Jump to content
The Wifcon Forums and Blogs

here_2_help

Members
  • Content count

    1,877
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by here_2_help

  1. here_2_help

    how to structure emergency service

    https://www.visualthesaurus.com/cm/teachersatwork/the-magic-of-three-teaching-students-about-triplets/
  2. Don, Yes, what you write is in line with my interpretation of the rule. It has potential benefits to small business IF contracting officers take advantage of the flexibility it offers. A small business is a non-traditional defense contractor, under the new DFARS rule. So is a segment of a traditional defense contractor, if it qualifies. Contracting officers may use Part 12 procedures to acquire goods and services from non-traditional defense contractors without making a determination that the goods/services being procured are commercial items, regardless of dollar value. So far, so good. But how many COs will actually take advantage of this new rule? Even before the rule, how many COs were comfortable making pure Part 12 acquisitions without going over to Part 15 to borrow some process steps? To my way of thinking, that's the concern. That concern is exacerbated when I see the discretion baked into the language: "may" gives a lot of discretion. Show me guidance memos and instructions directing implementation of the new "permissive" rule and I might dance a jig. Until then, I remain a bit skeptical.
  3. Seems to be one and the same, but you should check with the contracting officer. If we're right then you can file off the title of your SB plan and call it an SE plan and there you go.
  4. here_2_help

    how to structure emergency service

    I feel stupid because when I have an emergency at home or in the office, we just call the repair folks and they come over. I know I have to pay extra for expedited or weekend service. I have also had home warranties (a type of insurance policy) where I called the administrator and described my problem. If my problem was covered (and it usually was) then they dispatched a repairperson or service team. I'm feeling stupid because I can't figure out where the FAR wouldn't allow a contracting activity to have a BOA with a repair service (or more than one service) that would allow for a previously negotiated premium to be paid, over and above the normal "commercial item" services that were customarily provided, for expedited service. For example, the charge is $100 per visit, plus parts. If 2-4 hour turnaround time is desired, the BOA would say that the charge is $500 per visit. The BOA would allow the services to be initiated verbally (based on authorized government person making the request) and the contracting officer would followup with the paperwork later. Again, I feel stupid because I just thought that's how it would work.
  5. here_2_help

    Problem of the Day

    Can we apply the above to the original poll question, and say "too bad for the government if its rule-makers do not timely follow the direction of Congress and implement the statute correctly into the regulations." Given that's the case, why do those rule-makers continue to have employment at taxpayer expense?
  6. here_2_help

    Software Roulette

    Wrong. Other viable options include, but are not limited to-- Jamis Unanet Procas
  7. here_2_help

    Degrees and experience

    Sure. Absolutely. Just don't try to ever pass those pieces of paper off as the real thing. For example, Oracle defines its certification, and Oracle is a big company with lots of legal resources. You might find Oracle taking an interest in another company that tried to redefine an Oracle certification as simply being a piece of paper without any substance behind it. Have fun! Everybody should get a participation ribbon.
  8. here_2_help

    How can we speed up the source selection process?

    Perhaps I missed your point, or perhaps I built on it for my own purposes. Who can say?
  9. here_2_help

    How can we speed up the source selection process?

    To this point, please show me in the FAR where the duties of the PCO are distinguished from the duties of the ACO, and where the duties of the ACO are distinguished from the duties of the DACO/CACO. For that matter, where are the duties of the CFAO listed?
  10. here_2_help

    Problem of the Day

    Don, Agreed but the exception at 15.403-1(a) is still there. I can't help it if rule-makers forgot it. In fact, it's such an important exception that it has a place all to itself; it's not lumped in with the other exceptions at 15-403-1(b). It's place of prominence makes me think it may supersede the other language, though of course I have no support for that belief.
  11. here_2_help

    Problem of the Day

    Don, My answer "no" was based on 15.403-1(a), which prohibits obtaining certified cost or pricing data for acquisitions below the SAT. The SAT is defined at 2.101. (The CAAC just issued a Deviation that gave civilian agencies permission to refine the SAT to meet the NDAA definitions, but that's not germane.) Further, see (for example) 52.215-12 -- "Before awarding any subcontract expected to exceed the threshold for submission of certified cost or pricing data at FAR 15.403-4 … the Contractor shall require the subcontractor to submit certified cost or pricing data (actually or by specific identification in writing), in accordance with FAR 15.408, Table 15-2 … unless an exception under FAR 15.403-1 applies.”) You do a lot of hand-waving trying to redefine the SAT but I, for one, am not persuaded. The SAT is defined and that's good enough for me. If the SAT was $1.5 million based on the circumstances (as your problem stated it was), then obtaining certified cost or pricing data is prohibited. Period. You cannot hand-wave away a regulatory exception. If we are going to argue conflict between statute and regulation, then effective 18 June 2018, FAR 15.403-4(a)(1) (“The threshold for obtaining certified cost or pricing data is $750,000.”) is flat-out wrong.
  12. here_2_help

    PBP Milestone - Mulitiple Payments

    Thank you. I hope DPAP is reading this. The intent of PBPs was to DIVORCE contract financing from incurred costs and focus on accomplishment of programmatic technical milestones. PBPs were to be the province of CORs and PMs, not auditors. Evidence in support of these assertions can be found in the original DoD PBP Users Guide. DPAP, aided and abetted by the DAR Council, has perverted Congressional intent (and statutory language).
  13. here_2_help

    PBP Milestone - Mulitiple Payments

    The NDAA did not create new law, it simply clarified the existing law that the DAR Council had ignored when promulgating its illegal rule. *Shrug* We can do this forever. I'm not a lawyer and it would take a couple of them, plus a trier of fact, to determine whether or not, in this particular scenario, the contractor should be paid for accomplishment of its contractually agreed-upon PBP events. How about we let our comments here stand for contractor and contracting officer to consider as they try to resolve without resorting to litigation?
  14. here_2_help

    PBP Milestone - Mulitiple Payments

    Is that an official finding from the IG? Or is that somebody's opinion? The DFARS clause is illegal and cannot be enforced, as it conflicts with Section 831 of the 2017 NDAA.
  15. here_2_help

    PBP Milestone - Mulitiple Payments

    The purpose of performance-based payments is to tie contract financing payments to measurable technical performance. Period. There should be zero tie to incurred costs, at least with respect to payment request approval. (You can always have DCAA review costs after the fact.) If you are going to insist that contract financing payments must have a relation to incurred costs, then please use cost-based progress payments. Then you can reimburse the contractor for spending money instead of making technical progress. (Hello, any A-12 folks in the room?) In this case, for some reason, the government contracting officer accepted event values that were not commensurate with actual value. Okay, that was wrong, but the damage is done and the values are in the contract. Either you continue to pay the contractor for accomplishment of contractually agreed-upon milestones or you suspend PBPs and try to reform the contract. The other option, in my view, is to get ready for a contractor claim that you breached the contract by failing to make payments when agreed-upon events were completed.
  16. Steward, this question has been debated since 1994. A search reveals a 2011 WIFCON thread on this topic. There are articles on this topic. There are presentations on this topic. There are lots of opinions from which to choose. Short answer: There is no "official" and authoritative answer to this question from the CAS Board. Unofficial opinions, be they from DCAA or from CAS experts or from attorneys or from industry, vary. My understanding is that the Section 809 panel is discussing this question pretty much right now. We will have to wait to see what answer they recommend, and whether Congress and/or DoD agree with the recommendation. In the meantime, your opinion is probably as valid as anybody else's.
  17. here_2_help

    Has strategic sourcing gone too far?

    (See DoD OIG Report No. D-2010-004, October 29, 2009)
  18. You are not wrong. Primes have a notorious tendency to pay their subKs slower than the government is paying them. As for your comment about the primes' purchasing systems, that's also true, though most subKs learn to work through the issues.
  19. It really doesn't matter to you, the subK, whether you get the work through the large, long running contract with your prime or directly from the government customer. It's the same work and it should cost you exactly the same to perform, regardless. If that's the case, why do you care? Why are you trying to help out the government customer and the CO? What the customer may gain is a cheaper price, since your prime will no longer be burdening your costs with its costs and/or fee. And your prime loses a bit of revenue and perhaps some absorption of its indirect costs. Those parties are the winners and losers here, so why are you involved in trying to make this happen? Further, as others have noted, you may be jeopardizing your long-running relationship with your prime. What are you gaining in return for that risk?
  20. here_2_help

    Real Contracting Pros

    Yes, I agree with you. The negotiator is just following orders. The individual making key strategic decisions is far from the negotiating table. That says nothing about the person at the table.
  21. here_2_help

    How can we speed up the source selection process?

    Restrict CO ability to obtain field pricing assistance by requiring the CO to justify why they cannot determine price reasonableness without such assistance. Ensure field pricing assistance, when requested, is limited only to those aspects the CO has justified. Require field pricing assistance input to be received within 30 days from date of request and hold functional support areas accountable for meeting that deadline.
  22. here_2_help

    Real Contracting Pros

    Counterpoint: http://www.defenseone.com/business/2018/03/lockheed-pentagon-negotiators-are-becoming-more-unpredictable/146420/?oref=gbb-newsletter
  23. Interesting to me how other folks focus on the word "responsible" in the OP. The question that was asked was answered, but did the answers help anybody? To me, it's not a matter of "responsibility" or a duty imposed by a contract clause; instead, I see it as risk mitigation. The prime should mitigate the risk that the government will, eventually, find the subcontract to be defectively priced because it will be the prime that will be held responsible for the noncompliance. There is no guarantee that the subcontractor will have the financial resources available to indemnify the prime for legal fees, penalties, and interest paid to the government. Thus, the prime should take action to address the situation and, if necessary, remediate it. Perhaps I'm in the minority here, but that's the way I see it.
  24. Let's ask the question this way: If the government believes that the subcontractor defectively priced its proposal, who will the government go after with respect to the required price reduction and any repayments? Does that help answer your question?
×