Jump to content
The Wifcon Forums and Blogs

Don Mansfield

  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by Don Mansfield

  1. The contracting officer would actually be prohibited by FAR 15.403-1(a) from obtaining CCPD. This assumes that the mod is only for an increase--not a net increase after addition and subtraction.
  2. The FAR already contains an exception to full and open competition for this reason (FAR 6.302-4).
  3. This is likely to happen when we get a final rule under FAR Case 2016-002, Applicability of Small Business Regulations Outside the United States. The SBA regulations require set-asides when the rule of two is met regardless of place of performance. The proposed rule under FAR Case 2016-002 would make application of FAR part 19 outside the United States optional. FAR 19.000(b) currently contains a blanket exception for acquisitions outside the United States.
  4. There's nothing in FAR part 15 that would prevent the use of this technique.
  5. The Small Business Act as implemented by the SBA regulations and interpreted by the GAO and COFC.
  6. It would be unlawful for a contracting officer to deviate from the FAR without authorization. If a local policy were inconsistent with the FAR, it would be a deviation. I wrote an article for the September 2015 issue of the Nash & Cibinic Report on the conflict between the FAR and SBA regulations regarding the "overseas exception" at FAR 19.000(b). Here's a section on conflicts between the FAR and SBA regulations: I should have written that last sentence to say that the CO would have to deviate from the FAR to follow the law.
  7. I agree with @ji20874. DoD did issue a class deviation to implement the SBA rule. The CAAC also issued this.
  8. I think something like that should be accounted for in the solicitation. If it goes to the GAO, they will probably fall back on their FAR part 15 case law to fill in the blanks.
  9. So the solicitation is silent on what to do if a proposed key person becomes unavailable?
  10. I would respond to this with: "Prove it." I would respond to this with an explanation of how your company ensures that payments received are credited to the right contracts, how this system is periodically reviewed, and how there was no finding of crediting Contract 2 with a Contract 1 payment (assuming that's true).
  11. Why do you have to prove a negative? The Government is claiming they reimbursed you under Contract 2. Ask for proof.
  12. No, you keep getting confused by considering the information you have on hand. That's irrelevant. Forget about that. If certified cost or pricing data are required by FAR 15.403-4(a)(1) or (2), then cost analysis is required. If you think that you don't need certified cost or pricing data (even though it's required by the regs) because you can determine a fair and reasonable price without it, then request a waiver from the HCA.
  13. @aordway, Does the contractor meet the definition of "nontraditional defense contractor" at DFARS 202.101: If yes, then DFARS 212.102(a)(iii) permits you to treat the acquisition as commercial. That would be an exception to certified cost or pricing data.
  14. That's a new one for me. It's allowable unless it's expressly prohibited. I know of no express prohibition. That would be impossible in your scenario. A 98% fill rate is a term of the contract. If you're not meeting that, then you're not adequately performing IAW the terms of the contract.
  15. No. Whether or not certified cost or pricing data are required doesn't depend on what you have or what the offeror/contractor submitted. When certified cost or pricing data are required by FAR 15.403-4(a)(1) or (2), then cost analysis is required.
  16. I don't agree with that. By definition, "cost or pricing data" are: I don't agree with that, either. I think it means when certified cost or pricing data are required over or under the $2M threshold.
  17. I don't think that's what @ji20874 was saying. I think you are getting confused by factoring in "what the offeror/contractor submitted" in determining what type of analysis is required. That's irrelevant. Regardless of what the offeror/contractor submitted-- 1. When certified cost or pricing data are required, cost analysis is required and price analysis should also be conducted. 2. When certified cost or pricing data are not required, price analysis is required and cost analysis may be used when a fair and reasonable price cannot be determined through price analysis alone.
  18. @GovtAcctGeek, You do realize that the MPT is now $10k, correct? The FAR hasn't been updated yet, but 30+ agencies have issued class deviations to implement the new threshold. In any case, assuming you don't have the authority to raise Government purchase card limits, you could also consider a BPA as described at FAR 13.303.
  19. That's referring to the prime contract negotiated between the Government and the contractor. The FAR doesn't apply to contractors. It applies to acquisitions (see FAR 1.104). By definition, acquisitions are made by the Government. Not all auditors understand that.
  20. That's why there's a provision for a waiver--if obtaining certified cost or pricing data and doing a cost analysis would be a waste of time.
  21. I think it would be clearer if it said "solely on the basis of the contractor's cost experience." That sentence has confused many students. Joel has it right. There is no right to a change in price due to a differing site condition unless it affects the contractor's cost experience.
  22. I bolded the answer to your question. In this situation, you could potentially make the argument that there was adequate price competition based on FAR 15.403-1(c)(1)(ii)(B) (provided the acquisition is not for DoD, NASA, or the Coast Guard). If you can't do that, you can request a waiver for the submission of certified cost or pricing data from the HCA. However, If no exceptions apply, you must obtain certified cost or pricing data and perform a cost analysis.
  • Create New...