-
Posts
3,371 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Blogs
Events
Store
Breaking News
Everything 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.
-
Contracting Officer Warranting Program Model
Don Mansfield replied to GoGoldPA's topic in Contracting Workforce
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. -
Synopses of Proprosed Contract Actions
Don Mansfield replied to DEEFARRD's topic in Contract Award Process
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 ): -
SSKO, What's wrong with using an IDIQ?
-
SSKO, You wrote: 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: http://www.wifcon.com/discussion/index.php?app=blog&module=display§ion=blog&blogid=6&showentry=1897
-
I came across this statement in MANCON, B-405663, Feb. 9, 2012, posted on the Wifcon home page today: 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.
-
Amendment After Receipt of Proposals
Don Mansfield replied to Don Mansfield's topic in Contract Award Process
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. -
Amendment After Receipt of Proposals
Don Mansfield replied to Don Mansfield's topic in Contract Award Process
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. -
Amendment After Receipt of Proposals
Don Mansfield replied to Don Mansfield's topic in Contract Award Process
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? -
Amendment After Receipt of Proposals
Don Mansfield replied to Don Mansfield's topic in Contract Award Process
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. -
Amendment After Receipt of Proposals
Don Mansfield replied to Don Mansfield's topic in Contract Award Process
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. -
Amendment After Receipt of Proposals
Don Mansfield replied to Don Mansfield's topic in Contract Award Process
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.
-
ADDITIONAL WORK TO COMPENSATE DEFECTIVE WORK
Don Mansfield replied to Rodolfo's topic in Contract Administration
If the contracting officer requires you to install outlets that the Government no longer needs, then he/she is being a jackass unreasonable. -
I e-mailed FedBid with the following questions: 1. If a buyer sets an ATP, is it possible for the buyer to lower the ATP during a reverse eAuction? 2. In a reverse eAuction where an ATP is being utilized, is it possible for a seller?s status to change from ?Lead? to ?Lag? if no other bids have been submitted? This is the response I got: As such, I don't think the use of ATP explains what happened to the vendor.
-
It seems that every few months we see a new article, report, or hear testimony predicting a mass exodus of "experienced" 1102s from the Federal workforce. Citing workforce data, the conclusion that is commonly drawn is that a "crisis" will result. If we just look at numbers it would seem that this would be a reasonable conclusion. However, has anyone given any thought to the caliber of the 1102s that are leaving the Federal workforce and those that are entering? Do we really need one new 1102 for every 1102 that leaves? Consider the fact that one must now have a college degree to even be considered for an 1102 position, whereas most of the "experienced" 1102s that will soon be leaving did not have to meet such requirements. Many "experienced" 1102s entered the Federal workforce as clerks, typists, secretaries, etc., and stuck around the organization long enough to move into an 1102 position. That's not to say that these folks did not work hard or that they don't deserve their positions. I'm sure each office has its own success story to share in this regard. In my experience, I have worked with "experienced" 1102s and I currently teach newbie 1102s. To generalize, the newbie 1102s are smarter, more motivated, and have more respect for the laws and regulations that govern their agency's acquisitions. Give me an office full of 1102s with less than 10 years of experience and we will work circles around an office of "experienced" 1102s with twice the staff. Our processes will be more streamlined, our employees more productive, and our acquisitions fully compliant with law and regulation. Nothing is more discouraging than to hear stories of how newbie 1102s return to their offices after training, intent on making the necessary changes to ensure that their acquisitions comply with the FAR, only to effectively be told by "experienced" 1102s "I don't care what the FAR says, this is the way we've always done it and we're not about to change." I say good riddance to those folks. To be fair, there are some "experienced" 1102s who are excellent--the Government will suffer when these folks leave. However, I would not place the majority of "experienced" 1102s in this category. When I hear about the impending exodus of "experienced" 1102s and the ensuing crisis, I'm reminded of a line from an REM song..."It's the end of the world as we know it...and I feel fine." How do you feel?
-
I recently heard from a contractor regarding an experience he had with reverse auctions. A federal agency was conducting a reverse auction using FedBid and he decided to compete (FedBid, Inc., provides a service whereby federal agencies can conduct reverse auctions). Although he submitted several bids, he ultimately lost the reverse auction. When he checked to see who had won, he was surprised to see that the federal agency that was in need of the required items was the low bidder. In other words, the federal agency was submitting bogus bids in an effort to get the contractor to reduce his bid price. The federal agency then contacted him and offered to purchase the items from the contractor at his lowest bid price. Feeling that he had been duped, he told them to get lost. The tactic employed by the federal agency, called phantom bidding, is not new. Many view the practice as unethical while others see it as a legitimate tactic. In regular auctions, the legality of seller participation in bidding varies from state to state. For those states that allow it, sellers typically must disclose that they reserve the right to participate in the bidding. In any case, should the Federal Government be allowed to place phantom bids in reverse auctions? Would your answer be different if the disclosure of the practice was required prior to the reverse auction?
-
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 )?