Jump to content
The Wifcon Forums and Blogs

Don Mansfield

Members
  • Content Count

    2,481
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by Don Mansfield

  1. That only solves the problem if the option were exercised after the final option year. What if the Government wanted to exercise the option to extend after the completion of the base year, like in the MCS case?
  2. Tell the offerors that, when proposing rates for any given period, they are to assume that the Government will extend performance for an additional six months past that period at the rates proposed for that period. Make it a wash.
  3. Agree with the first two rules, not the last. We have some really good participants that are lawyers.
  4. I don't see how that would be a remedy. When it came time to exercise the option, the CO would still have to comply with FAR Part 6 (which they didn't do if they didn't evaluate the option during the initial competition). Or, "Offerors shall consider the prospect of the Government extending performance pursuant to FAR 52.217-8 when proposing rates for each contract period."
  5. I think that GAO's decision assumes that when the offeror proposed its rates for each year, it did not consider the prospect of the Government requiring extended performance at those rates pursuant to FAR 52.217-8. Why is that the correct assumption? How does GAO know that the offeror didn't consider extended performance at its proposed rates when preparing its offer? Let's assume the offeror did consider the prospect of extension when it proposed its rates and the Government evaluated those rates in the initial competition. How could one argue, then, that the rates in effect during the option period were not "evaluated as part of the initial competition" and that the exercise of the option did not comply with FAR Part 6? A very questionable assumption by GAO.
  6. Vern, As one of the lead whiners, I feel compelled to reply. I think that your proposal is fine. However, let's assume that Contracting123, for whatever reason, cannot price travel on a FFP basis for his proposed task order. Before saying that he is out of luck, I think we need to know what payment clauses are in the specific GSA contract that he wants to place an order against, which is why I asked him/her. However, he/she probably stopped reading a long time ago.
  7. Contracting123, Which payment clauses are in the base GSA contract? FAR 52.212-4 and 52.212-4, Alt. I? A GSA-specific payment clause? Anything else?
  8. charles, It depends. Did the solicitation require offerors to provide such information? My answer wouldn't be different. However, I don't know how the Government would make such an evaluation unless the offeror provided such information. Question for you. In your scenario, was the percentage of work to be subcontracted a binding promise? Or was it just information the Government used to evaluate proposals?
  9. While some of Ms. Doan's claims don't sound particularly credible, I do agree with her that the administration has dragged its feet in appointing an OFPP administrator.
  10. civ_1102, If the work is purchasing, and all that it will ever be is purchasing, then I don't think FAC-C would provide much benefit. I teach most of the courses required for FAC-C certification and they were not designed for purchasing agents (or contract specialists that do purchasing). When I get such students in my classes, they are only there to fulfill certification requirements. They learn very little that will apply to their jobs. Their time would be much better spent learning how to do purchasing better, faster, and cheaper, than to learn about source selection, cost analysis, cost-reimbursement contracting, etc.
  11. The Red Book discusses a couple of cases that are relevant (p. 5-26): No mention of there having to be any performance in the fiscal year in which the funds were obligated. The key issue is the bona fide need, not when performance takes place. Consider the first case with the medical appointments. Let's say the last appointment is made at the close of business on 30 September 2009. The Government issues a purchase order to the contractor using FY09 funds. The contractor receives the order on the morning of 1 October 2009 and subsequently begins performance. In this case, there has been no violation of fiscal law by the Government. They have obligated FY09 funds for a bona fide need of FY09 before the funds expired. I think this we have a classic case of myth-information with this "substantial performance" business.
  12. Gee, Vern, you're right. The lawyer was right and I was wrong. If a contract provides for the reimbursement of travel costs, it must be a cost-reimbursement contract. Since you can't use a cost-reimbursement contract to acquire commercial items, then a commercial contract can't provide for the reimbursement of travel costs. I didn't get it until your last post. I can't believe how thick-headed I was--how embarassing!! Boy, you really put me in my place! That'll teach me to take on the master. Contracting123, Please apologize to your lawyer for me. It seems that I made him/her out to be an ass when the real ass was me.
  13. Vern, I don't want to argue anymore, either. However, I take issue with how you have misrepresented my argument. As such, I feel the need to set the record straight. When you quoted from Contracting123's post, you left out the part that I took issue with. Here is the relevant portion of Contracting123's conversation with his lawyer: The legal dept.'s comment wouldn't make much sense unless they thought that reimbursing travel would make a contract a cost-reimbursement contract. That's how I interpreted it. That's how Carl interpreted it. That's how joel interpreted it. Now you like syllogisms, right? What would you say if a student presented this syllogism? Major Premise: A contract that provides for the reimbursement of travel costs is a cost-reimbursement contract. Minor Premise: The proposed contract will provide for the reimbursement of travel costs. Conclusion: Therefore, the proposed contract will be a cost-reimbursement contract. Hopefully, you would tell the student that his/her major premise was wrong. Perhaps you would provide a counterexample to demonstrate why the major premise was wrong. Well, that is what I did. You obviously misunderstood and jumped to the conclusion that I was arguing that Contracting123 could do what he/she wanted to do--reimburse travel costs under the specific GSA schedule in question. I purposely stayed out of that part of the discussion because I don't know the answer. You wrote: and then: Interesting. It looks like what you tried to prove is that I was wrong in something I did not say. I'm glad that you no longer want to argue about who said what about what--you're not very good at it. You're much better when you stick to the subject. As far as having C-R line items in FFP commercial contracts, I do not think that the current rules of FAR Part 12 allow for such a thing. I noticed these types of questions popping up shortly after the use of T&M contracts became permissible for acquiring commercial items. To allow for such an arrangement, the payment clause of FAR 52.212-4 would have to be tailored. However, FAR Part 12 prohibits the tailoring of the payment clause. I don't know how GSA deals with this.
  14. Vern, You continue to be careless in your responses, and your last post borders on rambling. You wrote: Regardless of what you'll believe, we are going on what Contracting123 told us. The response that he got from his/her lawyer strongly suggests that he/she believed that a contract that provides for reimbursement of travel costs would make that contract a cost reimbursement contract. That is, and continues to be, wrong. You're exactly right. However, absolutely nobody is debating that point. Maybe Don did not prove that you can use a fixed-price contract with a cost-reimbursement line item, because Don did not try to prove such a thing. Don pointed out an error in Contracting123's lawyer's reasoning and explained why it was wrong. Vern wants to make believe that the lawyer didn't say that and argue about something that Don didn't say. Don finds this tiring. Whatever. BTW, you misquoted me in your post. I never wrote "the lawyer was not wrong" in my post.
  15. Vern is mistaken--Don did say why in the fourth post of this thread. The lawyer said that Contracting123 couldn't reimburse travel costs under a commercial contract and justified his/her position by referencing FAR 16.301-3( b ), which states that cost-reimbursement contracts can't be used to acquire commercial items. The lawyer's response assumes that reimbursing travel costs would mean that the contract would necessarily be a cost-reimbursement contract. That is wrong. FAR 52.212-4, Alt. I, is applicable because it is a counterexample to the lawyer's belief that reimbursement of travel costs makes a contract a cost-reimbursement contract. The lawyer's position, that travel costs cannot be reimbursed under the specific GSA contract in question, may be justified. However, the lawyer hasn't provided a good justification. Vern owes Don an apology for making false accusations.
  16. Really? Commercial items must be fixed-price? What do you make of FAR 52.212-4, Alt. I?
  17. Whynot, So you are in agreement with the lawyer that you cannot reimburse travel costs under a commercial contract? If so, then you are wrong, too. Carl, The premise of the lawyer's argument is that you cannot reimburse travel costs under a commercial contract. Part 12 is relevant because it disproves that premise. The lawyer needs to come up with a better argument to support his (or her) position.
  18. Whynot, If Contracting123's lawyer is telling him (or her) that you can't have a cost-reimbursable CLIN on a commercial contract, then he (or she) is wrong.
  19. Contracting123, Your legal counselor is wrong. A reimbursable CLIN does not make a contract a cost-reimbursement contract nor does it make it noncommercial. The fact that FAR 52.212-4, Alt. I, provides for the reimbursement of other direct costs and indirect expenses proves this, as this clause is used in contracts that are not cost-reimbursement contracts and that are for commercial services.
  20. Ask your legal genius what they make of FAR 52.212-4, Alternate 1, a required contract clause in T&M contracts for commercial items. Paragraph (i)(ii)(D)(1) states: [bold added].
  21. It doesn't say the same thing. (a)(ii) is for supplies, (a)(iii) is for services.
  22. joel, You meant there is no apparent authority in government contracting, right?
  23. The rule clearly applies to DoD, NASA, and the Coast Guard only. Whether it makes sense to only apply to those agencies is irrelevant.
  24. Never heard of such a rule. It sounds like myth-information. The "average 1102" is a sucker for myth-information.
  25. Don't get discouraged. Remember the Code of Ethics for Government Employees:
×
×
  • Create New...