Jump to content
The Wifcon Forums and Blogs


  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

0 Neutral

About govt2310

  • Rank

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Not Telling

Recent Profile Visitors

9,162 profile views
  1. Thanks everyone! This was very helpful. 😀
  2. To FAR-flung 1102: Thanks. The DoD FMR does not address "subscription-as-a-service" or "SaaS" for like access to software online. It only addresses subscriptions to periodicals/publications.
  3. To Don Mansfield: Yes, you are right, the word the statute uses is "publications," not "periodicals." And your point about interpreting "publication" to mean the technological advancement of computer software is interesting. But I would feel better if this interpretation was supported by a GAO decision or a statute or federal regulation. Here's another idea: what about considering a "subscription" to a software (a SaaS deal) to be a "product" instead of a "service"? I realize, the phrase SaaS includes the word "service" (Subscription-as-a-Service). But if the vendor provides the customer with an account/passcode to access the website for the subscription, then once the vendor has done that, then the vendor has "delivered" the "product," so the customer (the agency) must pay the vendor. This would be "paying in arrears" instead of "advance payment," so it is not that this "subscription" is an exception to the general rule of paying in "arrears," but rather, it is paying "in arrears." What do you think? To ji20874: There is no license. I realize what you are talking about. I am aware of the GSA rules allowing for annual software maintenance services with software licenses to be considered either a "product" (pay upon delivery at the beginning of the license period) or a "service" (pay at the end of the year). But with a subscription for SaaS, there is no computer software license.
  4. Example: Say an agency has a contract for a subscription to use a software (Software as a Service or SaaS). The contractor submits the invoice for 100% advance payment up front. Can the government pay this invoice up front? If yes, where does it say that the agency can do that? I'm aware of 31 USC 3324(d) which provides an exception for "periodicals," but that is not the type of "subscription" I am talking about.
  5. FAR 15.804-3 was deleted from the FAR a long time ago. It no longer exists. I need to find it to see what it said as of 1989. I think it was added in Federal Acquisition Circular (FAC) 84-35. I looked at the list of FACs on Wifcon, and the list only goes back as far as 1997, when the 1997 "FAR Rewrite" happened. Is there any other archive I can check?
  6. To joel hoffman: Thanks! FAR 15.204-1(b) is exactly what I was looking for.
  7. I am under the belief that Sections L and M in the solicitation "drop out" at contract award. So they are not in the final contract document after award takes place. I can't find an authority that requires this, though. Where does it say this must be done? Is it in the FAR?
  8. Thanks everyone! This was all very helpful.
  9. I remember seeing somewhere, maybe in a GAO decision now lost, that the FAR requires an offeror to notify the agency of the unavailability of a proposed key personnel, even after submission of proposals. But I can't find this in the FAR (I was mainly looking through FAR Part 15 and FAR 52.215-___). Can anyone tell me where it says this in the FAR?
  10. Ah yes, thank you all. The United Marine Int'l LLC GAO decision was what I was thinking of. The Meir Dubinsky COFC decision is also interesting. Thanks again!
  11. I remember a GAO decision that came out years ago where the agency (I think it was the Army or the Air Force) issued a solicitation under FAR Part 12, but did not specify whether it was in conjunction with FAR 13, 14, or 15. A vendor protested (I believe it was a post-award protest, but I may be wrong) that it was reasonable to assume that it was in conjunction with FAR Part 15. The agency treated it as in conjunction with FAR Part 13. The agency made missteps in the solicitation that made it unclear whether the solicitation went with FAR Par t3/14/15. GAO sustained the protest, finding that, if the solicitation fails to specify whether the FAR Part 12 acquisition is in conjunction with FAR Part 13, 14, or 15, then it is reasonable for the potential offerors to assume that it is in conjunction with FAR Part 15. Does anyone remember this GAO decision and what the B number was?
  12. GAO stated in footnote 6 of its decision on Kellogg Brown & Root Services, Inc., B-400614.3, Feb. 10, 2009, that since the agency (the Army) in that case indicated in the FAR 16.505 task order solicitation that it would follow FAR Part 15 for a particular part of the contract formation process, and the agency relied upon decisions interpreting FAR Part 15 in defending its protest, that GAO then looked to FAR Part 15 and the cases interpreting FAR Part 15 in analyzing the issues in KBR’s protest. The KBR protest concerned the protocol for clarifications. It didn’t concern pre-award notice of exclusion from the competitive range. Hmm.
  13. Answer: The base contract ordering procedures say nothing about competitive range, discussions, etc.
  14. Does an agency have a duty to notify an offeror that it is excluded from the competitive range if this is a FAR 16.505 task order competition? There appear to be no instructions in FAR 16.505 itself for notification requirements for exclusion from the competitive range. FAR 16.505(b)(6) addresses the CO's duties concerning post-award notifications and debriefings, and it even says that the agency must follow FAR Part 15 on this, but I don't see any requirements or guidance on pre-award notices and debriefings.