Jump to content
The Wifcon Forums and Blogs

Don Mansfield

  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by Don Mansfield

  1. Vern, If everyone who issues an RFQ on a SF 1449 is incorporating an unsuitable solicitation provision, then I would say that is interesting.
  2. Actually, Navy_Contracting_4 gets credit for the correction.
  3. I know, that's why I'd be surprised to find an RFQ issued on a SF 1449 that did not incorporate FAR 52.212-1.
  4. Can anybody find an RFQ for a commercial item issued on a SF 1449 that does not incorporate FAR 52.212-1 (either by reference or in full text)?
  5. I'm not sure what they're asking for, but the DAU catalog contains the following: http://icatalog.dau.mil/onlinecatalog/AllPredecessor.aspx Note that there is no predecessor course for CON 218.
  6. Vern, Wouldn't jtolli's contract be a FFP level of effort term contract? She's indicated that once the contractor has delivered 1,920 hours of support, they have met their commitment.
  7. jtolli, You said that the contract doesn't include any payment clauses, but then you said that it does include FAR 52.212-4. Did you look at the title of paragraph (i) of 52.212-4? According to the contract, after the contractor has worked 1,920 hours are they still required to do something (e.g., complete a project) or have they fulfilled their commitment?
  8. Hi, NavyKGuy, Thanks for commenting. Your argument fails to address two key questions: If the FAR required price analysis always, then 1) why would it qualify the price analysis requirement at FAR 15.404-1(a)(2) with "when cost or pricing data are not required" and 2) why the use of "should" at FAR 15.404-1(a)(3)? In order to perform a price analysis, you need some basis of comparison. However, there can be situations where such information is not available because the supply or service being purchased is so unique. In such situations, the contracting officer would have to rely on cost analysis alone to determine a fair and reasonable price. My point is simply that, despite what many people think, the FAR does not require price analysis for all acquisitions. If this blog entry caused some people to open up the FAR and rethink what they had been told or taught about the FAR, then perhaps they will be less likely to take what they are told or taught at face value. In general, I don't think that we (members of the Federal contracting community) do a good job at scrutinizing information--we tend to believe what we hear if it sounds reasonable or if it is spoken or written by someone of "experience." This is why our field is so rich with misinformation. While this is fun to write about, it's also somewhat disheartening. I'd prefer having less material.
  9. "ADP Software" is classified under Federal Supply Class 7030. However, if you're classifying for your own internal purposes, classify however you want.
  10. License fees for what? For what purpose are you trying to classify them?
  11. K-Law Atty, I don't understand the point you are trying to make. You don't think that FAR 52.212-1 should be incorporated in RFQs for commercial items?
  12. leo1102, Yes. That's why I added the warning at the top of the blog entry. I wouldn't use the table for now.
  13. brian, What do you mean by "the overpayment inherent in any noncompetitive situation"?
  14. joel, When using the DD Form 1547 to develop a prenegotiation profit objective, FCCOM is not included in the total cost objective (Block 20)--as required by FAR 15.404-4( c )(3).
  15. wiscco, The question was whether the prime is required to analyze the subcontractor's price. The rule that you are quoting deals with whether a Government ordering activity has to analyze a GSA schedule price. Two different things.
  16. No. See FAR 15.403-4(a)(1)(ii). No. Read it again. It does not require the prime contractor to perform cost analysis on all subcontracts.
  17. I think that Vern is correct. The rule in ( c )(3) applies to the development of a prenegotiation profit/fee objective, while the rule in ( c )(4) applies to the amount of fee the contracting officer can negotiate. Developing a prenegotiation profit/fee objective is not the same as negotiating profit/fee. Consider the following example. A contracting officer is developing a prenegotiation profit objective using the numbers above. The CO excludes FCCOM from the cost objectives when applying profit factors as required by ( c )(3) and comes up with prenegotiation profit objective of $150,000. During negotiations, the Government and the contractor agree to the estimated costs as proposed. However, the contractor offers some concession (let's say Government-purpose rights to some of its proprietary data) if the CO is willing to pay $151,500 in fixed fee. Can the CO make the deal? To answer this, we have to apply the rule which limits what the CO can negotiate. That rule states: The applicable rule says "estimated cost", it does not say "estimated cost excluding facilities capital cost of money." 15% of estimated costs ($1,010,000) would be $151,500. Thank you all for playing.
  18. Another interesting thing about the OMB memo is that it assumes that agencies have been following, and will now continue to follow, SBA's regulations regarding parity between the HUBZone and SDVOSB programs: There is no acknowledgement that the FAR gives priority to HUBZone set-asides over SDVOSB set-asides and sole source actions. This raises the question: If a contracting officer intended to ignore the HUBZone priority in the FAR, wouldn't they be required to obtain approval of a FAR deviation?
  19. You are a Government contracting officer and you are negotiating a cost-plus-fixed-fee contract for research work and have come to an agreement with the contractor on the following elements of his cost proposal: Estimated Cost (excluding FCCOM): $1,000,000 Facilities Capital Cost of Money (FCCOM): $ 10,000 What is the statutory maximum fee (in dollars) that you can agree to under this contract? A. $150,000 B. $151,500 Here is a relevant excerpt from FAR 15.404-4( c ) that may help you answer the question:
  20. Try requesting it through the agency's FOIA office.
  21. VA Junior CO, The terms "Fixed-price", "cost-reimbursement", "time-and-materials", etc. are used to describe a contract's pricing arrangement. The terms "definite quantity", "requirements" and "indefinite quantity" are used to describe a contract's delivery arrangement. A contract's delivery arrangement and its pricing arrangement are two different, unrelated, aspects of the contract. Let's say you have a baseball. The baseball is white. The baseball is round. Both are true statements about the baseball, but they describe different aspects of the baseball--one statement describes its color, the other its shape. So, you could have a contract with a fixed-price pricing arrangement and an indefinite delivery arrangement (i.e., Definite quantity, requirements, IDIQ) and you could have another contract with a fixed-price pricing arrangement and a definite delivery arrangement. This would be like having one round ball that was white and another round ball that was black.
  22. NptAcq, Why do you say that the estimates were faulty? Did the estimator fail to consider reasonably available information when making the estimates? Did they miscalculate something? Or is it more accurate to say that the costs turned out to be higher than what the Government reasonably expected them to be when they made the estimate?
  23. Vern, Part of the reconsideration states the following: Are you saying that GAO should defer to an implementing agency's interpretation of a statute even if that interpretation is unreasonable?
  • Create New...