Jump to content
The Wifcon Forums and Blogs

NavyKGuy

Members
  • Content Count

    14
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

0 Neutral

About NavyKGuy

  • Rank
    New

Recent Profile Visitors

3,914 profile views
  1. My agency has received a protest regarding a contract awardee's ability to comply with the contract's SCA provisions at the awarded price. The protester argues that the awarded price is too low for the "Admin Assistant" wage determination labor category that they believe applies. The awardee has confirmed that they used the "General Clerk" wage determination labor category when they priced and they can be reasonably expected to perform at that price. Needless to say, the labor categories are substantially different in terms of their rates and both categories fall within the range identified a
  2. A contracting officer and lawyer have both told me that I must remove/redact all of a contractor's identifying information (e.g. Company name/Address/Letterhead/contact info) from their technical proposal prior to the technical evaluation panel's review. The fear is that not redacting the identifying information could be used against us in a GAO protest in as much as it could be argued that knowing who the offerors are somehow made the evaluation biased. This sounds crazy to me and a lot of additional work/hassle (some companies have their logo on every single page) that could also easily lea
  3. A contractor is requesting contracting officer approval to cap his cost rates on a cost plus fixed fee contract he has with the Navy. If his actual cost rates are in excess of pre-established ceilings, the Gov't only pays the ceiling rates. If his costs are less than the ceilings, the Gov't pays the actuals. Sounds like a great deal for the Gov't. Questions: 1. Can the Gov't agree to this? 2. If we agree, is there a FAR provision which permits this? 3. Do we need to address the cap in relation to the CPFF clauses in the contract by changing "contractor will be paid allowable and allocabl
  4. J_C_S, the contractor is look for the adjustment of indirects associated with the labor rates (the "time" aspect of T&M), or the materials which they are using? 52.232-7 also addresses material costs.
  5. The U.S. Navy has awarded a firm fixed price indefinite delivery indefinite quantity contract (base plus options) for architecture/engineering (A/E) services associated with the revision of technical manuals dealing with environmental issues. Task orders have been issued specifying performance over multiple years using annual operations & maintenance, Navy (O&M,N) funds. The KO considers the services to be non-severable and the obligation of funds in this fashion acceptable because it is for A/E services. I have the following questions: 1. Can non-severable task orders using annual
  6. I'm a Department of the Navy contracting type who hopes to award multiple IDIQ contracts for services that may be performed world-wide. Contracts will each have a five year ordering period and a $100.00 minimum. FAR 16.505((1)(i) states that the KO "must provide each awardee a fair opportunity to be considered for each order exceeding $3,000.00". I read an "opportunity" to be a two-way street where an awardee can opt out of competing for an order. How is this possible under the normal terms of an IDIQ contract where the Gov't maintains a unilateral right to place orders within the con
  7. I'm in the process of awarding a firm fixed price contract in support of the Navy housing office. We have furniture (refridgerators/washers & dryers/couches etc.) that we keep in a warehouse and then have a contractor deliver/pick-up when the unit is occupied by a sailor. The contractor also does repairs when the fridges and washer/dryers break-down. Contractor personnel run the warehouse tracking what items are in inventory or coming/going, but the Government keeps the keys to the warehouse and is always there arranging pick-ups/deliveries and dealing with the sailors/other Government p
  8. Formerfed/Brian/Rodolfo, Thanks for your thoughts. I believe that Formerfed's contention "I say that DFARS 237.106(2) applies to orders in your case, but not the contract. Saying that it applies to an IDIQ contract, which doesn't involve the obligation of funds, doesn't make sense" is incorrect because it is based on the erroneous assumption that an IDIQ doesn't involve the obligation of funds. I support this belief via the following statement from the General Accounting Office (B-318046, July 7, 2009): "In the case of an IDIQ contract, the agency must record an obligation in the amount of
  9. I'd like to add to this thread with the following scenario... Background: 1. I work for the Navy so the DFARS and Navy policy and regulation apply. 2. I want to award an indefinite delivery, indefinite quantity contract for severable services with a 5 year effective period. 3. The contract schedule specifies a minimum of $10,000.00 and a maximum of $50 million over the 5 year effective period. 4. My minimum is funded/obligated at the time of award using annual operations & maintenance, navy (O&M,N) appropriations. 5. Given that my $50 million estimate is based on prior years' usage ($
  10. Gang, Got that you've never heard of "substantial" performance, but it happened to me again today. Room full of people, contract starts on 30 September 2009 using Fiscal Year 2009 Operations and Maintenance, Navy (O&M,N) funds and I was asked by an attorney "are we sure that we will receive some "benefit" from these services before the end of the year? Will there be "substantial" performance?" I'd ask her for the citations supporting her questions, but this attorney is more of a talker to the effect that all questions are answered with "there are GAO cases on this" than an "I'll give you
  11. At this time of year, I am regularly reminded by contracting officers and 1102s that there needs to be "substantial performance" in the correct fiscal year of my Operations and Maintenance, Navy (O&M,N) funded service contracts that cross fiscal years. By this I mean that I'm sitting in an office on the morning of 30 September trying to get approval signatures on an FY09 O&M,N funded service contract with a start date of 30 September 2009 and performance through 29 September 2010 and am being asked "Will there be substantial performance on this before tomorrow?" (As if the answer is
  12. DoN, Always enjoy your blog, but I'd argue that FAR most definitely requires price analysis for every acquisition governed by the procedures of Part 12, 13, 14 and 15. In support of this interpretation, I note: FAR 12.209 stating that "...the contracting officer must establish price reasonableness in accordance with FAR 13.106-3, 14.408-2 or Subpart 15.4" FAR 13.106-3(a) stating that "Before making award, the contracting officer must determine that the proposed price is fair and reasonable". FAR 14.408-2(a) stating that "the contracting officer shall determine that...the prices offered ar
  13. NapoliK, Excellent post and I appreciate the info. My specific question concerns the Department of Defense's position on the use of GSA schedules. DFARS 208.404-1 and 208.404-2 previously provided guidance on mandatory/optional use, but these parts were deleted via DFARS Change Notice 20060321. As such, does anyone know when/if use of GSA schedules is optional/mandatory for DoD (specifically Navy)? There doesn't appear to be specific DoD policy, the Navy/Marine Corps Acquisition Regulation Supplement (NMCARS) is silent as is the Naval Supply Systems Command (NAVSUP). Am I missing somethi
×
×
  • Create New...