Jump to content

Don Mansfield

Members
  • Posts

    3,369
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by Don Mansfield

  1. http://www.wifcon.com/discussion/index.php?/topic/2059-interpretation-of-definition-consolidation-of-contract-requirements/
  2. Vern, See FAR 19.502-2( c ): [bold added]. Given the "offering the products of different concerns", I don't know what authority one would use for a small business set-aside for a brand name item.
  3. Vern, If the acquisition is subject to CICA, then use of a brand name spec would be considered other than full and open competition pursuant to FAR 6.302-1( c )(1)(i) regardless of the number of sources solicited. For acquisitions not subject to CICA, I don't know how to justify Linda's statement.
  4. Vern, If Dingoes contract is for A-E services, why should he worry about FAR 17.207(f)? Don't tell me you didn't read the "Scope" section at FAR 17.200
  5. In my opinion, this clause creates a significant cost and/or administrative impact on contractors. If you have been using it repetitively, it should have been published for comment in the Federal Register in accordance with FAR 1.301( b ). What agency do you work for (if you don't mind saying)? Your agency supplement probably has some policy on clause control.
  6. Me neither. FYI, the Navy Contract Writing Guide contains the following instructions: Block 13.C. This block is used for: (1) New procurement. Cite the appropriate U.S. Code and "mutual agreement" as the authority. (2) Changes to the contract under the authority of a contract requirement which also include changes which require bilateral agreement, e.g., a change order in which price and delivery schedule changes have been negotiated. Cite the requirement and "mutual agreement" as the authority. If I recall correctly, Government Contract Changes, by Nash and Feldman says to cite the Changes clause in block 13C if the change and equitable adjustment are included in the same modification or if the modification is an equitable adjustment resulting from an earlier change order. It's sad to think that one day the FAR Council will clarify all of this for us.
  7. I agree that SF 30, block 13, is unclear by its use of "authority"--and I have wasted a lot of time thinking about it. In my opinion, I think that if the CO is unilaterally modifying the contract, they should cite the contract clause that gives them that right in block 13A or 13D, as applicable (e.g., Changes, Government Property, Options, Suspension of Work, etc.). As far as Block 13C, the only sense I can make of citing an authority is if the modification is for an equitable adjustment resulting from a prior unilateral modification. In that case, I would cite the clause providing for the equitable adjustment to communicate that the modification is an adjustment under the existing contract terms and conditions and, as such, no new consideration is required. Who knows if I'm right. It's amusing how many folks are convinced that they know what the "right" entry is for block 13C. I often ask my students what they are told to put in Block 13C and the answers are all over the map. It's the kind of thing where everyone is convinced they know the right answer, but the answers are different.
  8. Carl, I think we need more information about your hypothetical evaluation factors to give you a good answer. I don't believe that comments made on social media are off-limits, per se. BTW, I think I know what prompted your question. That woman on the LinkedIn forum is single-handledly lowering the standards of our profession.
  9. Vern, The letters to OFPP and FAI are a good idea, but DAU doesn't teach CON 217 anymore. KeithB18, When it comes to formal contract training, my advice is to lower your expectations. If you are interested in learning, participate in this discussion forum. Ask questions, observe how others answer those questions, and answer the questions that you think you can handle. After a while, you'll develop good habits--like locating relevant source material, interpreting the material, drawing reasonable conclusions, and supporting your statements with references to relevant source material.
  10. No, a commitment is an administrative reservation of funds--it is not an obligation. See 080202 of the DoD FMR (Volume 3, Chapter 8) for a discussion of committing funds.
  11. I agree with Vern--it's not an obligation. I don't know about the rules at your civilian agency, but the DoD FMR would require a commitment of funds.
  12. Then you may already have an Anti-Deficiency Act violation. Time to consult with your legal counsel.
  13. Is there any limit to the Government's liability (in the contract) if there's a denial of service attack and we use the extra bandwith?
  14. If it's a GAO protest, then change #3 to: "Did you receive notice of the protest from GAO within 10 days of award? If so, you must suspend performance (or override the automatic stay of performance). If not, then you need not suspend performance." Your interpretation of "day" is correct. Based on the facts you provided, the protest is untimely.
  15. Since the debriefing request was not timely, it was not required and is irrelevant in determining whether a protest is timely or suspension is required. Assuming this is an agency protest, ask yourself these questions-- 1. Is the protest based on (i) an alleged impropriety in the solicitation or (ii) something else? If (i) and the protest is received after the deadline for submission of offers, the protest is untimely and can be dismissed. If (ii), proceed to #2. 2. Was the protest received 10 days from when the basis of the protest is known or should have been known? If not, the protest is not timely and can be dismissed. If yes, proceed to #3. 3. Was the protest received within 10 days of award? If so, you must suspend performance (or override the automatic stay of performance). If not, then you need not suspend performance.
  16. jpaynehydroid, Is this a follow-up question to the one in the other thread? If so, the Government has the right to issue change orders if your contract contains a Changes clause. You have the right to request an equitable adjustment if the change order increases the cost of or time required for performance. When negotiating a price adjustment, the Government is not bound to whatever profit rate you proposed for the item originally. It seems you don't like this answer, but it's going to be the same no matter how many different ways you ask it.
  17. Let me see if I understand. The Government wants to change line items in your contract that are priced on a FFP-basis and that change will increase the cost of performance. When it comes to negotiating the profit on the change, the Government wants to negotiate a profit rate that is different than the profit rate that was originally used to price the item. Is that what's happening?
  18. I'm not sure I understand. If the change that the Government wants would increase the cost of performance, why wouldn't you want to negotiate a change in the amount of fixed fee?
  19. brian, You must be looking at an old FAR. There is no FAR 5.207( c )(15)(ii). Not on the FARSite, Not on the Acquisition Central site.
  20. I think that the modification can be unilateral, based on the wording of FAR 52.232-22( b ): "The parties contemplate that the Government will allot additional funds incrementally to the contract up to the full estimated cost to the Government specified in the Schedule, exclusive of any fee. The Contractor agrees to perform, or have performed, work on the contract up to the point at which the total amount paid and payable by the Government under the contract approximates but does not exceed the total amount actually allotted by the Government to the contract." Think of it this way, what if the contractor refused to sign the bilateral modification allotting the additional funds? I think that the Government could still compel performance by unilaterally allotting the funds. As far as what is "proper", I don't think it's a big deal.
  21. brian, When an agency decides to pursue a sole source acquisition, they still must give others a chance to compete. See FAR 5.207( c )(16)(ii). Not sure if you meant it, but your post is one of the better examples of free verse that I've seen in this forum. Someone with some musical talent could make a decent folk song from your post.
  22. The FAR doesn't contain any clauses or provisions implementing trade agreements for services--only supplies and construction.
×
×
  • Create New...