Jump to content
The Wifcon Forums and Blogs - 25 Years Online

Don Mansfield

Members
 View Profile  See their activity

  • Posts

    3,376

  • Joined

  • Last visited

 Content Type 

Everything posted by Don Mansfield

  1. Don Mansfield
    If this is only matter of form and not of substance, which it sounds like, it may be waived pursuant to FAR 52.215-1(f)(3). I'm assuming that provision was in your solicitation.
  2. Don Mansfield
    See also FAR 13.106-1( e ): (e) Use of options. Options may be included in solicitations, provided the requirements of subpart 17.2 are met and the aggregate value of the acquisition and all options does not exceed the dollar threshold for use of simplified acquisition procedures.
  3. Don Mansfield
    Vern, Good points. I don't see the benefit in having the Government set the price, either. If the legislation expressly permitted the evaluation of price on a go/no-go basis and then award to the best offer considering nonprice factors, then I think the same result could be accomplished.
  4. Don Mansfield
    Retreadfed, I honestly don't know enough about IT acquisition to have an opinion. Vern, What would be wrong with evaluating price on a go/no-go basis and awarding to the best offer from a technical standpoint (i.e., the opposite of LPTA)? Why shouldn't an agency be allowed to define best value in this way?
  5. Don Mansfield
    Someone already started a thread about this: http://www.wifcon.com/discussion/index.php?/topic/2063-federal-information-technology-acquisition-reform-act/
  6. Don Mansfield
    FAR 5.202(a)(11) states the following exception to synopsis: FAR 5.001 defines "contract action" as follows: Question: Given the definition of "contract action", how is it possible to make a "contract action" under the terms of an existing contract as described in FAR 5.202(a)(11)?
  7. Don Mansfield
    rios0311, Other than what you've already found, I know of no special requirements in the FAR regarding displacement of workers under service contracts.
  8. Don Mansfield
    pmh, It wasn't my problem to resolve. Most contractors accepted the new clause with some fuss. I only know of one that did not sign the modification. What caught my attention was how this contracting office, like many, was imposing a significant administrative burden on contractors without any consideration for the rulemaking process. There are a lot of local clauses out there that are used without regard for the requirements of the OFPP Act and the Paperwork Reduction Act.
  9. Don Mansfield
    So you have an experienced incumbent that is performing well. Great. What are your evaluation factors?
  10. Don Mansfield
    help, I assume that the word "contract" is being used in a regulation or something (i.e., whatever is telling you how to treat IR&D costs) and you're trying to interpret its meaning. Where, specifically, is the word being used? Are you trying to interpret its use at FAR 31.205-18?
  11. Don Mansfield
    Contractual transaction, yes. "Contract" as defined at FAR 2.101, probably not. Where is the word "contract" being used?
  12. Don Mansfield
    jdm843, Have you read FAR 19.805-1(d)? The decision to proceed with a competitive 8(a) under the competitive threshold is not yours. All you can do is request approval.
  13. Don Mansfield
    I don't read DFARS 201.104 as expanding coverage of the FAR/DFARS to contracts that do not involve the obligation of funds. I read it as expanding coverage of the FAR/DFARS to contracts using funds used for FMS or NATO cooperative projects that were not appropriated by Congress. If the "such procurements" that you are referring to do not involve the obligation of appropriated funds, or funds used to support FMS or NATO cooperative projects, then those procurements would not be subject to the FAR/DFARS.
  14. Don Mansfield
    wvanpup, I didn't say that CICA wouldn't apply to the placement of the contract or that the GAO would not have jurisdiction to hear a protest relating to the contract. I just said that the FAR would not apply to the contract described by TippHill because it would not meet the definition of "acquisition" at FAR 2.101: [bold added]. Per FAR 1.104, the FAR applies to "acquisitions" as defined at FAR 2.101, except where expressly excluded.
  15. Don Mansfield
    TippHill, My only comment is that I don't think the contract you are contemplating would be an "acquisition" as defined in FAR 2.101, because you would not be using appropriated funds. This doesn't mean it can't be done--just that the FAR wouldn't apply to such a contract. Also, the contracting officer may not have the authority to enter into a contract not covered by the FAR.
  16. Don Mansfield
    rios0311, Take a look at the open FAR cases report. There are dozens of open cases that, when final, will implement existing acquisition-related statutes. To answer your question, I do not think you are required to comply with a proposed SBA rule or a nonexistent FAR rule. The statute places a requirement on agency heads. The requirement will most likely be placed on contracting officers by an amendment to the FAR or, if time is of the essence, by the issuance of a FAR deviation by the agency head.
  17. Don Mansfield
    jonmjohnson, What is being proposed is essentially the opposite of LPTA. The GAO has consistently held that this technique is not compliant with CICA because, in their view, price must be a "significant" factor in source selection. See, for example, Electronic Design, Inc., B-279662.2. The problem is that CICA doesn't say that price must be a "significant" factor in source selection, which calls into question their interpretation. For a good analysis of this issue, see Postscript: Design-Build Contracting in the April 2006 issue of the Nash & Cibinic Report, in which the author criticized the Electronic Design decision as follows: From a policy standpoint, I see no problem with permitting an agency to define best value as best technical within a predetermined budget when purchasing IT. I wouldn't have a problem expanding such a policy to all acquisitions, either.
  18. Don Mansfield
    rios0311, Vern was right. I couldn't resist looking it up. I found the following in the proposed SBA rule implementing 15 U.S.C. 657q: [bold added for emphasis]. [77 FR 29129, 16 May 2012] Having said that, this is a proposed SBA rule. A FAR case hasn't even been opened yet to implement the statute. There are a lot of statutes imposing new requirements on the acquisition process that have yet to be implemented in the regulations. Are you making sure that you are complying with those, too? (Some would require you to deviate from the FAR). If not, why the special concern for 15 U.S.C. 657q?
  19. Don Mansfield
    Navy, Believe it or not, I just read that in the FAR and came back here to edit my post. Thank you for returning the favor of correcting my mistake.
  20. Don Mansfield
    No. 1. When certified cost or pricing data are required and the proposal is for a cost-reimbursement contract, a cost analysis as described in Vern's post #4 would be required. 2. When certified cost or pricing data are not required and the proposal is for a cost-reimbursement contract, cost realism analysis would be required. 3. Don't say "cost contracts" when you mean "cost-reimbursement contracts." A cost contract is a specific type of cost-reimbursement contract.
  21. Don Mansfield
    dcarver, Why would statler need to seek a waiver of the nonmanufacturer rule if he was providing the product of a small business concern? By providing the product of a small business concern, wouldn't he already be in compliance with the nonmanufacturer rule?
  22. Don Mansfield
    That's not true. A cost-realism analysis is required on all cost-reimbursement proposals. There was a proposed rule that stated the following at FAR 15.404-1(d)(2): [see 62 FR 26640-01, May 14, 1997] However, the word "competitive" was removed in the final rule.
  23. Don Mansfield
    diverdave, I think that you would be in violation of the Bona Fide Needs rule if you did what you described. You would effectively be using prior year funds to satisfy a need of FY14. You may find the following thread more informative: http://www.wifcon.com/discussion/index.php?/topic/1224-idq-minimum-guarantee/
  24. Don Mansfield
    http://www.wifcon.com/discussion/index.php?/blog/6/entry-1897-describing-contract-type-watch-what-you-say/
  25. Don Mansfield
    It sounds like you are looking for a way to obligate funds right away and order services later. Let me ask you this--can you commit to ordering a minimum amount of unscheduled repair upon contract award? If so, then awarding a contract with a guaranteed minimum would allow you to obligate funds upon award (to cover the guaranteed minimum) and allow you to order unscheduled maintenance up to the guaranteed minimum as it occurs (I think you would have to order the services by the end of the fiscal year to comply with the Bona Fide Needs rule, however). Requirements contracts do not typically guarantee a minimum, but I don't know why they couldn't.
×
×
  • Create New...