Jump to content

Don Mansfield

Members
  • Posts

    3,371
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by Don Mansfield

  1. Vern's influence--he has corrupted me. I should thank him for that. I'm on board with BBP as you describe it. Just not sure the policy in the memo gets us there.
  2. How soon before we start hearing complaints from contractors that they are being prompted by the Government to submit quotes and offers for requirements they have no interest in (or chance at winning) just so COs can comply with the memo?
  3. Yes, I do. In fact, I wore it over the weekend. Tell everyone I said hello.
  4. Why the need to call R&D a supply? What is your office trying to avoid? Usually an agency resorts to illogical classification to avoid an undesirable requirement. For example, the Navy calls ship repair a supply so they don't have to deal with the Davis-Bacon Act.
  5. I was just perusing the GSA Acquisition Library and could not find a single class deviation that is currently effective. Can someone from GSA confirm that? I'm somewhat incredulous because DoD has 30 class deviations that are currently effective--one of which is 12 years old!
  6. The FAR would have to be revised to add China to the list of WTO GPA countries in the clause at FAR 52.225-5 (assuming that this is the clause in your contract awards).
  7. What prohibition? If you're referring to the China Fair Trade Act of 2010, the bill never became a law.
  8. lawboydave, I assume your reference to block 14 means that you are trying to decipher a contract modification on an SF 30. Those codes are nonstandard as far as the regulations are concerned. I would ask the contracting officer who signed the modification.
  9. Does anybody have an example of a contract that states that CAS applies to some, but not all, CLINs? I would expect a contract that contained a combination of pricing arrangements (FFP, cost-reimbursement, T&M) may be written this way. Do such contracts exist or are they an urban legend?
  10. 1. If the acquisition were sole source.
  11. No comprendo. Are you saying that Firm A (a SDVOSB) wants to form a joint venture with Firms B and C (both SB concerns) and then the JV (consisting of Firms A, B, and C) will subcontract part of the work to Firms D, E, F, etc.?
  12. My understanding is the same as Retreadfed's. However, the way you described the situation, the local government is incurring the contingency--not the commercial organization performing the construction. Further, I don't see how FAR Part 31 would apply to the subcontract, since you are not negotiating the subcontract on the basis of cost. You are conducting a competition and awarding to the low bidder.
  13. Ok. Here's what A-87 says about "Contingency Provisions"-- See Attachment B. Does that answer your question?
  14. I just checked e-CFR and it's not there either. Bizarre. FAC 2005-50 only added a sentence to the beginning of paragraph (. It made no other changes. FAC 2005-51 didn't touch FAR 19.502-2(.
  15. Let me get this straight. The local government conducts a competition, selects the offeror that offered the lowest price, then awards a contract to that offeror for the price they offered plus 10%?
  16. mfk, If the acquisition is being conducted under full and open competition, it will contain the clause at FAR 52.219-4, Notice of Price Evaluation Preference for HUBZone Small Business Concerns. If you have represented yourself as a HUBZone small business in your offer, you will get the benefit of the price evaluation preference unless you elect to waive it by checking the block in paragraph ( c ) of the clause: So, if you want the preference, just represent yourself as a HUBZone small business and you'll get it. If your question is whether you would win a protest if 1) you represented yourself as a HUBZone and did not waive the evaluation preference, 2) the agency included the clause at FAR 52.219-4, but did not apply the evaluation preference, and 3) you lost because of that, then I would say that you would win such a protest. It would be a slam dunk.
  17. No, I haven't. But keep in mind that a small business specialist is an advisor to the CO--they can't make the CO do anything. The most they can do is refer your decision to the SBA, who can appeal a CO's decision. You should recognize that they do have a job to do and can add value, but don't hesitate to put them in their place if they are being unreasonable. If your relationship with your SADBU is not good, it may be time to renegotiate expectations. Divorce is not an option.
  18. doc4243, Just to add to what Vern wrote, for a cost to be allowable, it must be reasonable. See FAR 31.201-2 (I'm assuming the cost in question is being incurred by a commercial organization). See FAR 31.201-3 for guidance on determining the reasonableness of a cost. So, the contractor is correct that the Government must reimburse its allowable costs. However, the Government may find the extra subcontract costs unreasonable and thus, unallowable.
  19. Assuming that you are soliciting quotes, not offers, I think so. FAR 13.000 states: One such procedure is the described at FAR 13.307((1): FAR 36.701 is silent on what to use for soliciting quotes--which shouldn't be read as limiting your ability to use the SF 18.
  20. Prezmil2020, If I'm understanding you correctly, what your agency has done is essentially created an IDIQ contract under an IDIQ contract--presumably to avoid having to compete the actual work to be done. My guess is that you competitively awarded a five-year task order with a very broad scope of work. Then, you issue should-be task orders as modifications to that contractor. Yours is not the only agency that does this. I expect more agencies to engage in these types of practices as more rules on competing task orders are issued. Administratively efficient. Customer is happy. You can report the action as competitive. Hard to say that any rules are being broken, because the rule makers haven't caught up to this practice yet. When they do, we will have more rules on competition, more creativity to avoid those rules, followed by more rules, and so on. You didn't create this situation, you're just trying to do your job. Do I have it right? If so, I can't answer your questions, because I don't know of any rules that contemplate your situation.
  21. jmsmith, You can only obligate funds that are available for obligation. In your case, FY08 funds are available because of the antecedent liability rule that Vern quoted above. You have a liability that "relates back" to FY08. From what you have written, you do not have a liability incurred in FY09 or FY10 that would allow you to take advantage of the antecedent liability rule--nothing "relates back" to those fiscal years. As such, those funds are not available for obligation (assuming that they were annual appropriations). So your choices are to use FY08 funds, FY11 funds, or break the law.
  22. Phil, 1. DoD or non-DoD? 2. Does the acquisition equal or exceed $25,000? Does the acquisition equal or exceed $203,000? 3. Do any of the exceptions at FAR 25.401 apply?
  23. mw35019, Let's say you find the rates that you are looking for and you compare them to the rates that were proposed for your contract (I'm assuming that you mean hourly rates). Do you think that you would have conducted a price analysis?
  24. I don't know, but I don't think that a business degree is necessary to succeed as an 1102. My undergraduate degree was not in business, but I did go on to get an MBA. I can honestly say that very little of what I learned in my MBA program is applicable to 1102 work. It would have been valuable if I chose to pursue a career in the private sector. I would have been much better served if I had obtained a law degree. If it were up to me, I would favor an undergraduate with a philosophy degree with aspirations to attend law school. I would want someone who had experience interpreting difficult texts and arguing rationally both orally and in writing.
  25. The Zombie Survival Guide: Complete Protection from the Living Dead by Max Brooks. Skip this one at your peril.
×
×
  • Create New...