Don Mansfield

The deviation adds the requirement for the contracting officer to make a determination of fair and reasonable prices for orders not requiring a statement of work (FAR 8.405-1).

Why not use SAP to fulfill your requirements until you become more familiar with the vendors' work?

Why do you think the fact that "There is actual work effort and cost will be incurred by contractors running these tests" precludes the use of a two-step proposal process?

Can you prove it?

Are all offerors "prospective contractors" as that term is used in FAR subpart 9.1?

Another example of the disconnect between the FAR coverage of TINA and the implementing clause:

bently78, Thank you for commenting. Using your example, let's say a solicitation required offerors to collect information from 5 references and two offerors submitted proposals with five references each. Wouldn't that be collecting information from 10 members of the public? Having said that, my post was written from the perspective of the administrative burden placed on offerors to obtain (or cause to be obtained) information on their past performance. (I hadn't considered the administrative burden placed on those completing the questionnaires because those are typically Government employees). If you count up all of the offerors being required to obtain (or cause to be obtained) information about their past performance in response to your agency's solicitations, wouldn't you reach 10? Regarding the OFPP document, there is actually an approved information collection under OMB Control No. 9000-0142 to "provide offerors an opportunity to identify past or current contracts (including Federal, State, and local government and private) for efforts similar to the Government requirement." The corresponding rule is at FAR 15.305(a)(2)(ii). Given that, maybe the author didn't see the need to advise agencies to comply with the PRA if they were only going to "ask" for the information. In any case, I doubt that document was coordinated with OIRA. I don't think you are interpreting 44 U.S.C. 3502(3) correctly. You should read it like this-- “the term ‘collection of information’ – (A) means the 1) obtaining, 2) causing to be obtained, 3) soliciting, or 4) requiring the disclosure to third parties or the public, of facts or opinions by or for an agency, regardless of form or format... If it's 1, 2, 3, or 4, it's a collection of information.

Seeker, I've been where you are before. The closest I got to a general answer is the Contract Pricing Reference Guides, which distinguishes overhead from G&A. Both are under the umbrella of indirect expenses. I don't know if that would be enough to convince a judge. Let me guess, you are trying to interpret the Defective Pricing clause?

You're correct. I left out the part that the funds must be obligated during their period of availability. Bona fide needs of FY14 that are unfulfilled in FY14 become bona fide needs of FY15 and cannot be satisfied using FY14 funds. I'll edit my post.

If you are using annual appropriations, bona fide needs of FY14 must be funded with FY14 appropriations before they expire. Unfulfilled needs of FY14 become bona fide needs of FY15 and must be funded with FY15 appropriations. Bona fide needs arising in FY15 must be funded with FY15 appropriations. If Legal and your supervisor are saying that you can use FY14 funds to purchase supplies that you don't need in FY14, then they are wrong.

The requirements of the Miller Act have not been read into a contract pursuant to the Christian Doctrine. The name of the case is the longest I've ever seen: Faerber Electric Co., Inc. an Illinois corporation, and Great Lakes Construction Co., an Illinois corporation v. Atlanta Tri-Com, Inc., a Georgia corporation, Contractors Surety & Fidelity Co., Ltd, a Nevada corporation, and Raytheon Service Company, a Delaware corporation; United States of America for the Use and Benefit of Faerber Electric Company, Inc., an Illinois corporation, and Great Lakes Construction Co., an Illinois corporation v. Raytheon Service Company, a Delaware corporation, U.S. District Court, N.D. Illinois, 38 CCF ¶76,428, (May 1, 1992)Here's a summary of the court's holding: That answers your second question. As to your first question, I don't see how the Government can unilaterally enforce the requirement. I think your proposed approach is good.

In competitive acquisitions, it is common for solicitations to require offerors to conduct surveys of their past and present customers using standard questionnaires developed by the contracting office. Offerors are typically instructed to send the questionnaires to their customers with instructions to send the completed surveys to the contracting office. This information is then used to evaluate the offeror past performance. In effect, individual contracting offices have shifted the burden for collecting information about offeror past performance to the public. The problem with this practice is that it is done without regard for the requirements of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.) (PRA). The PRA imposes a requirement on Federal agencies to obtain approval from the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) before collecting information from 10 or more members of the public. 44 U.S.C. § 3502 defines “collection of information” as— As part of the approval process, 44 U.S.C. § 3506©(2)(A) generally requires that each agency— OMB approval of a proposed collection of information or recordkeeping requirement is manifested in the issuance of a valid OMB control number. FAR 1.106 contains a list of approved information collections and OMB control numbers relating to Federal acquisition. The list includes, among other things, solicitation provisions requiring offerors to provide certain types of information in their proposals to the Government. For example, the requirement for offerors to provide certified cost or pricing data or data other than certified cost or pricing data is approved under OMB Control Number 9000-0013. The approval granted by OMB is not permanent, which is why the FAR Council will periodically publish their intent to request an extension of an existing OMB clearance in the Federal Register and provide an opportunity for public comment. Denial of OMB approval would render the information collection or recordkeeping requirement unlawful and, arguably, unenforceable if contained in a solicitation provision. To this point, 5 CFR 1320.6 states: In addition to periodically requesting the extension of existing OMB approvals for collections of information, the FAR Council must address compliance with the Paperwork Reduction Act in FAR rules published in the Federal Register. Typically, the Federal Register notice will either state that the rule does not contain any information collection requirements or that any information collection requirements are currently covered by an existing OMB clearance. If the FAR Council is imposing a new information collection requirement, the notice will contain an estimate of the administrative burden and solicit public comments. One need only look at the nearest competitive solicitation to conclude that contracting offices don’t pay much attention to these requirements. Despite the public protection provision of the PRA, it is unlikely that offerors will exercise their rights for fear of reprisal. As a result, the public will continue to absorb this administrative burden—a burden that is ultimately passed on to the Government in the form of higher overhead costs.

Some of the entries in Encyclopedia of Ethical Failure are funny.

HCuffage, The SBA rules allow contracting officers to reserve one award for any type of small business concern and subsequently issue sole source orders to that concern. See 13 CFR 125.2(e)(4)(i)((3). That's what the passage that you posted is referring to. However, the solicitation must state that the Government reserves this right. From 13 CFR 125.2(e)(4)(v): Do the solicitations for the Federal Supply Schedules state such a thing? Regarding set-asides of orders, 13 CFR 125.2(e)(6)(ii) states: The criteria for set-asides for small business (FAR 19.502-2), HUBZone (FAR 19.1305), SDVOSB (FAR 19.1405), WOSB/EDWOSB (FAR 19.1505) all require that, at least, the rule of two be satisfied.

DOECPA, If you are asking if the Govt. would just accept the indirect rates without performing an analysis, then the answer is no. A cost realism analysis includes an analysis of both direct and indirect costs. In my opinion, the fact that the contractor has an approved estimating system would affect the extent of the analysis required, but it would not be enough to accept proposed indirect rates no questions asked.

That list makes me feel better about my degree in Spanish.

Who is responsible for enforcing the no-smoking policy on the base?

And the Chief of the Contracting Office knows but doesn't care?

If you read FAR 15.101-2( b )(3) as requiring an evaluation of technical acceptability for all proposals received, it would render meaningless the qualification "When tradeoffs are performed..." at FAR 15.305( a )(3). That suggests an incorrect interpretation of FAR 15.101-2( b )(3).

So how does that prevent the two supervisors from solving the problem?

lost but found, In a FAR part 15 source selection, the requirement to evaluate every offeror's ability to accomplish the technical requirements only applies when tradeoffs are performed. See FAR 15.305(a)(3): FAR 13.003(g) allows for the use of any combination of procedures in parts 13, 14, 15. As such, a procedure that is allowable under FAR part 15 (i.e., the LPTA evaluation procedure you proposed) is allowable under FAR part 13. Regarding FAR 13.106-2( a )( 3 ), you did consider other quotes. You looked at the prices and compared them to each other.

If the lowest-priced quote were technically acceptable, why would you bother evaluating the others?

Has this conversation started? KO to Supervisor: "The technical assessment reports I'm receiving are garbage. I've tried to remedy the situation, but they are not being cooperative." Supervisor to KO: "Thank you for letting me know. I'll see what I can do." [time passes] KO's Supervisor to technical advisor's supervisor: "My KO told me that the reports she is getting are garbage and that your folks aren't being cooperative. There's probably more to the story that I don't know, but, in any case, I think we have a problem that we need to fix." Technical advisor's supervisor to KO's supervisor: "I'm sorry to hear that. My folks are always complaining about KO's making unreasonable demands, so I agree that we have a problem. Let's work together to fix it."

That's an HR question--out of my league.

ji20874 must think you are a contractor. Contracting Officer A was tasked to do a job by their supervisor, correct? If Contracting Officer A is refusing to do that job, then they need to take it up with their supervisor. If I were Contracting Officer B, I would stay out of it.