Don Mansfield

Seeker, This is what Block 17 of the SF 26 says: We're saying two different things. You are saying that the contract is subject to and governed by documents ( a ), (b ), and ( c ). Got it. True statement. I am saying that document ( a ) does not include Section L. Document ( b ) contains Section L. FAR 15.204-1( b ) instructs contracting officers not to physically incorporate Part IV (Sections K, L, and M) into document ( a ), but to incorporate Section K into document ( a ) by reference. In light of FAR 15.204-1( b ), it makes no sense that the table of contents for the SF 26 would include a Part IV.

Seeker, The block you are quoting would incorporate section K, not section L (or M). See FAR 15.204-1( b ):

The Contract Attorney's Deskbook is a good reference, but I was envisioning something that also contained a lot of how-to information. For example, how to write a contract modification, how to write a purchase order, how to write a proposal preparation instruction, etc. We all do these things, but do them in different ways. It would be nice if there were some standard practices one could refer to when being tasked with doing something for the first time.

uva383, I agree with Retreadfed. The MCS decision had nothing to do with whether the exercise of an option under FAR 52.217-8 was limited by FAR 37.111. It is silent on that issue. The problem in MCS is that the agency exercised an option under FAR 52.217-8 that had not been evaluated as part of the initial competition. The decision states: There's no conflict between MCS and Griffin Services, Inc.

H2H, The discussion of adequate new consideration at FAR 32.005(a) and the DoD policy you quoted doesn't apply to situations where the Government is inviting offerors to propose PBPs in a solicitation through use of the provision at FAR 52.232-28. Pursuant to FAR 32.005(a), adequate new consideration would be required if the contract were modified to include PBPs after award. The DoD policy reinforces this FAR policy--it doesn't create a new policy. I hope this makes your head feel better.

Thanks, wvanpup. I learned something.

I don't necessarily "support" Initiating a claim against the contractor (which, in light of wvanpup's post, would be limited to actual damages). I just offered it as a contractual remedy. On the scale of contractual remedies, it probably ranks below termination for default and above "negotiate an extension without consideration" in terms of aggressiveness. My MO would be to start at the bottom of the scale and, if that didn't improve things, work my way up. Documenting the late delivery in CPARS may be enough to remedy the situation.

H2H, The first sentence of the original post says the contract was completion.

H2H, A CO would not have the authority to modify a contract to provide contract financing, regardless of form, without consideration. That would be an extraordinary contractual action.

H2H, Why would the contractor receive its full fixed fee under a completion form CPFF if it did not complete the contract? Before answering, you may want to consider FAR 52.249-6(h)(4).

I don't think so.

What consideration do you want? Reduction of fee? If there is a dispute over the amount of consideration, the CO can issue a final decision and modify the contract accordingly. The contractor may then appeal the CO's decision.

I wouldn't use FAR 52.212-1 in its standard form for RFQs. I would tailor it.

Carl, For one person, it would be a monumental undertaking. But what if it were crowd sourced and edited? That is, anyone could contribute to it, but an editor could change a contribution (or reject it if it were garbage). It would be a living document.

Is there a need for a Contracting Officer's Reference Guide (or handbook, manual, etc)? There are Contract Pricing Reference Guides, a Contract Audit Manual, manuals on this and that topic relevant to contracting, but we don't have a single comprehensive guide written for the contracting officer. While the FAR and agency supplements contain some guidance, I don't think they are sufficient. I'm thinking of something that explains topics in laymen's terms, contains examples of how to do things, how to avoid common pitfalls, references to further reading, etc. The guide would be introduced very early in training and become a useful resource on the job. What do you think?

jwomack, It would have been more correct for me to say that FAR part 6 does not apply when using simplified acquisition procedures. As you are probably aware, FAR part 6 implements the CICA requirements for "full and open competition", justifications and approvals for other than full and open competition, etc.

CICA doesn't apply to the use of simplified acquisition procedures. See FAR 6.001(a).

napolik, I don't know the origin of the DD 2579 instructions in the CON 260B Student Guide (a course I actually teach), but I know they are not official. I've asked the folks that manage the DoD Forms Program to send me the official instructions for the form, but never received a response. This came up because I was looking for something in the DFARS or PGI that said that a contracting officer is responsible for preparing a DD Form 2579. The only place that I could find that mentioned the DD Form 2579 is DFARS 219.201(d)(10)( B ), which requires the small business specialist to document their review on the form. I think the DFARS should explicitly say that the contracting officer is required to prepare a DD Form 2579 for each acquisition over $10,000.

FAR 19.201(d)(10) requires the Director of the DoD Office of Small Business Programs to-- DoD implementation of this requirement is at DFARS 219.201(d)(10), which states: So the small business specialist makes a recommendation to the contracting officer, which the CO can accept or reject. If the CO rejects it, the small business specialist refers the matter to the SBA. Now, look at the DD Form 2579. Block 9 is titled "Recommendation." In Block 17, the CO documents their concurrence with or rejection of the recommendation. Additionally, the block also has a space where the CO can make a recommendation, presumably if they have rejected the initial recommendation. In Block 18, the small business specialist can then concur or appeal with something, presumably the recommendation of the contracting officer. Question: Who should complete Block 9? I don't care what your practice has been, just read the reg, look at the form, and make sense of them. (If you say "the buyer", provide a citation to support your answer).

Thank you, formerfed.

Like Wifcon.com? Also, Contract Management magazine always contains a section with legislative/regulatory updates. So does The Government Contractor.

This may help to inform: http://www.wifcon.com/discussion/index.php?/topic/1534-is-this-professor-right/

The AAP answer has been changed.

Pseudo-intellectual: a person who wants to be thought of as having a lot of intelligence and knowledge but who is not really intelligent or knowledgeable. http://www.learnersdictionary.com/definition/pseudo-intellectual

Infoseeker, Are you saying that DAU is responsible for the original poster's confusion? If yes, how so? Also, what's with the false dichotomy of DAU/common sense and real experience?