Jump to content
The Wifcon Forums and Blogs

Don Mansfield

  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by Don Mansfield

  1. @ConfusedIntern, For what purpose are you trying to make the classification?
  2. There is no rule that addresses your question, if that's what your asking for. The Government encourages the type of behavior that you describe by reducing source selections to essay-writing contests. The Government should stop doing this.
  3. I recommend this, too: https://www.vitalsmarts.com/crucial-accountability-training/
  4. How about contracting for "gas as a service"? Make the contractor responsible for ensuring there's always gas when it's needed. They can bill a fixed price for each tank used.
  5. https://www.vitalsmarts.com/crucial-conversations-training/
  6. I agree with you. FAR 5.202(a)(4) is using the same language that is used at FAR 6.302-5. The only difference is the list of examples is shorter. Neither list is exhaustive.
  7. What outcomes? Was his point that the selection process for cool kids organizations are ineffective?
  8. If the data were not required to be submitted by the FAR, then they would not be "certified cost or pricing data."
  9. From Formation of Government Contracts, Chapter 9, Section V, "Level of Effort Contracts": From The Government Contracts Reference Book:
  10. The plan is to change the FAR. If you mean they should issue an interim rule instead of the letter, I totally agree.
  11. The Limitation of Funds clause limits the Government's liability to the amount "allotted by the Government to the contract".
  12. First, there's a difference between creating an obligation and recording an obligation. The amount recorded doesn't change the amount created and vice-versa. The Recording Statute requires that agencies record of obligations reflect the amount of obligations created. So, if the contract creates an obligation for half the estimated cost or $100, then that's the amount that should be recorded. If the contract doesn't create any obligation at the time of award (like in a requirements contract), then no obligation should be recorded.
  13. Maybe the definition of "supplies" at FAR 2.101 would help?
  14. @Virgil Sollozzo, Have you read Chapter 7 of the GAO Redbook? That should answer your questions. Why don't you and McCluskey meet me at Louis's Italian American Restaurant in The Bronx? We can discuss further.
  15. In addition to what Jamaal wrote, it's not correct to say the Government closes out contracts. The Government closes out its contract files. FAR subpart 4.8 covers "Government Contract Files" and FAR 4.804 covers closeout of Government contract files. A contract may or may not exist after the closeout of a Government contract file. Also, the amount that must be legally recorded as an obligation is not affected by payments made or the passage of time since the obligation was recorded. The introduction of risk management into such a scenario is misplaced, unless the risk that's being managed is the risk of being caught under-recording obligations.
  16. It was pre-CDA--contract was awarded in 1968.
  17. In Whittaker Corp., ASBCA 18422, 81-1 BCA ¶ 15,055, the contracting officer did just that. The contracting officer granted an appeal right that a mandatory contract clause precluded. The Board found that the CO's action was "well within the ambit of the contracting officer's authority to administer the contract." A contracting officer does not need authority from a contract clause to relinquish a legal right. I agree in general. However, from Formation of Government Contracts:
  18. I suppose that's true, but I can't find any stated limits on an agency's authority to deviate from the FAR. FAR 1.402 begins with "Unless precluded by law, executive order, or regulation..." So would a statute have to expressly say that deviations are precluded? Good question. I know that I don't know the answer.
  19. Thank you, @PepeTheFrog. I agree. Now, do you know of anything specifically prohibiting the contracting officer from deviating from FAR 31.205-41(b)(1), assuming they complied with FAR 1.602-1(b)?
  20. Just to review the order of events, you made the following claim: I then asked: You said you answered that question, but you didn't. So, I asked: The ball is in your court.
  21. Actually, you didn't answer me. I specifically asked whether a contracting officer was prohibited from deviating from the cost principles, provided they complied with FAR 1.602-1(b). Are you saying that a contracting officer cannot deviate from the cost principles AND comply with FAR 1.602-1(b)?
  22. I'm asking if the CO would be prohibited from deviating from the cost principles, provided they complied with FAR 1.602-1(b). Yes or no?
  • Create New...