Jump to content

Don Mansfield

Members
  • Posts

    3,371
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by Don Mansfield

  1. What you were told is true. Since you work for a civilian agency, you would have to apply through FAI. Go to https://www.atrrs.army.mil/channels/faitas/...n.aspx?caller=1. Of course, if you work near a DAU campus, you can always try to walk in.
  2. In the meantime, FAR 19.800(e) needs to be fixed:
  3. Thanks for bringing the case to my attention. You made my day.
  4. Louise, Did you start Vern's study program? See http://www.wifcon.com/discussion/index.php?showtopic=488. Also, regarding CON 090, don't expect it to be more of the same, if "more of the same" means 5-6 hours of Powerpoint presentations. Our goal is training, not torture.
  5. No, I don't think it's an unreasonable tactic. The Government uses it all the time. However, if I were you I would stop arguing about "allowing" fee on this cost, but not that cost. Figure out a range of fees you are willing to pay (in dollars) and negotiate from there.
  6. I had the same thought when the June 2009 decision came out. I don't know where the GAO is coming from, either. They must not have considered the possibility that an agency may want to incrementally fund a requirement within the same fiscal year. I also agree with you on what the DoD FMR means. I believe it means that the contract must be fully funded with appropriations available for new obligations for the fiscal year in which the contract is awarded--not that the contract be fully funded at the time of award. I'm going to ask some of the finance professors how they read it.
  7. I recently dug up the Federal Register notice which set forth the Guiding Principles that were subsequently incorporated into the FAR. Here's the introduction: [bold added].
  8. No. Just because you've used a competitive procedure doesn't mean that you've obtained adequate price competition. Two different things.
  9. The question posed in the title of the thread is "What is your favorite FAR Part?" Sparky87's response was FAR 1.102(d), which is not a FAR Part. If he meant "part" with a little p, then his answer was not responsive to the question.
  10. For an idea of the level of justification required to satisfy GAO when choosing a single-award instead of a multiple-award IDIQ, see http://www.wifcon.com/cgen/293692.pdf.
  11. Thanks for pointing that out. I didn't have the heart to.
  12. To answer your first question, it probably has to do with the fact that there is a statutory preference for making multiple awards under IDIQ contracts. At one time, Congress was dissatisfied with the lack of competition at the task/delivery order level, so they called for making multiple awards and competing task orders. Now agencies are making the multiple awards to comply with the wishes of Congress, but essentially making the task orders single award IDIQs. I don't know that such a practice is legal (or illegal), but I expect it to catch on since Congress recently made it more difficult to enter into single award IDIQ contracts over $100,000,000. I give it a few years before Congress catches wind of this (if they haven't already), and requires competition for IDIQ task orders (i.e., task orders that are essentially single award IDIQs) under IDIQ contracts or somehow cracks down on the practice. We could also see a decision stating that the practice doesn't provide all awardees a fair opportunity. It's actually kind of entertaining, if not sad, to watch how agencies always seem to find a way to evade Congress's dogged attempts to increase competition. It reminds me of the movie Catch Me If You Can.
  13. joel, Your first post proves my point--once you pull the string on these stories, they typically turn out to be apocrophyl. The public is told that the Government bought $600 toilet seats implying that we must be overspending because toilet seats only cost $25 in Home Depot. The public is not told that 1) the Government actually bought uniquely shaped, molded fiberglass toilet shrouds that had to satisfy specifications for the vibration resistance, weight, and durability, 2) the molds had to be specially made as it had been decades since their original production, 3) they would require new tooling to produce, and 4) the price reflected the design work and the cost of the equipment to manufacture them. Considering all that, it doesn't sound like the Government got that bad a deal. As for your second post, POGO is still taking credit for exposing the $436 hammer. As such, they shouldn't be trusted to tell the whole story.
  14. joel, That story better illustrates your point because it's probably true. I'm not trying to get on your case, but when Joel Hoffman makes reference to the Government buying $250 screws and $600 toilet seats, some people are going to believe that it's true because Joel Hoffman said it. As such, I think you should be more careful, that's all.
  15. Yes, and you've already found it--FAR 1.104. The FAR applies to acquisitions, which are defined at FAR 2.101 as follows: A prime awarding a subcontract does not meet the definition of "acquisition" because, if for no other reason, it is not by the Federal Government. There are some rare cases where the FAR has been found to apply to the prime's award of subcontracts because the prime was essentially acting as the Government's purchasing agent. However, the assertion that the rules of the FAR necessarily apply to a prime's award of subcontracts is flat out wrong. I wish I had better news for you, but it sounds like you're dealing with ignoramuses.
  16. joel, Do you really believe that the government buys $250 screws and $600 toilet seats? When you pull the string on those stories, they typically turn out to be apocryphal. Remember the $600 hammer? http://www.accessmylibrary.com/article-1G1...600-hammer.html
  17. Are you confusing a product sample with a first article?
  18. ashleyh, I forgot to mention that things could get rough in this forum. However, folks typically end up getting good advice. Don't get discouraged. Welcome.
  19. Kind of presumptuous to call that a "best practice"?
  20. If this is a commercial service, which it sounds like, then one could not use a combination FFP/cost-reimbursement arrangement. I think that installation of the additional parts would have to be on a T&M basis.
  21. 1. No, you would not have to have a price list for each conceivable replacement part for the T&M CLIN. The deal would be that the contractor would get reimbursed for the cost of the required material when performing work under that CLIN. 2. Yes, you could have a multiple-year ordering period in an IDIQ contract (multi-year means something different). You would not have to have "maxes", as an IDIQ contract only requires one maximum. If you're interested in learning more about such a contract, I suggest you begin by reading this thread: http://www.wifcon.com/discussion/index.php...pic=321&hl= There's also a good discussion of this topic in the September 2002 issue of The Nash & Cibinic Report. The article is titled "IDIQ CONTRACTS AND OPTIONS: VARIED GUARANTEED MINIMUMS" (16 NO. 9 Nash & Cibinic Rep. P 43). Someone in your legal office should be able to obtain the article for you.
  22. ashleyh, A couple of questions: 1. Have you thought about structuring the line items so that they account for each possible type of vehicle? For example, one line item would be to outfit a Tahoe, another line item would be to outfit an Explorer, etc. 2. If your contract is going to be IDIQ, why are you including options? If you want the ordering period to be longer than a year, you don't have to include an option to achieve that. Just make the ordering period as long as you need it to be.
×
×
  • Create New...