Jump to content

Don Mansfield

Members
  • Posts

    3,370
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Posts posted by Don Mansfield

  1. 46 minutes ago, Matthew Fleharty said:

    Or do you think the government already has the requisite data and we're just not using it because we don't have the right AI technology to feed it through? 

    I'm leaning toward this. I'd like to see what could be done with available data before imposing requirements for more.

  2. 2 hours ago, BrettK said:

    Something triggered me to reread Vern's article on essay-writing this morning. It has me pondering: what, if any, technology solutions exist or could be created to take some of the lift off of contracting professionals so education can be focused more on the critical thinking and creative skills necessary to avoid copy/paste, bloated RFPs, and resultant essay writing contests? (and run on sentences like that one)

    I'm not just thinking groundedly here. Wave the magic wand. If you could have a piece of technology to remove the routine parts of a contracting professional's job, what would it do? Instantly read an entire response and red flag FAR compliance issues? Secretly calculate profit margins? 

    Technology exists in China that can evaluate the credit worthiness of a business in minutes. It considers thousands of variables using artificial intelligence. The default rate is about 1%. So, something like that for evaluating prospective Government contractors.

    https://www.livemint.com/news/world/jack-ma-s-290-billion-loan-machine-is-changing-chinese-banking-1564315968589.html 

  3. 3 hours ago, Voyager said:

    If it weren't for FAR 15.305's "shall" statement I show in bold text below, it seems to me that an objective checklist would be the norm, instead of the essay-writing contest.

    I don't understand this. Are you saying the requirement for the prescribed source selection records that applies to tradeoffs is the cause of essay-writing contests?

  4. I found the following in the Contract Pricing Reference Guide (Volume 2, 4.5):

    Quote

     

    • Is the CER used consistently?

    If an offeror uses a CER to propose an element of cost, it should be used in all similar proposals. Since the CER can be used to estimate the average value, some jobs should be expected to cost more and others less. With a valid CER, you assume the variances will be minor and will average out across all contracts. To use a CER in some cases and a discrete estimate in others destroys it usefulness by over or understating costs across all proposals (e.g., using the average unless a discrete estimate is lower/higher negates the averaging out of cost across all contracts and is clearly unfair to one of the contracting parties).

     

    This implies that you can either use a CER or make a discrete estimate (not both). This makes me think the question on the checklist is poorly worded. I think "other than discrete" means that you used a CER.

  5. 11 minutes ago, WC79 said:

    If an acquisition office provides a sole source justification after the award of a contract, what exactly is this in violation of? The approval to sole source was never received prior to issue of the solicitation. If the approval comes after the award of the contract, what type of violation is this?

    See FAR 6.303-1(a).

  6. 2 hours ago, BTR2562 said:

    I'm still confused.  We would not be asking for reimbursement of incurred costs that are not included in the Scope of Work for the proposal.  The costs we are submitting for reimbursement are the ones applicable to the proposed Scope of Work. So, do we need to identify past costs associated with previous development efforts of the R&D project which is not part of the proposed Scope of Work?

    No. Just the costs that are the basis of your proposed price. This would apply if you had started work under an undefinitized contract action, for example.

  7. 4 hours ago, dsmith101abn said:

    Is there any decent read that explains special standards of responsibility? I found an old Wifcon forum, but outside the four sentences in the FAR and one sentence at DAU Acquipedia I could not find anything that expands on the framework.

    I have no experience using special standards of responsibility and was looking for something to read. My agency does budget money for literature and things of this nature if there’s something not out there publicly available.

    There's a tunnel project I am working on and I want to explore an idea I have but don't feel I know enough about the topic at this time. 

    See Chapter 4 of Formation of Government Contracts, Fourth Edition, pp. 428-434.

  8. 20 minutes ago, here_2_help said:

    The decision appears to be stating that, since part 31 was required to be used to analyze the price, that somehow means it is now applicable to costs that are incurred and billed. I mean ... pretty much the whole decision just seems to be a stretch, doesn't it? Which is why I described it as "notable." 

    Yes it does. I can't see the Government not appealing. Poor judge.

  9. A few more questions about this case:

    The Court said that the cost principles "applied" to the contract. What does that mean? FAR 31.000 states:

    Quote

     

    This part contains cost principles and procedures for-

          (a) The pricing of contracts, subcontracts, and modifications to contracts and subcontracts whenever cost analysis is performed (see 15.404-1(c)); and

          (b) The determination, negotiation, or allowance of costs when required by a contract clause.

     

    Are they saying it applied to the pricing of the contract? Or the determination, negotiation, or allowance of costs? Or both? If it's the latter, what contract clause required the use of the cost principles?

    It seems like they are saying that because the cost principles applied to the pricing of the contract, they apply to determining allowance of costs under the contract. However, they don't mention what contract clause would require this. Perhaps they thought FAR 31.205-47 was a contract clause?

  10. This is surprising. I don't agree with the following:

    Quote

    (“[F]ixed-price level of effort contracts . . . operate more like cost-reimbursement contracts with limitation of costs clauses.  The [g]overnment sets contract prices based on labor hours and when that price is reached, the contractor is relieved of any further liability.”

    What does "price is reached" mean? Under a firm-fixed-price level-of-effort contract, the Government agrees to pay a fixed dollar amount for the contractor to provide a specified level of effort over a stated period of time. Unlike a cost-reimbursement contract, payment is not dependent on the the contractor's costs.

    The Court proceeds from the flawed assumption that payment under a FFP LOE contract is the same as a cost-reimbursement contract. The Government should be able to win this if they appeal.

  11. 2 hours ago, PATRICK3 said:

    If you have a commercial buy and the IGCE was less than $25,000 and you posted it on your local agency website and not the GPE, but the quotes came in 10-15 thousand more than the IGCE, must I resolicit the requirements on SAM.GOV? Thanks 

    I think you complied with FAR 5.101(a). I don't know of a requirement to republicize if your quotes come in greater than you expected (and greater than $25k).

  12. 11 hours ago, Pappy said:

    What is wrong with just leaving the contractor in a late delivery status on the PO?

    One risk is that inaction by the Government could be interpreted as a waiver of the delivery schedule. In that case, the Government would likely lose its right to terminate for default. 

  13. 46 minutes ago, Vern Edwards said:

    I don't think that the fastball/strike distinction is logically analogous to the REA/claim distinction.

    The REA/claim distinction is not valid because both are requests for something as a matter of right, but the law does not clearly distinguish between "REA" and "claim." Some claims are REAs and some REAs are claims.

    But the fastball/strike distinction is valid, because one is a species of pitch, while the other is a species of umpire call. They are associated with one another, a call follows every pitch unless there is a hit or foul ball, but they are otherwise entirely different kinds of things.

    Language confuses us, because if we were at a game we might say, "That last pitch was a strike," but the correct thing to say would be that the umpire called a strike on that last pitch.

     

    So you're saying my analogy was off-base.

×
×
  • Create New...