Jump to content
The Wifcon Forums and Blogs

Don Mansfield

Members
  • Content Count

    2,447
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by Don Mansfield

  1. How do you measure these attributes before you hire the person?
  2. No violation. Canada is a qualifying country. See DFARS 252.225-7001.
  3. @MAY-D-FAR-B-WIT-U, You've described a FFP contract. A FFP contract is not an incentive contract. See FAR 16.401(a). FAR 16.401(d) doesn't apply to FFP contracts. I used to be a CO for ship repair and we used delivery incentives on FFP contracts. This was not groundbreaking.
  4. @Radu C., Does the contract say (or did the CO tell you) that you have to comply with USAID directives (i.e., ADS Chapter 312) in performing the contract?
  5. It seems that ji's definition of "funded" means that the contract document has an accounting classification citation. His reference FAR 4.1005-2(a)(1) proves his claim that the citation is not required on indefinite delivery contracts. How is this relevant in answering the OP's question? @KingWink, Are you asking whether you can create an obligation for the minimum before you have funding for the minimum?
  6. There you have it. The logical fallacy known as the appeal to common practice. Not only does ji base his conclusion on past practice, but he concludes that the practice is both legal and honorable based on past practice. It's remarkable how ji continues to argue without presenting a shred of evidence to support his claims. Not a shred. It's a nonstop cycle of assertion followed by insistence.
  7. So would there be an obligation of appropriated funds? Yes or no. If no, then what would be obligated? By the way, when you make a claim, you have the burden of proof. If you can't (or won't) bear the burden, then intellectual humility demands that you retract your claim. Readers, For fun, I suggest you read this and evaluate how well ji is doing in this thread. Is he supporting his assertions with facts and evidence? Is he responsive to critical questions regarding his claims? Are his assumptions reasonable? Do you see any evidence of intellectual virtues or vices?
  8. Nope. Still no idea what you mean. Does anybody know what ji means? According to him, if you are reading this thread you know.
  9. I know what I would mean if I used those words, but I don't know what you mean. Chapter 7 of the GAO Redbook discusses the creation of an obligation of appropriated funds, recording of an obligation of appropriated funds, but does not cover what you believe to be distinct in the context of contracting--"providing funds" or "funding". So, what do you mean by "providing funds"?
  10. Why not issue a task order for what you can price at the outset, then subsequent task orders for other work when you price the other work?
  11. Propose a goal that is acceptable to them and make a good faith effort to meet it.
  12. Desparado, I don't think unpriced options are binding, either. They lack the requirement for certainty of terms. We probably shouldn't call them "options" at all, because they don't meet the FAR definition of "option". I understand them as an agreement to negotiate the price of work that may or may not be defined in the contract. For an A-E contract, you select your contractor and then negotiate the price. I don't know of anything that requires you to price the entire contract all at once. I think you can price some contract work now (for work you want done now) and some later (for work you want done later). Call the work you haven't priced "unpriced work"--don't call it an "unpriced option".
  13. The GAO report resulted in a change to FAR 17.207(f) (see FAC 84-37, 53 FR 17858; Miscellaneous Amendments: Item X - Options). The change had no effect on options in A-E contracts.
  14. Yes. For example, if the CO is pricing a contract or contract modification and the subcontractor does not share cost information with the prime. In that case, the CO would have to perform any required cost analysis.
  15. Not at all. You can have options in an A-E contract, but the rules in FAR subpart 17.2 don't apply. FAR 17.200: The use of options in A-E contracts is not regulated by the FAR. Nothing says you can't do it, so you can (FAR 1.102(d)).
  16. No, consent does not require the CO's independent determination of a fair and reasonable subcontract price. FAR 44.203(a):
  17. Yes, it would. What Pepe quoted doesn't apply to A-E contracts. See FAR 17.200.
×
×
  • Create New...