Jump to content
The Wifcon Forums and Blogs

Don Mansfield

  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by Don Mansfield

  1. FAR 15.403-1(c)(1) doesn't say that there's no requirement for certified cost or pricing data when using LPTA. It explains the standard for adequate price competition, which is not dependent on any specific source selection process. Stating that you will use LPTA in the solicitation may or may not result in adequate price competition. Further, the contracting officer can't determine whether adequate price competition existed until after they've received responses. As such, an offeror would have no basis in claiming that the Govt. was prohibited from obtaining certified cost or pricing data bec
  2. You don't "certify your costs" when you execute a certificate of current cost or pricing data. You certify that the facts that formed the basis for your cost estimate are accurate, current, and complete. These facts can be used to make both optimistic or pessimistic estimates of future costs, depending on the judgment that you apply. You can re-estimate your costs to arrive at a more optimistic cost estimate in the BAFO, lower your profit, or both. This doesn't necessarily require you to recertify your cost or pricing data.
  3. The PC "assures" that they will do it in their subcontracting plan (see FAR 52.219-9(d)(9)). The contracting officer could potentially dispute such a determination. The prime assures the Government that it will require OTSB subcontractors to submit a SBSP if the subcontract exceeds $1.5 million on the date of subcontract award. You are not required to submit a SBSP. The prime may require you to submit one as a condition of subcontract award, but you can choose to decline the subcontract. Yes, you can. However, the prime may tell you to aim higher. The PC. Goals
  4. Scenario: Acme Corporation responds to two different RFPs issued by the Government. RFP 1 is for commercial items and contains the untailored version FAR 52.212-1, Instructions to Offerors--Commercial Items. Acme responds to RFP 1 with Proposal 1. RFP 2 is for noncommercial items and contains FAR 52.215-1, Instructions to Offerors--Competitive Acquisition. Acme responds to RFP 2 with Proposal 2. The deadline for submission of the proposals for both RFPs is June 30. Both of Acme's proposals were submitted on time. On July 15, Acme realizes that it made an estimating mistake and has priced
  5. There's no general FAR rule. However, when DoD implemented the increased TINA threshold, they included a statement that contracting officers shall modify contracts to include modified versions of FAR 52.215-12 and -13 at the request of contractors. See https://www.acq.osd.mil/dpap/policy/policyvault/USA001197-18-DPAP.pdf
  6. If you're already FAC-C certified, I don't see the point.
  7. For those who have contracted for software development, what unit of measure have you used for the line item? Also, does anyone have any experience using a function point as a unit of measure in a software development contract?
  8. Looking at Neil's reference, I noticed the standards for publication from 41 USC 1707 are stated at DFARS 201.404(b)(ii)(A) and (B). So, only DPAP (now DPC) can approve a class deviation that would require publication.
  9. La Gloria, 56 Fed. Cl. 211. I provided a link in my last post.
  10. Wrong question. Right question: Does anything prohibit an agency from awarding a 10-year IDIQ for IT support services? If the answer to that is "no", then you can do it. See FAR 1.102-4(e).
  11. The CAS apply to procurement contracts. An OTA is not a procurement contract. Therefore, the CAS do not apply to OTAs. An OTA is a contract.
  12. Assuming that you are referring to class deviations, then a deviation that met the criteria in 41 U.S.C. 1707 would require publication in the Federal Register and an opportunity for public comment. Note that DFARS 201.301(a)(1) states: Also note that DoD class deviations issued as memoranda (prior to the COVID-19 pandemic) would typically state something like "this deviation remains in effect until incorporated in to the FAR (or DFARS) or is rescinded". That fact that something is a deviation has no bearing on whether it triggers the publication requirements of 41 USC 1707.
  13. I don't see a problem with making final payment on line items that have been performed and accepted while other line items are being performed. I've known contracting officers who do that.
  14. It would be included by operation of FAR 52.216-18(b).
  15. 1. No. See DFARS 204.7103-1(a)(4). 2. Yes. See DFARS 204.7103-1(a)(4)(iii), 204.7104-1(a)(3) and PGI 204.7104-2(e)(7). 3. No. See DFARS 204.7104-1(b)(1)(i).
  16. I would love to see the Government use employer's evaluations of their employees as an evaluation factor for award. Unsuccessful Offeror: Why did we only get a satisfactory rating for personnel qualifications? Government: We based that on your ratings of your employees.
  17. Are the nonfee bearing costs on a separate line item than the fee-bearing costs? The SEAPORT-E orders that I have seen contain both CPFF line items and Cost (no fee) line items.
  18. No, not in the FAR. Some agencies may have mandatory IDIQ contracts, though.
  • Create New...