Don Mansfield

I thought "no-cost extension".

The Government can modify contracts without consideration, too. It's just not something a contracting officer can typically do without getting higher level approval.

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. 

5 hours ago, policyguy said:

If I understand you correctly what you are seeking to do may be permissible. 

See FAR Subpart 1.4 - Deviations from the FAR, as well as your agency FAR supplement, and local supplement/guidance.

I don't think that would be a deviation. The FAR permits the use of options in construction.

I think someone's trying hard not to use the word "discussions" 🤔 

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.

Right. 

37 minutes ago, Vern Edwards said:

Moreover, if an inexperienced contractor submits a claim I would ask if it understood the difference between claims and REAs and the significance of submitting a claim instead of an REA.

7 minutes ago, Vern Edwards said:

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."

You are being inconsistent.

I had a conversation not too long ago with a friend who wrote an article on the "difference" between REAs and claims. We talked through a baseball analogy that convinced him to change his mind (I think).

Think of communications from contractors as pitches. We have names for different types of pitches--fastball, curveball, change-up, etc., just like we have names for different types of communications from contractors. We call one such communication a "request for equitable adjustment". 

If a pitch meets certain criteria, it is a strike. What we call the type of pitch is irrelevant to whether it's a strike. 

Similarly, if a communication meets certain criteria, it is a claim. What we call the communication is irrelevant to it's a claim.

So, saying an REA is different than a claim is like saying a fastball is different than a strike.

1 hour ago, KeithB18 said:

negotiating fee for R&D is often pretty easy.

So why not have a machine do it?

3 hours ago, Supes said:

Could we tailor it to allow the existing POP to end and then we could exercise it up to say 60 days after that POP ends?

I don't see a problem with that.

3 hours ago, Supes said:

Would we then be required to reduce the value of that new option exercise by 60 days or could we just push out the end of the newly exercised POP?

If this is a severable service funded with annual appropriations, why not tie the period of performance of the option to the date the option is exercised (i.e., 12 months beginning the date of option exercise) instead of a predetermined 12-month period (1 Oct 22 - 30 Sep 23)?

Maybe post the poll on TikTok?

I wonder if the laptops would be considered "incidental to the place of performance" as described at FAR 45.000(b). 

Government property that is incidental to the place of performance, when the contract requires contractor personnel to be located on a Government site or installation, and when the property used by the contractor within the location remains accountable to the Government. Items considered to be incidental to the place of performance include, for example, office space, desks, chairs, telephones, computers, and fax machines.

3 hours ago, Voyager said:

Perhaps to drum up interest you could create a guessing function, where you guess our ages and we earn plush toy prizes if you miss.

65

2 hours ago, IAMBATMAN said:

know at the end of the day its the KO's decision, however you do have those customers that want FAR references for everything, so I would like to provide them with something other than because the KO said so.

Ok, if we're talking SAP, quote FAR 13.106-2(b)(1).

Is the KO the source selection authority?

6 hours ago, Geoff Orazem said:

Don, 

That is the crux of our recommendation and completely agree, the next step is to run a pilot

How are you going to compare the test group to the control group? What are you going to measure?

I think that one thing you have to account for in the test group is the effect a predetermined fee % would have on a contractor's cost estimates. It's possible that cost estimates would become more pessimistic (i.e., higher estimated cost would mean higher fixed fee). The time saved by foregoing fee negotiation may be spent on negotiating estimated costs.

As I read it, the bottom line of the report is that agencies should just dictate fee percentages in their BAAs and R&D RFPs. The cost of negotiating fee is not worth it. Ok, let's test the hypothesis. Conduct a pilot, collect data, and report back. Maybe the hypothesis is correct. Right now all we know is that the contractors  interviewed consider factors other than fee when deciding whether to respond to a solicitation. 

12 minutes ago, Vern Edwards said:

 

It's too bad that newbies get so little quality training from their employers.

I just read this before coming here (f-bomb warning):

I think in Federal acquisition, an "entity" has a unique entity identifier, which is defined at FAR 2.101 as:

"a number or other identifier used to identify a specific commercial, nonprofit, or Government entity."

Contractors in the United States and its outlying areas would also have unique Commercial and Government Entity (CAGE) codes. In United Valve Company, the GAO relied on CAGE codes to determine the identity of the offeror. Here's an excerpt:

Quote

The information readily available, such as CAGE codes and DUNS numbers, must reasonably establish that differently-identified entities are in fact the same concern.  Raymond Express Intl., LLC, B-409872.3 et al., Sept. 11, 2015, 2015 CPD ¶ 265 at 6-7.  CAGE codes are assigned to discrete business entities for a variety of purposes (e.g., facility clearances, pre-award surveys, and tracking the ownership of technical data) to dispositively establish the identity of a legal entity for contractual purposes.  Gear Wizzard, Inc., B-298993, Jan. 11, 2007, 2007 CPD ¶ 11 at 2; National Found. Co., B-253369, Sept. 1, 1993, 93-2 CPD ¶ 143 at 2 n.1.  Similarly, the DUNS numbering system is established by Dun & Bradstreet Information Services, and discrete 9-digit numbers are assigned for purposes of establishing the precise identification of an offeror or contractor.  URS Group, Inc., B-402820, July 30, 2010, 2010 CPD ¶ 175 at 4.  On an SF 33, the CAGE code and DUNS number are used to identify the entity that is the offeror for a given procurement. 

So, if segments have different unique entity identifiers or CAGE codes, then I think that they could be considered distinct entities.

On 5/26/2022 at 11:06 AM, BrettK said:

I'm super new to this field and am learning a lot from the group at Wifcon. Thank you for everything you have taught me so far!

At the moment, I'm trying to better understand the time it takes to complete a contract. Are you aware of any examples of time delays in contracts where the length of time it took to finalize the contract made the actual goods no longer relevant to the original request (obsolete or outdated equipment or software) and what happens in that case. For example, the request was for Windows 95 and by the time the award came around, Windows was up to version 10.

Apologies if I am wording this question wrong.

Obsolescence management is a big deal in the DoD. That's why Diminishing Manufacturing Sources and Material Shortages (DMSMS) management is a thing. Since you're new, I recommend familiarizing yourself with SD-22. Come back if you have any questions.

6 hours ago, C Culham said:

but the parent "entity" of the segment has, so in a sense has not the segment been subject to CAS?

I don't interpret the question like that. I'm assuming that the parent has multiple segments--some with CAS-covered contracts, some without.

45 minutes ago, flvlaw said:

Paragraph (b) provides an exception for certified cost or pricing data for non-traditional contractors. I believe this answers my question. Thx everyone. I apologize for the vague question.

Careful. The Federal Register notice for the final rule contained the following:

Quote

 

Additionally, two respondents recommended clarifying that “subcontractors” be added to the definition of nontraditional defense contractors so that items provided by a subcontractor that meet the definition of a “nontraditional defense contractor” may be treated as commercial items.

Response: Section 857 amended 10 U.S.C 2380a to provide DoD with the permissive authority to treat items and services provided by nontraditional defense contractors as commercial items. This authority was neither mandatory nor was it extended to prime contractor commercial item determinations for subcontracted items and services.

 

Good question. There's no definition of "entity". If we assume that means "offeror" and the offeror is the segment, then I think it would be possible.

13 hours ago, Freyr said:

Ignoring the exceptions to affiliation (like MPJVs), is my understanding wrong? Can a small business go out and find large businesses to team with, use their experience and qualifications, and submit a proposal for a total small business set-aside? 

It depends what the solicitation says. FAR 15.305(a)(2)(iii) says the past performance evaluation "should take into account past performance information regarding predecessor companies, key personnel who have relevant experience, or subcontractors that will perform major or critical aspects of the requirement when such information is relevant to the instant acquisition."

Some agencies will attribute a proposed subcontractor's qualifications to the offeror, some won't. Either way, the solicitation should state the agency's intention.

I think it's reasonable to attribute a proposed subcontractor's experience to the offeror if that experience was gained performing a past subcontract with the offeror. If the offeror never worked with their proposed subcontractor and was "using" their experience to win a competition, then I don't think information about the experience of the proposed subcontractor would have that much predictive value.