Don Mansfield

2 hours ago, Fara Fasat said:

What about subcontracts?

Not that I know of.

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)?

You need to ask the contracting officer. Nobody here can answer your question without reading the solicitation.

If you are a beginner, let me suggest a learning exercise. Don't ask to see other people's checklists. Make your own checklist based on the contents of FAR 4.803(a). Then, check to see if there's anything in your agency's FAR supplement that adds to the list at FAR 4.803(a). Then, look it over and ask yourself if you forgot anything. Share it with some colleagues to see if they can think of anything you forgot. Post it on Wifcon and ask for feedback. 

Once you've done that, then look at other checklists and compare them to yours. Maybe you forgot something. Maybe they forgot something that you remembered. In the end, you will have learned more than if you just looked at others' checklists.

Why reinvent the wheel? Because if you're a beginner you don't know enough about wheels to be taking shortcuts.

Why is this a contracting office problem and not a payment office problem? 

11 minutes ago, Jamaal Valentine said:

Is it thought to be a scrivener’s error?

My guess is a thoughtless copy and paste.

There's a relic of referring to contract changes as "amendments" at FAR 50.103-2(a): "Amendments without consideration". 

8 hours ago, Jamaal Valentine said:

For proposed contract actions that are not under SAP, but the sole source (including brand name) portion is under SAP?

Wouldn't you just apply the dollar threshold to the brand name portion?

18 minutes ago, Vern Edwards said:

I think that if a CO issues a solicitation for a professional services task order under a multiple-award task order contract, the plain language of FAR 22.1103 and FR 52.222-46 require evaluation of professional employee compensation.

Vern,

I don't think you are saying that all applicable provisions should be included in a task order solicitation, but how does one know that this provision should go in task order solicitations and not other provisions that are prescribed for use "in solicitations" (based on the language of the FAR)? 

The decision says that the provision at FAR 52.222-46 is applicable to the contract. However, by definition, a provision is "a term or condition used only in solicitations and applying only before contract award." Is the GAO saying that provisions included in the original IDIQ solicitation apply to task order solicitations by operation of FAR 52.216-18? If so, should task order solicitations include reps and certs?

1 hour ago, Freyr said:

I feel like I'm missing something very basic here but FAR 13.500(a) only allows us to go up to $15M however FAR 13.501(a)(2)(iii) and (iv) prescribe how to get approvals up to $75M or $100M for DoD/CG/NASA. If we're only allowed to use FAR 13.5 for up to $15M, why would we there be language on how to get approvals above that amount?

Good question. I never thought of that.

45 minutes ago, Guest108830 said:

Do you believe the overage on hours pushes those extra hours into an out of scope situation as it deviates from the contracted level of effort (hours) and specific time period that the parties originally bargained for? If so, that was my original thinking -- that overproviding hours runs afoul of what the contracting parties bargained for even though there's existing monies on contract.

Yes, unless the contract says something about working in excess of the specified LOE.

28 minutes ago, Guest108830 said:

And if this is the case, then there's no prohibition against the Contractor overproviding a level of effort (hours) provided there's existing monies on contract. In which case, bring on the 11th person. 

I think that you are assuming that a contract would be created if the Government accepted out-of-scope work (i.e., hours above the stated LOE). Is that correct?

32 minutes ago, Guest108830 said:

Don - what contractual right to payment? I'm thinking the moment the updated software becomes used by the Government is the moment compensation to the Contractor attaches under cost reimbursement principles. Otherwise, Government must reject that work.

Have you read the Limitation of Cost clause at FAR 52.232-20 (which should be in your contract)? Paragraphs (d) & (e) in particular?

Quote

(d) Except as required by other provisions of this contract, specifically citing and stated to be an exception to this clause-

(1) The Government is not obligated to reimburse the Contractor for costs incurred in excess of (i) the estimated cost specified in the Schedule or, (ii)if this is a cost-sharing contract, the estimated cost to the Government specified in the Schedule; and

(2) The Contractor is not obligated to continue performance under this contract (including actions under the Termination clause of this contract) or otherwise incur costs in excess of the estimated cost specified in the Schedule, until the Contracting Officer (i) notifies the Contractor in writing that the estimated cost has been increased and (ii) provides a revised estimated total cost of performing this contract. If this is a cost-sharing contract, the increase shall be allocated in accordance with the formula specified in the Schedule.

(e) No notice, communication, or representation in any form other than that specified in paragraph (d)(2) of this clause, or from any person other than the Contracting Officer, shall affect this contract’s estimated cost to the Government. In the absence of the specified notice, the Government is not obligated to reimburse the Contractor for any costs in excess of the estimated cost or, if this is a cost-sharing contract, for any costs in excess of the estimated cost to the Government specified in the Schedule, whether those excess costs were incurred during the course of the contract or as a result of termination.

8 minutes ago, Guest108830 said:

• What happens when a Contractor provides more hours than contracted for under a CPFF (Term)? 

I can find no regulation, rule or law that prohibits a Contractor from performing more than the contracted hours and if so, what result?

Let's say you do that and want to get paid for the extra hours. What contractual right do you have to payment? The burden is on you to prove you have the right to payment--not that you worked extra hours.

Are you familiar with the limitation on subcontracting and the nonmanufacturer rule?

1 hour ago, Sam101 said:

Well, no, because the threshold for technical responsibility might be higher than it is for FAR 9.104-1(e)’s “experience”, here is an example:

In your sample Section M, the offeror just had to have "sufficient" experience. How is that a higher threshold than the standard of responsibility for experience?

2 hours ago, Guest108830 said:

And should Contractor exceed the contracted hours, is the Gov't required to compensate the Contractor for those hours beyond 19,200?

Under a typical CPFF LOE, no. It would be like delivering more widgets than the contract required.

2 hours ago, Guest108830 said:

If so, why? If not, why not?

There would have to be something in the contract obligating the Government to pay for hours in excess of the specified level of effort. Supply and construction contracts can have variation in quantity clauses. Maybe your contract has something like that.

I think you should probably inform the contracting officer that adding the extra person will cause you to deliver the LOE early. 

3 hours ago, Guest108830 said:

If Contractor brings this 11th person on board, Contractor would be providing more hours to the Gov't than originally planned and the hours the Parties have contracted for (e.g., Contractor obligated to devote the specified level of effort for the stated time period per FAR 16.306(d)(2)).

Wouldn't you just be providing the agreed-to level of effort sooner than expected?

3 hours ago, Sam101 said:

In the case of LPTA, yes, the lowest price as long as they meet the minimum criteria, i.e., technically acceptable. In the case of trade-off it would not necessarily be the lowest price.

So, you're effectively awarding to the responsible offeror with the lowest price. Correct?

On 5/2/2023 at 3:14 PM, Sam101 said:

Because having a corporate experience evaluation factor allows the government to choose the best contractor to perform the responsibility determination on. 

What do you mean by "best"? The offeror with the lowest price?

4 hours ago, Sam101 said:

I suppose so, however I always think of responsibility determinations as a lower bar than having corporate experience as an evaluation factor even for LPTA.

Why do you think that?

On 4/30/2023 at 12:03 PM, Sam101 said:

The government will determine whether the offeror has sufficient experience based on the three past contracts that they described.

Isn't the Government already making this determination when applying the responsibility standard stated at FAR 9.104-1(e)?

Quote

 

To be determined responsible, a prospective contractor must-

[...]

(e) Have the necessary organization, experience, accounting and operational controls, and technical skills, or the ability to obtain them (including, as appropriate, such elements as production control procedures, property control systems, quality assurance measures, and safety programs applicable to materials to be produced or services to be performed by the prospective contractor and subcontractors).

 

15 hours ago, Linda Y said:

Are there any rules in the FAR or CAS that stipulate that those travel costs must be split between the 2 contracts or even between different option period in a contract?

No.

Now what?

43 minutes ago, Constitution said:

Why wouldn't I simply issue the award in July and use the price on the base for my entire six months?  Right?

This question is unanswerable without being able to read the contract. However, you are likely to receive answers.