Jump to content
The Wifcon Forums and Blogs

govt2310

Members
  • Content Count

    321
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

0 Neutral

About govt2310

  • Rank
    Member

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Not Telling

Recent Profile Visitors

9,442 profile views
  1. I found this fascinating thread on whether FAR 52.222-46 applies to FAR 16.505 task order solicitations: So now I am asking, does FAR 52.222-46 apply to FAR Part 12 Commercial Items/Services Solicitations? FAR 12.301(d) and (e), FAR 12.302, and FAR 12.503 lead me to think that FAR 52.222-46 is not required to be included in a commercial type solicitation, but if the CO chooses to include it, the CO can do that. Note, however, the FAR Matrix at FAR 52.301 indicates that FAR 52.222-46 was not intended to be used with Commercial Item ("CI") type of solicitations. So the proviso at FAR 22.1103 saying that the CO must include this clause where the value is > $700,000 and a "meaningful" number of professional employees are involved and it is for a "negotiated contract" doesn't apply to a FAR Part 12 commercial type of solicitation? Note, I have seen GAO decisions involving solicitations that were FAR Part 12 and FAR Part 15, and a dispute over FAR 52.222-46 was at issue, and no one in these GAO decisions tried to say that since the solicitation was FAR Part 12 commercial, then FAR 52.222-46 didn't apply. Hmm.
  2. FAR 15.206(d) says, if an offeror submits a novel approach that is a departure from the Solicitation Requirements, then the Agency must amend the solicitation and allow all offerors to offer that novel approach as well. I have it stuck in my head that the offeror is supposed to submit "separate proposals," one the complies the Solicitation Requirements, and one that has the "Novel Approach." So if the Agency finds the offeror's novel approach proposal technically unacceptable, then the offeror's other proposal is still in the running. But I cannot find anything in the FAR that says this. Where does it say that the offeror must submit "separate proposals" in this kind of situation?
  3. As the OP, I want to say thank you to Jacques, C Culham, and formerfed for their informative posts. All of this is helpful to me. I personally agree with C Culham that it is helpful to look at legislative history.
  4. C Culham: We are talking about a contract for servoces, not a contract for "personal services." Jacques: This DoDI 1100.22 is helpful. Thanks!
  5. FAR 7.503 prohibits an agency from having a contractor "draft" the response to IG audits. So the contractor cannot even "draft" the response where a federal employee reviews the contractor's deliverable and makes the final decisions on the finalization of the response to the IG audit. Does anyone have a different interpretation of FAR 7.503?
  6. Here the answers to the questions posed by ji20874. Is the original contractor still a legal entity? YES Is the original contractor still performing the work? Or is a putative successor-in-interest performing the work? Or has work stopped? THE ORIGINAL CONTRACTOR IS STILL PERFORMING THE WORK Supplies or services? Is the work being performed at a Government location? IT IS SERVICES AND WORK IS PERFORMED OFFSITE Are you still making payments to the original contractor? Or to the putative successor-in-interest? STILL MAKING PAYMENTS TO THE ORIGINAL CONTRACTOR The phrase "going bankrupt" has no meaning. Has the original contractor filed actually for bankruptcy? Have you received a bona fide notice of bankruptcy filing? Has any judgment been made? NO NOTICE FROM THE KTR ON THE BANKRUPTCY, SO IT IS UNCLEAR TO THE CO WHETHER THE ORIGINAL CONTRACTOR HAS FILED FOR BANKRUPTCY OR NOT Were any progress payments or other contract financing payments made to the original contractor? NO Have you spoken with a competent attorney? YES
×
×
  • Create New...