Jump to content
The Wifcon Forums and Blogs

Don Mansfield

  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by Don Mansfield

  1. How do you get around the prohibition on using cost-reimbursement contracts to acquire commercial items?
  2. Well, at least you didn't get caught. See Report D-2009-025.
  3. I've never done an RFP for R&D, but there is nothing inherently inappropriate about it. Based on the guidance at FAR 35.016, it seems that a BAA may not be appropriate for your requirement:
  4. May I suggest that your organization gain an understanding of CPIF contracts before it decides to award one?
  5. I don't think that you have a particularly strong argument that something is "sold in substantial quantities" because it meets a definition of the term that ended up on the cutting room floor. Did you look at the comments in the final rule to see why the proposed definition was changed?
  6. napolik, What would be the pricing arrangement for the travel CLIN in your proposal? Fixed-price? Cost-reimbursement? Something else?
  7. "Valid" for what purpose? Are you trying to convince someone that something is a commercial item?
  8. Do you mean that the Government no longer needs these items or that the engineers want to get the items from another contractor?
  9. Always a good idea to use a requirements contract for mortuary services instead of an IDIQ.
  10. Maureen, In your hypothetical, why would there be a need to modify the contract to increase the estimated quantities?
  11. Vern, I'm going to assume that you're talking about a noncommercial contract and that the prime contractor cannot obtain the required supplies and services from another subcontractor. I think that in order for the CO to exercise her authority under the Default clause, one of the three situations described at FAR 52.249-8(a)(1) must apply. These are: Paragraph (a)(1)(ii) seems that it would apply to the situation that you described. If so, then I think that the CO could establish a new (later) delivery date without having to obtain consideration. If not, then the clause doesn't apply and the CO would not have this authority.
  12. Vern, From Administration: In this circumstance, couldn't the CO establish the new delivery schedule by means of a contract modification? If so, wouldn't this constitute a contract modification without consideration?
  13. Vern, A contracting officer is not legally required to obtain new consideration if he/she establishes a new delivery schedule. See Administration of Government Contracts, Fourth Edition, p. 965, quoting Free-Flow Packaging Corp., GSBCA 3992, 75-1 BCA P 11,332:
  14. Steve, Just to clarify, there is no "choice" or "decision" involved when using FAR Part 12 procedures. If the services meet the definition of commercial item at FAR 2.101, then use of FAR Part 12 is mandatory. If the services do not meet the definition, use of FAR Part 12 is prohibited (except as described in FAR 12.102(g)). See FAR 10.002(d): Having said that, I don't know of any rule or guideline that says that if a service is X% commercial, it meets the definition of commercial item.
  15. Cajuncharlie, The genesis of your client's position is probably an OFPP Memo that came out in 2003: http://www.cofpaes.org/Commercialitemrule.cfm Note that the memo advises agencies not to use FAR Part 12 when acquiring new construction, except in rare circumstances. It acknowledges that certain types of construction could be acquired using FAR Part 12 procedures such as "routine painting or carpeting, simple hanging of drywall, everyday electrical or plumbing work, and similar noncomplex services, as well as for purchases of commercial construction material and associated ancillary services." The memo never makes an unequivocal statement that construction is commercial or noncommercial per se.
  16. Did you ask the instructor?
  17. What you were told is true. Since you work for a civilian agency, you would have to apply through FAI. Go to https://www.atrrs.army.mil/channels/faitas/...n.aspx?caller=1. Of course, if you work near a DAU campus, you can always try to walk in.
  18. In the meantime, FAR 19.800(e) needs to be fixed:
  19. Thanks for bringing the case to my attention. You made my day.
  20. Louise, Did you start Vern's study program? See http://www.wifcon.com/discussion/index.php?showtopic=488. Also, regarding CON 090, don't expect it to be more of the same, if "more of the same" means 5-6 hours of Powerpoint presentations. Our goal is training, not torture.
  21. No, I don't think it's an unreasonable tactic. The Government uses it all the time. However, if I were you I would stop arguing about "allowing" fee on this cost, but not that cost. Figure out a range of fees you are willing to pay (in dollars) and negotiate from there.
  22. I had the same thought when the June 2009 decision came out. I don't know where the GAO is coming from, either. They must not have considered the possibility that an agency may want to incrementally fund a requirement within the same fiscal year. I also agree with you on what the DoD FMR means. I believe it means that the contract must be fully funded with appropriations available for new obligations for the fiscal year in which the contract is awarded--not that the contract be fully funded at the time of award. I'm going to ask some of the finance professors how they read it.
  • Create New...