Jump to content
The Wifcon Forums and Blogs

Don Mansfield

Members
  • Content Count

    2,686
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by Don Mansfield

  1. Sure, let me give you an example. Let's say last year I had a competitive procurement for the purchase of 1000 widgets. Three responsible offerors, competing independently, submitted priced offers that satisfied the Government?s expressed requirement, award was made to the offeror whose proposal represented the best value, price was a substantial factor in source selection, and there was no finding that the price of the otherwise successful offeror was unreasonable. In other words, I had adequate price competition pursuant to FAR 15.403-1©(1)(i). The contract price was $700,000 ($700/widge
  2. I read something that I found remarkable in the recently published GAO decision Master Lock Company, LLC, B-309982.2, June 24, 2008. Bob posted the decision on the Wifcon home page. The protester argued that the agency's evaluation of the awardee's past performance should have taken into account the fact that they had declined a delivery order under a different IDIQ contract. In response, the agency argued that a delivery order was not binding and the GAO agreed. Here's an excerpt: "During the course of this protest, Master Lock also argued that the agency?s evaluation of Evergreen?s pa
  3. here_2_help, That's a good point. However, the Cherokee cases involved "contract authority" to obligate appropriations, not "budget authority." I don't know if the result would necessarily be the same when dealing with budget authority (which I assume is charles's case).
  4. I don't know the answer, but I would be inclined to choose Vern's possibility #3. My reasoning is as follows: The Government can only be bound by contracting officers acting within the scope of their authority. A CO who violates the law is acting outside the scope of his/her authority. As such, the Government cannot be bound by a contract that the CO entered into by violating the law. In this case, I believe that the CO has entered into an unauthorized commitment.
  5. dgm, Prior to the FAR Rewrite in 1997, FAR 15.608(a)(2)(iii) contained the following statement: "Firms lacking relevant past performance history shall receive a neutral evaluation for past performance." The FAR Council decided to change this wording in the FAR Rewrite based on some confusion as to what a neutral evaluation actually meant. Here's an excerpt from the Federal Register (62 FR 51224-01): "(f) Neutral past performance evaluations. We considered alternatives relating to two aspects of neutral past performance ratings-- (1) Definition of neutral past performance evaluations. The pro
  6. contractor100, You asked: "Does a schedule holder that does not sell any fixed price services or supplies ever have to accept an order?" I would say yes, the schedule holder still has to accept orders. Theoretically, an agency could issue an unpriced order requiring the contractor to begin work and then definitize the order later.
  7. Scjet, That's a distinction that DARPA makes, but that is not true as a general proposition. An agency can have a BAA and award nonprocurement instruments only.
  8. whynot, Yes, it's possible (and likely) that adequate price competition could result from FAR 6.102(d)(3), but that is not necessarily so. There's nothing in the regulations that support the assertion that GSA prices resulted from adequate price competition, per se.
  9. whynot, CICA --> "full and open competition" --> FAR Part 6 TINA --> "adequate price competition" --> FAR Part 15 Two different (unrelated) things. You can have "full and open competition" and not have "adequate price competition." You can have "adequate price competition" without any competition at all (i.e., in a sole source acquisition).
  10. While you can assume that GSA has determined its schedule prices to be fair and reasonable, I don't know what basis there is in the regulations to assume that the prices necessarily resulted from adequate price competition.
  11. Carl, formerfed took the words out of my mouth. Unlike a purchase order, a task or delivery order under a Federal Supply Schedule is not an offer by the Government that the contractor can decline. I honestly don't know the legal effect of a FSS contractor's response to an agency's task or delivery order solicitation. What happens if a FSS contractor responds with a price that is less than the schedule price, then changes his/her mind? We know that they are contractually bound by the schedule price, but are they bound by the price with which they responded to the task or delivery order sol
  12. formerfed, Yes, I know. The FAR talks about RFQs and the DFARS talks about solicitation of offers. I don't know what the right answer is.
  13. Vern, I read stanretired's post as implying that a CO could not (as in the CO does not have the authority) extend a delivery date without obtaining new consideration. I was simply pointing out that a CO does have that authority. I agree with you as far as what a CO should do.
  14. Stanretired, I think that you can extend the delivery date without obtaining consideration, too. Here's something I wrote in another thread: Lastly, a contracting officer is not necessarily required to obtain new consideration if he/she establishes a new delivery schedule. See Administration of Government Contracts, Fourth Edition, p. 965, quoting Free-Flow Packaging Corp., GSBCA 3992, 75-1 BCA P 11,332: "It is a well-established principle in Government contract law that while the Default clause gives the Government the absolute right to terminate the contract upon failure of the contractor
  15. How would you justify that your situation was not the result of a lack of advance planning by the requiring activity?
  16. carl, Why do you think that DoD is wrong in using an RFP? DFARS 208.405-70© discusses the receipt of offers, not quotations.
  17. "You can't be distracted by the noise of misinformation." -James Daly In my career as a contracting professional and now an educator, I have come to appreciate the growing body of misinformation in Federal contracting. Contracting misinformation is pervasive. You can see it in the popular press, periodicals dedicated to the contracting profession, in posts at the Wifcon forum, internal policy memoranda at a Government agency, etc. As I'm writing this, somewhere a senior contracting professional is imparting misinformation on a newbie, and the newbie is believing him. A certain amount
  18. Gort, Of course, you could create fact-specific scenarios to make those statements true. However, many people believe some or most of these statements to be true as general propositions. They don't see the "shades of gray." As you learn more about earthlings, you will understand.
  19. Person without a clue (acronym coined by Vern).
  20. Wifconners, I'm looking for examples of common myths/misunderstandings in Federal contracting. I'm particularly interested in beliefs that Federal contracting folks seem to cling to, even though they have no basis in law or regulation. Or, the rules have long changed, but some folks seem to have not received the message. For example, here are some I've observed: 1. Changes within 10-15% of the contract price are within scope. 2. In an IDIQ contract with options, each option year must have its own minimum. 3. Offerors with no record of past performance must be rated neutral. 4. Price analysi
×
×
  • Create New...