (expressed in dollars), and the size of the award fee pool (expressed in doll
  18. Navy, When the contract is awarded, the contract does not specify an amount at which the option may be exercised. All the parties have agreed to is the percentage for the base and award fee. After award and before exercise of an option, the parties agree to an estimated cost for that option and apply the predetermined percentages to determine the amount of base fee and the size of the award fee pool. I'm not suggesting that NAVSEA's interpretation of FAR 17.207(f)(3) is correct, because I'm not sure I know what it means. It doesn't require that an option in a cost-type contract state an e
  19. Vern, That's a good question and one that I have been thinking about lately. I'm not sure if they are unpriced options. Consider FAR 17.207(f)(3): NAVSEA would argue that their options meet those criteria. I don't know that they're wrong.
  20. If the preconceived notions that our students are bringing to the classroom is any indication, there's a good deal of myth-information being spread regarding indefinite-delivery indefinite-quantity (IDIQ) contracts. The one belief that I want to focus on today deals with obligating the contract minimum upon award of an IDIQ contract. This belief usually stems from a fundamental misunderstanding of the difference between creating and obligation and recording an obligation. The difference is explained in Chapter 7 of the GAO Redbook (p. 7-8): [bold added]. When a contracting officer a
  21. I've seen contracts with option CLINs that only state a fee percentage. The estimated cost for the options is not negotiated until after the contract is awarded. For example, NAVSEA's multi-ship multi-option (MSMO) contracts for ship repair, which are CPAF contracts, contain numerous option CLINs that look like this: Estimated Cost: $ Base Fee: 0% Award Fee Pool: 10% I'm not advocating stating fee as a percentage, just pointing out that agencies do it.
  22. Yes. Did you not believe me when I answered you the other day? Here's the instruction for the SF 294:
  23. Not if the fixed fee was 6% of estimated costs. However, if the contract were written to say that the contractor would be paid 6% of incurred costs, then you would have an illegal CPPC arrangement.
×
×
  • Create New...