Jump to content
The Wifcon Forums and Blogs

Don Mansfield

  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by Don Mansfield

  1. Do you request past performance information for similar efforts? If so, you could sample the personnel qualifications of employees that are working (or worked) on those contracts. That would probably be a better indicator of the personnel qualifications of the employees that would work on your projects. You'd be evaluating data instead of empty promises.
  2. I asked a question. I did not state anything that should lead you to conclude that a contract should never be FFP. If you decide to answer, stop and think about the question before you start writing. In reading your posts in this thread and others, I've noticed that you tend to take hard positions that you don't know to be true and leave it to others to correct you. Assuming that you're a beginner, let me suggest a different approach. Think through how you could be wrong before posting. If there's something that you don't understand, ask a question. Be more tentative about your conclusion
  3. Assuming that contract stated that allowability of costs would be determined in accordance with FAR subpart 31.2, wouldn't that be a FAR deviation?
  4. Spring chickens. Mr. Tatigian turns 98 this year and is in his 78th year of federal service. https://www.navsea.navy.mil/Media/News/Article/1326404/sarkis-tatigian-honored-for-75-years-of-navy-service/
  5. Wouldn't delivering the hours at a lower cost increase the contractor's return on revenue?
  6. So one synopsis would cover multiple calls over $25,000? I don't think that would be compliant with FAR 5.201(b)(1): I interpret that as each call over $25,000 requiring its own unique notice.
  7. The FAR 5.001 definition says "within the scope of the contract". So if we assume that a FAR part 13 BPA is not a contract, then a BPA call would not be "within the scope of the contract." Having said that, it doesn't seem consistent to require a synopsis for a call under a previously synopsized BPA, but not task or delivery orders under a previously synopsized indefinite delivery contract.
  8. I don't understand Carl. Assuming a given FAR part 13 BPA does not meet the definition of "contract" at FAR 2.101, what exception to the synopsis requirement would apply to a call over $25,000?
  9. I agree. I thought you were trying to make the case that the definition necessarily applied to Chapter 99.
  10. FAR 2.101(a) states: Nothing that I know of extends the applicability of the definitions in FAR 2.101 to 48 CFR Chapter 99. This is the same argument that I use--so I am in violent agreement. I just didn't see what the definitions in FAR 30.001 had to do with anything. Have you had any success with this argument?
  11. There's no exception for "it would be pointless".
  12. FAR 5.201(b)(1) states: "Contract action" is defined at FAR 5.001: Unless you want to argue that a call is not a contract action, then a call over $25,000 under a BPA would require a synopsis. Because a task order is a contract action and would require a synopsis if it weren't for the exception.
  13. For calls exceeding $25,000, which exception to the synopsis requirement would apply?
  14. Fair enough, but pursuant to FAR 1.102-4(e) we may assume that it is permissible.
  15. You need to read the decision Carl posted. The DEA awarded multiple BPAs on a competitive basis, then rotated calls in excess of the micro-purchase threshold among BPA holders. The GAO said that met the competition requirements of FAR part 13. This could theoretically be done for calls up to $13 million. That's a significant benefit. The contracting office doesn't have to keep processing purchase orders. You would have to synopsize over $25k, unless there were an exception. The synopsis would have to say that "all responsible sources may submit a quotation which shall be consid
  16. @Retreadfed, I'm not connecting the dots. The definitions at FAR 30.001 recognize task and delivery orders as contracts. Check. Kingdomware held that task and delivery orders are "contracts" as defined at FAR 2.101. Check. Therefore, CAS applicability for IDIQ contracts is determined at the order level? I don't see how you get to that conclusion by deduction. It seems like a hopeful inference.
  17. If they refuse, they would likely be in breach of FAR 52.216-22, Indefinite Quantity. See paragraph (b) of that clause.
  18. Assuming the multiple BPAs were awarded competitively, couldn't the ordering official just rotate calls among the BPA holders?
  19. FAR 52.222-46 is a solicitation provision--not a clause. Are you asking whether you are required to include the provision in a notice when using FAR 16.505 procedures?
  20. @Prosperity, You seem to be approaching this as if you have discretion. That would be wrong. If the conditions of FAR 19.502-2(b) are satisfied, then you cannot have full and open competition.
  21. @JackSparrow, You could protest an OTA award, but the GAO and COFC probably wouldn't have jurisdiction. However, someone filed a protest of an OTA award in a federal district court last year and the Government conceded that the court had jurisdiction. From "Determining Litigation Fora Under The FAR And Under Other Transaction Authority" by John Krieger and Richard Fowler: The full article is in the October 2019 issue of Briefing Papers. The substance of the article was also published in the December issue of Contract Management magazine as "Aesop’s Guide to Litigating Under the FA
  22. Wouldn't you just deduct that from the credit you'd be making to subscription costs?
  23. That looks like a portion of the preface. Is there more preceding it? Specifically, how "Contractor" should be construed?
  • Create New...