Jump to content

Don Mansfield

Members
  • Posts

    3,371
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Posts posted by Don Mansfield

  1. @Voyager,

    I think your original point--the Guide overstated the effect of quantity of one on payment--is well-founded. I also think that what you described about making and paying for partial deliveries when the quantity is one is ok.

    However, I think you have one thing wrong. I think you concluded that progress payments under FAR 52.232-5 and -10 are payments for accepted services because they are excluded from the definition of contract financing payment at FAR 32.001. You may have even concluded that they are delivery payments. If so, I think you are misinterpreting the definition of contract financing payment. 

    Progress payments based on percentage or stage of completion are a form of contract financing. However, for purposes of the Prompt Payment Act, progress payments under FAR 52.232-5 and -10 are specifically excluded from the definition of contract financing payment so they will bear an interest penalty if paid late. This does not mean they are payments for accepted services. If that were true, there would be no reason to specifically exclude them from the definition of contract financing payment (or specifically include them in the definition of invoice payment).

  2. 1 hour ago, Voyager said:

    The mere existence of a Quantity "1" and UOM "Lot" is not dispositive that only one payment may occur.  Contract specialists should take care not to fall into this thinking.  Instead, if you need to restrict all payments to just one, write that into the Contract Schedule.  Something like "Partial Payments not authorized" should do it.

    Are you referring to contract financing payments or payments for partial deliveries? If the latter, how do you partially accept a quantity of 1?

  3. 19 hours ago, nonlinearthinking said:

    Do you think there are some agencies that are considered better than others when it comes to being an 1102?

    Yes, but as you can see opinions differ.

    @REA'n Maker and @formerfed give good advice on what you should consider in choosing an 1102 job. I would also add how much they care about training and developing employees. 

  4. My sentiments are similar to @formerfed. If I had believed that my first position as an 1102 was representative of 1102 work in general, I would not have stayed in the field. I moved a few times and ended up doing and seeing some cool stuff. 

    It sounds like you have a thankless job with limited responsibility that's starting to wear on you. May be time to look elsewhere.

  5. 11 hours ago, here_2_help said:

    The author is making a analogy. As with all analogies, it is imperfect.

    But the first sentence is just plain wrong. "Technically", an IDIQ contract is a contract. Period. It doesn't have to be pre-priced to be a contract. Regardless of whether an order is ever placed, it's a contract. There's an offer, acceptance, consideration--the whole shebang. 

    A BOA is not a contract. There's no exchange of enforceable promises.

    I think the author knows this but didn't explain it well.

  6. 8 hours ago, here_2_help said:

    Technically, an IDIQ contract is only a contract to the extent that the work is completely priced and can be unilaterally ordered by the government. To the extent that the IDIQ contract contemplates newly priced offers to perform additional tasks, such work is not part of the originally awarded contract, but is more in the nature of a basic ordering agreement.

    What?

  7. From the definition of "commercial service":

    Quote

    Services of a type offered and sold competitively in substantial quantities in the commercial marketplace based on established catalog or market prices for specific tasks performed or specific outcomes to be achieved and under standard commercial terms and conditions

    It's entirely possible for a service to meet that definition and be priced on a cost-reimbursement basis. 

    The cost or pricing arrangement for a given subcontract is dependent on the circumstances. The same service that is priced on a FFP basis under normal circumstances, may, under different circumstances, be more appropriately priced on a T&M or cost-reimbursement basis. This has nothing to do with whether the service is commercial or not.

  8. 51 minutes ago, Neil Roberts said:

    I did not see anything in the definition that lead me to think that non competitive commercial services that have no established market or catalog price, and can not even be estimated, are commercial services.

    The services don't have to meet those criteria. They just have to be "of a type" of services that do.

  9. I'm afraid I have some bad news about Vern. He injured his one good eye a few weeks ago and it has become very difficult and time-consuming for him to write on a computer. He tried dictation, but it was just too much of a hassle. From now on, the little writing that he can do he will do for the Nash & Cibinic Report. He will share those articles with Bob to post on Wifcon.

    I think we owe him a debt of gratitude for all that he has shared in the discussion forums and on the analysis page. I can't think of anyone who has freely shared their knowledge as much as Vern. I ask that we keep intellectual standards high in our discussions, ask good questions, back up our claims with facts, etc. In other words, follow Vern's example.

    Vern will probably still read the forum discussions now and then. I'll make sure he reads this thread in case you want to wish him well.

  10. On 5/26/2023 at 6:05 AM, formerfed said:

    This distinction is fairly common when using the advisory multi step process from FAR 15.202.  Agencies routinely seek information from industry as an initial step.  Often they ask for further elaboration and explanation of the information.  None of that is considered discussions and agencies often make that clear in the solicitation instructions.  What’s surprising though is after all this time, the issue surfaced in this court case.

    What you are referring to involves two responses. I'm talking about one response to a solicitation.

  11. Me, too. 

    I was thinking through some of the implications of this decision, which I think the COFC got right.

    proposal revision would only include changes to the part of a solicitation response that was binding (i.e., the proposal).

    If that's true, then changes made to the part of a solicitation response that was not binding (i.e., information) could be made without discussions. 

    I don't recall the GAO ever making this distinction in clarifications v. discussions cases. Do you?

  12. 9 hours ago, joel hoffman said:

    If a subcontract is billed to the government as cost reimbursement, that makes the prime contract partially cost reimbursement. Thus, I don’t think that it would be allowable for a contract for commercial services.

    However, if the cost reimbursement arrangement is strictly between the prime and sub and the price to the government is fixed, then it would seem to be acceptable.——————————————-

    What rule or contract clause prohibits it?

  13. 15 hours ago, Sil said:

    The optional CLINs were posted with the RFP, KTRs were asked to propose on those CLINs, those CLINs were evaluated for award, this could have possibly changed the competition? So can we just remove them?

    No comprendo. Why would you remove an optional line item (instead of just not exercising the option)?

×
×
  • Create New...