Don Mansfield

How do you know that their warrant is limited to $100k per action including options?

I don't see this as paying for unused hotel rooms. It's a method of settlement in the event the Government breaches the contract.

I used to have a class exercise where I would have students select a solicitation of their choice on FedBizOpps, and then identify ten clauses or provisions that were erroneously included and ten clauses or provisions that were erroneously excluded. I never had a class that couldn't do this.

That doesn't surprise me.

Wouldn't the fact that the CO used the clause also indicate that they did not think an exception applied? I'm looking at DFARS 225.1101(2)(i)(C).

Assuming you meant 15 USC 638, I don't think so. I think that is just clarifying that the procedure complies with CICA. But I'm just guessing.

Would you say that is an exception to the rule?

I think that FAR 13.106-1(a)(2)(i) implies that price is a required evaluation factor when issuing a solicitation:

It sounds like the IDIQ contract doesn't have prices--the task orders have prices. If that's the case, I don't see how one could argue that the task orders are competitively awarded FFP contracts.

I was referring to the author of the LinkedIn article and the guy he was arguing with. The LinkedIn article reads like a post in r/iamverysmart subreddit.

I answered "yes" because it was a better answer than "no". Acquisition planning is in the front and contract management is in the back, but do "Bonds and Insurance" come before "Taxes" in the acquisition process? Do "General Contracting Requirements" come before "Special Categories of Contracting" in the acquisition process. However, I think it's more of a stretch to say the FAR has no coherent structure. What a strange hill to die on.

@old51C, To add to what ji wrote--FAR 4.804 pertains to the closeout of contract files (like the title says).

Do you intend to do cost analysis?

His question #2 was specifically about travel costs.

1. No, nothing that precise that I know of. 2. Yes, see Volume 3, Chapter 8, Section 8.2.4, of the Contract Pricing Reference Guides.

Here are my thoughts: 1. I am in favor of removing the GAO from the bid protest process. I've always held this opinion. The Legislative Branch has no business reviewing individual solicitations and award decisions of agencies. 2. I am in favor of a venue like an agency board of contract appeals that an interested party can appeal to after receiving a decision on a protest from the contracting officer--like the disputes process. 3. I am not in favor of eliminating the COFC's bid protest jurisdiction. From a balance of powers perspective, I think that executive branch decisions regarding how it plans to conduct an acquisition and how it chooses a contractor should be subject to judicial review.

Yes, because it is not prohibited. See FAR 1.102(d).

Because it's not. It's being done for administrative convenience.

Two ideas: 1. Don't ask for resumes. 2. If you do ask for resumes, don't ask for resumes of people who the offeror says will perform the work. Ask for resumes of people who are currently performing similar contracts for the offeror.

Because not all documents with the header "BPA" are actually BPAs. FAR part 13 BPAs are required to contain the terms and conditions at FAR 13.303-3(a), including-- (2) Extent of obligation. A statement that the Government is obligated only to the extent of authorized purchases actually made under the BPA.

How is the contractor getting paid--contract financing or just delivery payments?

A friend of mine told me that the training contracts awarded by FAI use LPTA.

Why not present that to the COR as your QASP?

The Government is typically accepting the seller's terms in a GCPC purchase. What are the seller's terms for partial cancellation?

I don't know why that would not be coded as a flow-down clause in the matrix--it obviously is. So what? In a contract between the prime and the sub, wouldn't the sub be the contractor? In any case, the "substance" of the clause needs to flowed down--it doesn't need to be verbatim.