Jump to content
The Wifcon Forums and Blogs


  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

0 Neutral

About The1102

  • Rank
  1. I appreciate your view and your input, thanks for playing the role of the contractor (and his attorney) on this one. Retreadfed, thank you for your breakdown by contract clause. I found it helpful. I'm sorry if you felt I was asking too many questions. I try to poke and prod until I really understand something; that's just the way I learn. We are hear to learn, right? Good discussion overall, thank you all for participating.
  2. Don's right about completion. Also, I think you're confusing "best efforts" with "level-of-effort." They are two different concepts. I'm confused about your rationale here...you think that because the Government accepted something late, they are waiving their right to timely delivery? I don't agree. If 20 helmets arrive at the shipping department late, does the Government need to leave them outside of the warehouse to preserve their right to timely delivery? Can't they open the boxes and use them, and negotiate consideration on the side with the contractor? Of course, any Contracting Officer
  3. Thanks for chiming in. Picture the original deal, now compare that to your suggested outcome -- the Government would pay the same price but receive several deliverables late. How would that deal be fair to the Government? Sorry if I'm missing something here, but I just don't see it. I understand you're getting the demonstration under your proposed solution, but you were promised a demonstration upon contract award anyway. This doesn't seem like an added benefit to the Government when compared to the original deal. Thanks again for your thoughts -- this discussion has been helpful. But I still
  4. H2H, I appreciate your insight. But I'm trying to understand why you'd view this as a penalty. Did you read Vern's post about consideration for late delivery? Technically, the contractor is in default. But because termination is undesirable for both parties, the more reasonable option would be to renegotiate the deal. Under this new deal, the contractor gets to deliver something late, and the Government gets a reduced price (or another report, or any other form of consideration). This makes sense to me, doesn't seem aggressive or adversarial at all. The disagreement in the scenario is not over
  5. In this case, the "change in contract terms and conditions" is the change in delivery schedule, does that help? See Vern's discussion at: http://www.wifcon.com/discussion/index.php?/topic/581-termination-for-default-consideration/. I pulled some excerpts that might help explain the concept.....
  6. Thank you for your help and advice. Let's assume the Contracting Officer wants a reduction in fee, but he/she is open to other forms. The contractor was given the opportunity to propose the type/amount of consideration but absolutely refuses to provide consideration in any form. In this case, would you still support the "final decision" approach? Assume that the contractor wants to prove this technology at least as much as the Government wants to see it demonstrated. This technology shows a lot of potential and could generate a lot of future business for the firm. It's not in your interest a
  7. CPFF, completion type contract for R&D. Contract contains FAR 52.232-20. Effort includes a prototype as final deliverable, a demonstration of that prototype, and several data deliverables along the way (including reports). During performance, contractor was months late on delivering several important reports. The contractor does not dispute this fact, but argues that it gave its best effort overall under the contract. Oversight was not as thorough as it should have been, but the COR asked the contractor for the missing reports several times during performance. The contracting officer wa
  8. Thanks to all for the comments. I am aware that modifying a contract due to clause changes is not necessary. However, we often look at older contracts for similar services when drafting new contracts (vice reviewing the entire FAR and DFARS each time). It would be nice to use an old contract as a template (that I know is right), then look at a list to determine what has changed since. But...it looks like no such list exists. Thanks for your help anyway.
  9. I was imagining that it would cover all FAR and DFARS clauses, regardless of contract type or value. Picture an excel spreadsheet with three columns: date, clause, new or revised. Something to quickly answer the question, "What clauses have been added/changed since we awarded this contract?"
  10. Thanks for the suggestion. I was imaging some publically available, periodically updated, on-line list -- such a list (if one exists) would be more efficient than several of us routinely chiecking with our SPS administrator. I'd be surprised if one wasn't out there (somewhere). Thank you again for the suggestion, though; I will follow your advice if I strike out on the on-line list.
  11. Is there a list that summarizes all clause releases/updates by year or month? We all do our best to keep track in real-time, but a "cheat sheet" would be helpful. Thanks.
  12. Awesome, thanks for the thorough response. So if a regulation says, "you may use a knife for spreading rather than for cutting," I need to take this as a prohibition against using the knife for cutting, due to the principal of expressio unius est exclusio alterius. That guidance helps, thanks again. So knowing that I can't wiggle out of the "specific system" language...if I make sure my BAA solicitation topics do not call out a specific system, I make sure that my SOW (based off the contractor's technical proposal) does not call out a specific system, and funding is BA 1, 2, or 3 (or 4 with a
  13. Maybe I was confusing, sorry. Here's the sentence in FAR 35.016(a): "BAA?s may be used by agencies to fulfill their requirements for scientific study and experimentation directed toward advancing the state-of-the-art or increasing knowledge or understanding rather than focusing on a specific system or hardware solution." I don't think this sentence prohibits anything.
  14. Vern, Maybe you're right - I might be making this more complicated than it needs to be. The reason I'm digging into this is because I'd like to keep using our BAA (but with a little more confidence). You've made your position clear: if the development is for a specific system, I can't use a BAA. I was a little confused by FAR 35.016(a) earlier, but I found a FAR reference that better communicates this prohibition; I've come around. See FAR 6.102: "The competitive procedures available for use in fulfilling the requirement for full and open competition are as follows: ... (d) Other Competitive
  15. Thank you both. I take from your replies that you feel my original (not subsequent) interpretation of the rule was correct, that 35.016(a) prohibits a BAA from "focusing on a specific system or hardware solution." Is that correct? If so, the way the rule is written doesn't communicate that directly. Do you see what I mean by the "BAA's may be used...rather than..." part appearing informational in nature? "May" is permissive, right? I agree, and that is our policy here. However, we also have a process for when a customer intends to use budget activity 4. We require that they justify in a memo
  • Create New...