leo1102

Thanks once again for your continued input.

Thanks to all for your input.

Is no one going to respond to my inquiry?

I am in the process of working a follow-on contract on the mandatory procurement list on AbilityOne. Under the current contract, the Govt purchased all of the supplies, materials, trucks, mowers, etc used in the performance of the PWS. Under the follow-on contract, the Govt does not have funds to purchase supplies, materials, trucks, mowers, etc to perform services IAW the PWS. The AbilityOne contractor is stating that they require funding to replace 5 year old trucks, mowers, etc. The AbilityOne contractor is stating that they can not afford to purchase the items themselves to perform under the PWS. I have read FAR Part 8.7., CFR 41 Chapter 51 and OMB Cir A-122. I am unclear whether we are required to continue to provide the supplies, materials, trucks, and mowers necessary to perform under the PWS. If the AbilityOne contractor continues to state that they can not afford to purchase their own supplies, materials, trucks, and mowers, does this give grounds to request that the requirement be removed from the AbilityOne mandatory procurement list? Thanks for your input.

Thanks for the link. I read the article. Makes much more sense now. Commercial Services.

Do you mean to tell me that the Federal Government is contracting a study to determine how and why salmon fishermen are losing their nets? Are you kidding me? Things that make you go HMMMMMM

I would keep a noncondescending friendly look on my face and would not respond. Other people privy to the discussion or to the e-mail traffic are well aware of my diligence, loyalty and mission focus. The foolish person who made the accusation looks plain stupid and unable to handle pressure and will soon lose the respect of his or her audience. A bully is always a bully and accusations are meanless unless backed up by factual information. Don't feed into the hype.

Bob - Give him my e-mail address and I can send him the PowerPoint presentation that the Navy uses to teach CPARS, ACASS and CCASS.

Thanks for the info and the link. Of the 12M hits, I did not click on this article. I found the article to be very informative and thought provoking. I appreciate the response.

Vern - Really??? Thanks for the link.

I am looking for information on professional indemnity insurance for Government Contracting Officers. One of the interns here brought it up and I know nothing about it except for what I just found on line which was not much. Is it something that a KO must or should have? Thanks.

I apologize - I completely mistyped in my earlier post. We are required to have a legal review on anything over $500K, not SAT.

My short answer is that the quality of legal services provided to a contracting office depends on the attorney assigned. Is he/she actually a contracts attorney? Has he/she taken the DAU or other contract law courses for an overview? Does he/she understand the FAR, DFAR, AFAR, US Code, etc? Does he/she understand OMB guidance regarding fiscal law and contracts? Oftentimes the legal advisor to contracting is performing other duties as well, in fact, being legal advisor to contracting may be the least of his/her duties. For example - The attorney/advisor for the Contracting office at Ft Benning is TOP NOTCH. His reviews are thorough and his edits are always on point. The reviews are done in a timely manner. He provides instruction and references so the KS and KO can learn. He is considered an important part of the contracting community and is well respected. The attorney at another installation, who shall be nameless in this blog, is the polar opposite. His reviews were shoddy and frequently amounted to no more then grammatical errors. His review was just a required signature and we all knew it. Currently, we are required to have a legal review on any action over SAT. This includes initial awards or modifications. I agree with this. We are also permitted to request a legal opinion on less than SAT if the acquisition is unusual or complicated. The turn around time for a legal review is usually less than 5 days. It is important to remember to include legal reviews in your acquisition timeline. There is more than 1 attorney advisor and who is assigned depends on the subject matter; i.e. construction, A/E, Economy Act, services or supplies. I find this beneficial since the contract review load is spread out among 4 separate attorneys each of whom hold their own knowledge base.

Wow Brian - Don't you think your response to a first time poster is a bit harsh? fereirra - If I remember correctly, when I was part of Army Contracting Command, we were required to post ALL sole source synopsis and a J&A to FedBizOps as well. Perhaps your agency has similar guidance. The FAR states that anything over $25K must be posted unless it meets one of the exceptions. Does your requirement meet any of these exceptions?

I work for the US Army Corps of Engineers - It appears as if the personnel deploying are primarily GS-12 or above 1102s with at least 5 years of experience on a TDY basis for up to 6 months and under a PCS with return rights for up to one year. All of the 1102s that have deployed were warranted contracting officers. Each was a graduate of the DAU contingency contracting course and at least CON Level II certified. My opinion - one year is not enough unless that year was spent in a contingency contracting environment. If you e-mail Gen Petraeus, be prepared for whatever the consequences may be - positive or negative. I spent 20 years in the military and that is a HUGE jump in the chain of command. I admire your willingness to service in a contingency environment, I just think it is too soon in your contracting career. I encourage you to expand your knowledge base, your practical experience, and your educational endeavors.

I agree - Just because it has always been done does not mean it has been done correctly. The statement I have used at installation level is: CLIN XXXX is exercised subject to the availability of funds under FAR 52.232-19. FY11 funds will be provided once available. In the event that FY11 funds are not immediately available after 1 Oct 11 - In the absence of a Fiscal year 11 Continuing Resoution Authoirty (CRA) or Annual Appropriation (AP), it is imperative that this office exercise judgment to determine which contract requirements are essential to the support of on-going programs, projects or operations. It is determined that the services your company provides under this contract are essential. Based upon this determination, you shall continue to perform, under the contract and all terms and conditions have full force and effect. When a CRA or AP is enacted or approved, your contract will be modified to obligate the funds made available.

Have you discussed services that are essential to the support of on-going programs, projects or operations? Does your contracting office have an "Essential Services" statement in the contract?

Why not address both in your proposal just to be safe?

Sorry - duplicate post..

So contractors CAN enter administrative data but can not enter assessment or rating information. Interesting. I did not know that. Thanks for the info.

Contractors are not allowed access to CPARS accept as the assessment contractor representative for responding to assessments. I am the Focal Point for my office. CORs on service contracts over $1M perform the annual assessments in CPARS. It is part of their designated COR assigned duties. Do you have assigned CORs on your service contracts over $1M.

Try this: https://www.acquisition.gov/comp/seven_steps/home.html I do agree with Vern. Please be more specific. There is OPM guidance dating back as far at 1998 on this subject. As I am not sure what you want, I will not offer more at this time..

Interagency Agreements are required for funds being transfered from the requesting Federal agency for work to be performed by the servicing Federal agency. OMB guidance makes this very clear. If an exemption is requested, it must follow OMB and your agency protocol. I also agree with Vern. Contact knowledgeable personnel. Not all contracting personnel are familiar with Interagency Agreements.

Thanks. Perhaps Joel Hoffman will reply to this thread. I would be interested to see if my experience has been correct or not.

My interpretation was not based only on grammar. It is based on my own experience which is that regardless of of the contract vehicle used or of the estimated amount, a construction acquisition requires an IGCE and a construction modification over the SAT requires an IGCE.