Jump to content
The Wifcon Forums and Blogs

Don Mansfield

Members
  • Content Count

    2,670
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by Don Mansfield

  1. @Philistines, Is the ordering period stated with calendar dates in the contract? Or does it state that the ordering period is "12 months"? If the latter, was there a time period where the Govt. couldn't issue orders or the contractor couldn't accept them because of the pandemic?
  2. How so? What exception at FAR 6.001 applies? You said that "extensions of ordering periods are changes in scope." FAR 6.001 only states an exception for modifications that are within the scope of the contract.
  3. nkd9, You would need to amend the RFP to allow for alternate delivery dates, or to specify a later delivery date.
  4. No. The timeliness of the qualifying proposal would be determined by what the parties agree to in DFARS 252.217-7027(b).
  5. See FAR subpart 4.10. If you are with DoD, see DFARS 204.71. After reading those, ask yourself if it makes sense to have multiple line items for the purpose of segregating costs. When you're thinking about it, do not consider what you or others have done in the past or what you've been told.
  6. If you deobligate funds from a task order, those funds may not be available for obligation on another task order because the period for obligation expired.
  7. Ask DLA for a valid OMB Control Number for the requested collection of information. Remind them that, pursuant to 5 CFR 1320.6, they may not penalize you for your failure to comply with a collection of information that does not display a valid OMB Control Number. They probably won't know what hit them.
  8. Everyone who voted got it correct. The untailored version of FAR 52.212-1 incorporates the firm bid rule (FAR 14.304(e)) in (f)(5): FAR 52.215-1 incorporates the rule about withdrawal of proposals (FAR 15.208(e)) in (c)(3)(v): FAR 52.212-1 was written to accommodate both invitations for bids and requests for proposals. However, the firm bid rule doesn't apply to contracting by negotiation. Fortunately, you can tailor FAR 52.212-1 to remove the firm bid rule if you are using the provision in an RFP.
  9. I think it could lead to an unfair outcome. You could have multiple competing offerors proposing to use the same subcontractor, but only one would have the benefit of having the subcontractor present at the oral presentation.
  10. I think that's a common misconception: https://www.estimancy.com/en/2018/10/02/function-points-for-agile-software-projects/
  11. @uva383, Did you ever consider function points? The European Parliament recently recommended the International Function Point Users Group (IFPUG) methodology for pricing software development. Whenever I bring up function points to Government technical folks involved in software acquisition, they usually 1) have never heard of it and 2) like the idea. Just today I learned about simplified function point measurement from a cost estimator. It's not a perfect measure, but unlike other common measures of software development (sprint, story point, mVP, etc.) it's a standard measure.
  12. Transdigm should refund the money under the condition that it be redistributed to DoD contractors that suffered losses of more than 15% and the agencies awarding those contracts be publicly shamed for allowing such losses to happen.
  13. FWIW, I don't think a vessel design in the sense that the OP is referring to it is patentable subject matter. The author of the design would instead protect the work by using a copyright.
  14. Exactly where I was going when I asked Voxx my question.
  15. The contractor is not required to provide consideration. However, like ji said, the Government could terminate for default if the contractor refuses. In cases where a termination for default is not a realistic option, the Government could instead re-establish the delivery schedule without receiving consideration (and ding you on CPARS).
  16. Would you be relying on an express contract term or just common law legal principles?
  17. @Krimz, the FAR's coverage of what constitutes personal services is notoriously misleading. I think you may have been misled. I know I was misled in the past. I remember gearing up for the same battle that you were considering. Both the SARA Panel and the Section 809 Panel dedicated parts of their final reports to the issue of personal services and the need to clarify FAR 37.104. I suggest you read the relevant sections of both reports. A service can check all of the boxes in FAR 37.104 and not create an employer-employee relationship. An agency can decide to award a service contract inst
  18. @Krimz, You seem to have concluded that the contracts are for personal services. What exactly led you to that conclusion?
  19. No, that's incorrect. Cost-reimbursement contracts do not have "prices". They have estimated costs and usually fees. Contrast the required data elements FAR 4.1005-1(a)(5)(i) and (ii): FAR 15.401 contains a definition of price that applies in FAR subpart 15.4 only: People commonly misinterpret that to mean that all contracts have a "price". The definition is merely a convention that obviates the need to write something like "Contracting officers shall award contracts at a fair and reasonable prices (or estimated costs and fees)." When that convention is not used outside of
  20. So the quantities are an estimate and you only pay for what you actually order?
  21. Why can't you include options for additional quantities?
×
×
  • Create New...