Jump to content
The Wifcon Forums and Blogs

Weno2

Members
  • Content Count

    68
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

0 Neutral

About Weno2

  • Rank
    Member

Recent Profile Visitors

5,706 profile views
  1. Weno2

    Evaluation criteria very vague

    Contracting Cowboy, Delivery schedule wouldn't be a "minor detail", if the government determines delivery is a critical element for award (e.g., "time is of the essence'). Regarding FAR 15.304(d), I never understood why the government wouldn't want to disclose the rating methods in the solicitation. We have nothing to hide, so why not disclose the rating methods in the solicitation. For transparency sake- if anything at all. When I started working at one agency, the contracting office didn't disclose the rating methods in the solicitations. I asked the contracting officers why, and they said "The program office told us not to." The program office's excuse was, "We'll provide the methods when we start evaluating the technical proposals." Whenever the contracting office asked the program office to provide rating methods, the program office would elevate the issue to the procurement executive level.
  2. Weno2

    FAR 52.212-5

    1. FAR clause 52.212-5 is IBR in 48 CFR Part 52. 2. You would follow the procedures in FAR 52.104(d) to cite the fill-ins. You would cite 52.212-5; then you would state "The following clauses are incorporated by reference." If you needed to cite FAR 52.203-13, Contractor Code of Business Ethics and Conduct, you would just cite where it is in 52.212-5: (b)(2), 52.203--13... You would do the same for all the remaining clauses you need to cite in 52.212-5.
  3. 1. Be more prudent in using draft RFPs. 2. Have evaluation factors for what you actually need to select a contractor. 3. Develop competent evaluation teams. 4. Have the contracting officer as the source selection official (SSO). For example, there are agencies when the CO can only serve as the SSO for LPTA and Sealed Bid procurements.
  4. Reasonable exercise of agency discretion.
  5. There was a chat regarding the FARSite over a year ago: Matrix was out of date (missing clauses). I started using FARSite and acquisition.gov when reviewing actions (FARSite used to be user-friendlier for me because you could click onto a clause/provision hyperlink in the Matrix, and it would open a new tab). Yes Vern, time to migrate to acquisition.gov.
  6. Weno2

    Waiver of Amounts Due the Government

    I have waived amounts due under the authority of FAR 1.602-2 - Responsibilities. Contracting officers are responsible for ensuring performance of all necessary actions for effective contracting, ensuring compliance with the terms of the contract, and safeguarding the interests of the United States in its contractual relationships. In order to perform these responsibilities, contracting officers should be allowed wide latitude to exercise business judgment (self-added emphasis).
  7. Myfrogleaps: You may want to read DFARS 252.237-7000, Notice of Special Standards of Responsibility. The provision is prescribed for Advisory and Assistance Services, when you have a solicitation for audit services. This may answer - in part - your questions.
  8. Weno2

    LPTA Question

    Desparado, Why wouldn't you use a Statement of Objectives as your work statement instead of a PWS? Just provide your objectives and have offerors propose how they will meet your objectives.
  9. HUD uses form Small Business Administration Coordination Record. It's required for actions greater than $150K that are not totally set-aside for small business concerns pursuant to FAR 19.502-2.
  10. Weno2

    www.farsite.hill.af.mil

    I used the FARSite FAR Clause Matrix today, and FAR 52.203-18, Prohibition on Contracting with Entities that Require Certain Internal Confidentiality Agreements or Statements-Representation, and 52.203-19, Prohibition on Requiring Certain Internal Confidentiality Agreements or Statements, aren't in the Matrix. Thought maybe FARSite didn't have the latest FAC. Does have latest FAC: 2005-95/ January 19, 2017. Then went to the FAR Clause Matrix in acquisition.gov and FAR 52.203-18 and 9 are in acquisition.gov's FAR Matrix.
  11. PFT, Stagger dates so the government will have coverage on the back end. Commercial contract so using SF-1449, and Block #3 is "Award/Effective Date." Combination FAR part's 12 and 15. Evaluation procedures according to FAR Subpart 15.3. Probably should've stated in the solicitation that if a multiple award, the bgovernment reserves the right to stagger the effective dates. Otherwise, one contractor may complain about not being afforded "fair opportunity".
  12. Scenario: Solicitation is a FAR Part 12 (procuring services) FFP/IDIQ-type contract (five year/no options) with multiple award preference. Not FAR Subpart 8.4 (Federal Supply Schedule). Ordering clause (FAR 52.216-18(a) reads, From effective date of contract through five years thereafter. The government will award multiple contracts, and the CO is considering having January 15th as the start date for Contractor A and February 15th as the start date for Contractor B. Do the contracts for Contractor's A and B have to have the same effective/award date? Or can each contract have a different effective/start date? Thanks
  13. Weno2

    Are We Reading FAR?

    Yes, in a reactive-sense. If there's an issue, they read just what they believe they need to know to respond to the issue. But in a proactive-sense? No. For example, reading a GAO decision and reading a specific clause cited in the decision to learn more, the answer is ""No." Or "I'm curious, and want to know more", the answer is "No."
  14. Weno2

    Career Changes

    Depends on the GS level and years of experience. Four years on the average.
  15. shall7, That's not far off. There's an alderman in Chicago who's pushing for LGBTQ set-asides.
×