Jump to content
The Wifcon Forums and Blogs


  • Content count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Posts posted by Weno2

  1. There was a chat regarding the FARSite over a year ago:  Matrix was out of date (missing clauses).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. 

  2. 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).

  3. 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.

  4. 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". 

  5. 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?



  6. 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."  


  7. 1.  Yes

    2.  Yes

    3.  Depends on the Agency.  My agency is an active participant in "cookie-cutter" contracting, contracting-by-numbers (remember "paint-by-numbers?") -  i.e. mandatory templates, "this is the way the customer wants it done; "if it's not in the system, it isn't doable".

    4.  Protests, supervisors, minimal experience of 1102s, lack of confidence in COs, moving of 1102s from one agency to another, not encouraging contracting officials to use their contracting acumen.

  8. 1.  No.  SBA is the prime contactor.  DFARS 252.219-7000(a) reads in part, Accordingly, the SBA, even if not identified in Section A of this contract, is the prime contractor and retains responsibility for 8(a) certification, for 8(a) eligibility determinations and related issues, and for providing counseling and assistance to the 8(a) Contractor under the 8(a) Program.  Partnership Agreement Section II - Objectives,  Paragraph D of the PA reads, To emphasize that although the SBA delegates the authority to sign contracts on its behalf, it remains the prime contractor on all 8(a) contract awards (emphasis added), modifications, and purchase orders...

    The first sentence of DFARS 219.800(a) (i.e. General) reads the same as the General cited in my agency. 

    2.  N/A

    3.  8(a) Participant.  It's a direct award between DOD and the 8(a) participant.  If you're talking "prime contract", its the SBA.  The contract writing system our agency has the 8(a) participant as the subcontractor.  For example, is you're awarding per the PA, SF-1449 block 17a, will read "SUB: Name of 8(a) Participant)".  Block 20 will read "PRIME: SMALL BUSINESS ADMINISTRATION."

  9. I've used sample task orders in previous IDIQ procurements and awarded the initial task order (e.g. sample task order) simultaneously with the basic IDIQ K.

    I'm not seeing the logic (i.e. blind spot) of asking for a sample task order when the performance work statement (PWS) for the sample task order is the same as the PWS in the basic solicitation.  Why conduct a technical evaluation for the sample task order when the PWS and evaluation criteria would be the same as the base solicitation.  Why could the government state in Section L that we're asking for pricing for the sample task order and rely on the technical evaluation of the basic solicitation, and state in Section M that the government will award the first task order based on the base solicitation technical evaluation and the pricing the government is asking for in Section L for the sample task order?

    First time I've heard the term "IDIQ seed project."  Wifcon had a discussion regarding seed projects in 2012:  http://www.wifcon.com/discussion/index.php?/topic/1677-seed-project-required/



  10. Scenario:  Solicitation is a combination firm-fixed-price/multiple year IDIQ-contract type for the awardee to process claims (services).  Offerors will submit prices for each year of the ordering period (Minimum/Maximum/Best Estimated Quantity (BEQ):  Quantity unit is BEQ) and the government will award two contracts (multiple awards). FAR 52.216-27 Single or Multiple Awards is in the solicitation and the evaluation criteria (Performance Price Tradeoff Process) will notify offerors that the government will award multiple contracts. 

    FAR 16.505(b)(1)(iii)(B)(1) reads: 

    (B) The contracting officer shall—

    (1) Provide a fair notice of the intent to make a purchase, including a clear description of the supplies to be delivered or the services to be performed and the basis upon which the selection will be made to all contractors offering the required supplies or services under the multiple-award contract.

    Does the information in the solicitation (notifying offerors that the government will issue multiple contracts, Section B (Schedule of Prices/Costs), Section I (Indefinite Delivery clauses and clause notifying contractors that government will provide offerors fair opportunity according to FAR 16.505(b), Section L requiring offerors to submit technical proposals and pricing according to Section B, and Section M (evaluation factors)), provide contractors with fair notice of intent for the initial task order?  Or does the solicitation (e.g. Section M) have to provide instructions to provide offerors will specific instructions to provide fair opportunity for the initial task order?

  11. Jamaal's scenario referred to LPTA. It may be off topic, but since the push for using LPTA, has there been an increase in the percentage of Request for Equitable Adjustments (REA)/Claims?

    I can only speak from what I've seen in my agency, but I'm seeing more REAs/Claims now than before the push to use LPTA as the source selection process. I've read a claim in which the filing contractor stated the government shouldn't used LPTA as the source selection process.

    The $150K could be fair and reasonable, but if the government ends up receiving an REA/Claim, there may be an underlying problem.

  12. FAR 52.215-1, Alternate II allows the submission of alternate proposals for competitive, contracting by negotiation procurements.

    FAR 52.212-1(e) "encourages offerors to submit multiple offers presenting alternate terms and conditions or commercial items for satisfying the requirements of this solicitation."

    If the government alters FAR 52.212-1, by deleting (e), would this still allow an offeror to submit an alternate proposal? Or is (e) only applicable for offerors who wish to submit multiple offers, but decides to submit a single offer which is an alternate proposal?

    Or should the commercial solicitation have a separate provision stating the government will not accept alternate proposals?

  13. VAO is a good resource. Their monthly webinars (Update - Key Acquisition Developments) are helpful and a good way to learn CLPs, and VAO's research papers are also a good resource.

    I know of agencies in which templates (e.g., Justification and Approval, KO Determination to Exercise Option) are mandatory and treats a change/alteration as a deviation according to FAR 1.403 -- Individual Deviations.

    Therefore, 'learning by thinking' may not be a concept encouraged by some procurement managers.

  14. Since the acquisition was a non-commercial purchase order (PO), FAR clause 52.213-4 -- "Terms and Conditions -- Simplified Acquisitions Other Than Commercial Items" should be in the PO.

    And if it is, why would FAR 52.249-8, TFD clause be in the PO, when FAR clause 52.213-4 (g), "Termination for Cause" would be applicable?

  15. Don:

    I agree. So in order to avoid the need for seeking deviation approval, I propose an alteration of my clause. I suggest the following language for use in multiple award IDIQ contracts:

    No-Cost Termination of the Contract Ordering Period

    ( a ) The Contracting Officer may terminate the ordering period of this contract, as stated in the the Ordering clause, 52.216-18, paragraph (a), at no cost to the Government, by transmitting a notification to that effect to the Contractor. Such termination will be pursuant to the Termination for Convenience clause, 52.249-XX. The Contracting Officer will transmit the notification to the Contractor by email. The Contractor shall acknowledge receipt of the notification by email to the Contracting Officer within five calendar days of receipt. The termination shall be effective upon transmission of the notification and shall be effective regardless of whether the Contractor receives it, or acknowledges receipt, or the Government receives an acknowledgement.

    ( b ) Upon transmission of such notification, the Government will be under no further obligation to give the Contractor opportunities to be considered for orders, and the Contractor will be under no further obligation to accept orders from the Government.

    ( c ) Notwithstanding termination of the ordering period, the contract shall otherwise remain in full effect with respect to orders already issued. Termination of the ordering period shall not affect the rights and obligations of the parties with respect to such orders.

    (End of Clause)

    I believe this constitutes nothing more than an advance agreement about the costs of a prospective partial termination for convenience. This wouldl require that the CO follow the procedures in Part 49, but they should be simple given that the termination will affect only the ordering period and will be at no cost to the Government. It will still save the work of exercising options for the other contractors.

    What do you think? Still a deviation?

    There is no longer a conflict with Fair Opportunity. Instead of having a new clause, could the language for "No-Cost Termination of the Contract Ordering Period" be used under FAR clause 52.252-4, Alterations In Contract" to supplement FAR 52.216-18(a), Ordering?