Don Mansfield

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?

Navy, I agree that use of "contract" eliminates BPAs from the definition of "acquisition." However, would you say that the award of a requirements contract is not an "acquisition" because it does not involve the obligation of appropriated funds (assume no guaranteed minimum)?

The confusion goes all the way to the Pentagon! The answer is a classic case of misunderstanding the different words and terms used to describe contracts. The terms "firm-fixed-price", "cost-plus-fixed-fee", etc., describe a contract's cost or pricing arrangement. The term "level-of-effort" and the words "term" and "completion" do not describe a contract's cost or pricing arrangement (one attribute of a contract)--they indicate the method used to describe the work in the contract (a different attribute of a contract). Knowing whether a contract is "completion" or "level-of-effort" tells you nothing about its cost or pricing arrangement and vice-versa. FAR 12.207 limits the types of pricing arrangements that may be used when acquiring commercial items. It does not limit the method used to describe the work required by the contract. Let's say there was a rule that said the only types of vehicles permitted on the highway were: 1) cars; 2) trucks; and 3) motorcylces. This rule describes vehicles in terms of their physical configuration. Question: Am I allowed to drive a red truck on the highway? If we follow the logic of the DAR Council lawyer and the OSD Contracting Policy Office expert, the answer would be "no" because "red truck" is not specifically listed. Do you think that's correct? Read this before you answer: http://www.wifcon.com/discussion/index.php?/blog/6/entry-1897-describing-contract-type-watch-what-you-say/

RonVA, Which type of BPA do you have? Stand-alone or under a FSS contract?

I have recently noticed an interesting phenomena regarding how the term "statement of work" is being used and understood in practice. If what many of my students are being taught in their contracting offices is any indication, "statement of work" (SOW) has come to mean a work statement that is not performance-based--the opposite, if you will, of a "performance work statement." Why is this happening? The definition of "performance work statement" (PWS) at FAR 2.101 could not be more clear: A PWS is an SOW--an SOW for performance-based acquisitions. In researching the origin of this phenomena, I came across the "A COR's Guide to Statements of Work, Performance Work Statements, and Statements of Objectives". Citing nothing, the author asserts the following regarding SOWs: The guide goes on to explain the difference between the SOW and the PWS: Sigh. Believe it or not people were charged for this misinformation--the fine print of the guide says that it is part of a subscription service. Ironically, the article refers the reader to the "Seven Steps" library, which also contains the DoD Handbook for the Preparation of Statement of Work (SOW) (MIL-HDBK-245D). Paragraph 3.1 of the Handbook contains the following description of the purpose of the SOW: Emphasis added. The truth is that some SOWs are performance-based, some are not. We refer to those that are as PWSs.

Let's think this through. 1. If you executed a modification for overrun funding, certified cost or pricing data would not be required. Correct? 2. If you executed a separate modification to extend the PoP pursuant due to late delivery of GFP, certified cost or pricing data would not be required. Correct? Assuming the contractor is not requesting an increase in estimated cost and fee due to the late delivered GFP, why would certified cost or pricing data be required if, for administrative convenience, you made both changes in one modification?

Did your solicitation contain FAR 52.215-1? If it did, paragraph (f)(3) notifies offerors of the Government's intent to waive informalities and minor irregularities in proposals. Verify the mistake, then, if it is an informality or minor irregularity, waive it.

Your contract should contain FAR 52.232-22, Limitation of Funds. Paragraph (l) of the clause states: Regardless of what was funded, what percentage of the work contemplated by the contract did you complete?

Does it have to be one or the other? What about spending a few days a week in the contracting office and a few days a week in the program office?

See http://www.adamsdrafting.com/including-without-limitation/.

diverdave, You said that the task orders would be T&M/LH. Did you read FAR 12.207 ( b )?

The inspectors are wrong. In Griffin Services, Inc., ASBCA 52280, 02-2 BCA P 31943, the Board ruled that a contracting officer's discretion to exercise an option under FAR 52.217-8 is not limited to the circumstances described at FAR 37.111. Here's an excerpt:

Do you think the inspectors are correct?

What do you expect the Government to do?

Steward, I think the fact that you are talking about task orders under an IDIQ matters greatly. Pursuant to the contract, is the contractor required to prepare proposals for task orders?

Infoseeker, I think your comment about Shay Assad is out of line. There are rules to posting in this forum. They are posted under "Terms of Use." One of the rules is: You agreed to the terms of use when you registered. I think that you need to delete that comment from your post. ----------------------------------------- I deleted the offending language. Bob Antonio, Owner Wifcon.com LLC

Yes, it's redundant.

That's one way to do it. Alternatively, the SSP can define the types of deviations that are permissible.

dcarver, Your beliefs about the force of source selection plans are outdated. See http://www.wifcon.com/cofc/09-602c.pdf.

H2H, We can say that it's in the penumbra of DFARS 252.244-7000. Or do you think that the clause needs to specifically needs to say "no splitting subcontracts to avoid thresholds"?

It would only be defective pricing if you didn't disclose the $50/hour rate.

H2H, I don't know what a functional specialist might allege. While they may not be able to cite a specific rule that has been violated, I think that a practice is not in the Government's interests and should factor in to the Government's assessment of the prime's purchasing system.

Is there any rule that prohibits a prime contractor from splitting subcontracts to avoid the application of CAS to those subcontracts? Consider the following scenario: In order to avoid the application of CAS to a subcontract, a prime contractor awards two $5 million subcontracts to the same subcontractor instead of one $10 million subcontract. The subcontractor has no CAS-covered contracts in its preceding or following accounting period. What rule did the prime violate?

DAMB, That's not what the DoL guide says. The part about issuing a WD only if the place of performance is known applies to shipbuilding, not ship repair. For other than naval vessels, shipbuilding, alteration, and repair are covered by DBA. Ship maintenance is covered by SCA. As far as what clauses to use, I don't know what civilian agency practice is. DoD must not have thought the clauses in the FAR were adequate for ship repair, which is why we have the clauses prescribed at DFARS 217.7104. I don't have a problem with NAVSEA taking the position that they will treat their ship repair contracts as supply contracts as a matter of policy. What I have a problem with is the argument that ship repair, by its nature, is a supply rather than a service. The attorneys at NAVSEA used to insult my intelligence with such arguments as "Ship repair is a supply because the contractor is delivering a repaired ship to the Government." (Following that logic, the repair of anything would be a supply). As the GAO stated, it's illogical.

Acquisition is acquiring by "contract", which is defined at FAR 2.101 as follows: