Jump to content

Navy_Contracting_4

Members
  • Posts

    463
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by Navy_Contracting_4

  1. Normally, a "request for a price adjustment exceeding $100,000 pursuant to the Changes clause," is "not in dispute when submitted," and so would not be a "claim," whether certified or not, but if it is in dispute, then yes, it would have to be certified to meet the definition of a "claim." Also, the definition of claim includes not just a demand for payment of money, but also a demand for "the adjustment or interpretation of contract terms, or other relief arising under or relating to the contract," so I don't understand the implication in your question that a request for payment of money might be a claim, but a request for adjustment of a contract term might not.
  2. Is FAR 52.230-2 "the CAS clause" you're referring to? If so, isn't it self-deleting ("Unless the contract is exempt . . ."), so would it really matter if it's in the contract or not? I agree that exemption isn't something that is claimed or not. The contract is either exempt or not, and the facts will determine that, not anyone "claiming" an exemption.
  3. It turns out that these cites didn't show up in the final rule because the CPI adjustments used in the final rule were lower than expected in the proposed rule, and the $5 million thresholds at these three cites didn't change enough to qualify for an adjustment. In the final rule's Supplementary Information, see "C. Changes Between the Proposed Rule and the Final Rule" for explanation of the CPI difference. The details of each threshold are provided in the matrix. For these thresholds, the $5 million was escalated in the proposed rule to $5,258,000, barely making the cut to adjust to $5,500,000 (the nearest $500,000). In the final calculation, it only escalated to $5,154,784, thus resulting in no change, as the nearest $500,000 was the original $5 million. I must have inadvertently cut and paste from the proposed rule.
  4. I would have sworn I cut and pasted that language from: http://edocket.access.gpo.gov/2010/2010-21025.htm but it isn't there now. I know I didn't type those words out myself. They'll have to fix that oversight. The thresholds in 16.505 certainly were intended to have been changed.
  5. Not sure about the matrix, but when I checked the final rule, I found: Did you miss that?
  6. (1) Yes, "final proposal revision" means "FINAL proposal revision." It may seem from your perspective to be a waste of time, but bidders in discussions know that at some point, you'll be requesting their "final proposal revision," and some will wait until that point to make their really, really best offer. The argument goes, you told us our price was too high, and we've been working hard scrubbing our bid down to the bone. We wanted all the time we could have to make sure we gave you the best price, so we were waiting for our final proposal revision to make sure we got it as low as we could. (2) When it comes time to request final proposal revisions, you don't need to address other factors, or even to reiterate factors/concerns you've already mentioned. You only need to advise them that discussions are complete, and request they submit their "final proposal revision" by a specified cutoff date and time.
  7. I can't speak for OFCCP, but FAR 22.805(a)(6)-(8) says This seems to imply that you need to have identified the apparently successful offeror, thus ruling out requesting clearances for everyone in the competitive range. It also implies that OFCCP likes 30 days, but will work with you if you urgently need something sooner.
  8. I am concerned that it sounds like you may have determined who the awardee will be, without having gone through the FAR 15.307( process, a brief snippet of which was quoted by formerfed. The whole paragraph says: If you (1) gave each offeror in the competitive range an opportunity to submit a "final proposal revision," (2) established a common cut-off date only for receipt of final proposal revisions and (3) advised offerors that the final proposal revisions were to be in writing and that the Government intended to make award without obtaining further revisions, then you're in fine shape, and no solicitation amendment is required or appropriate. If you didn't do all three of those things, you may be vulnerable.
  9. Have you addressed the requirement in FAR 9.103 to make an affirmative determination of responsibility? Is the company a small business concern?
  10. I'm not sure that NAICS codes are limited to set-aside solicitations. See particularly FAR 19.303(a) - "The contracting officer shall determine the appropriate NAICS code and related small business size standard and include them in solicitations above the micro-purchase threshold." Don't you read this to require the NAICS code to be included in all solicitations?
  11. If you're interested, GAO has a clean copy on its website. Try GAO/NSIAD-93-136.
  12. Don, I infer from a couple of FAR references that the time specified for receipt of bids (which is required by FAR 14.201-2(a) to be included on the first page of every IFB) may be earlier than the time for bid opening (which is required by FAR 14.201-5( to be included in Section L). If the two had to be the same, I don't think there would be two different places in the IFB for these times to be addressed. I see no reason why an agency couldn't state in its solicitation that the deadline for receipt of bids is at 2:00pm and the bid opening will take place at 3:00pm.
  13. You seem to be implying that FAR Parts 37 and 39 are mutually exclusive, and they're not. If you're procuring IT support services, you should follow both Part 39 and Part 37. Have you found a conflict between the two?
  14. Read FAR 16.403-2 Fixed-price incentive (successive targets) contracts. FPIS is an alternative to FPIF -- fixed-price incentive (firm target), described in FAR 16.403-1.
  15. Ah . . . I recall you deciding to disable the voting system (1 star to 5 stars) on the old application because it got out of hand. It's probably good you have it turned off in this one, too.
  16. I wish this site had a "Like" button, as Facebook does. Well said!
  17. Why should roybalm stop using the term "contract price"? Perhaps his CPFF contract was awarded under FAR Part 15, and priced using FAR Subpart 15.4, in which case, the definition at FAR 15.401 would apply: "Price" means cost plus any fee or profit applicable to the contract type. Your first three sentences, besides being unnecessary, dismissive and condescending, are of no help in understanding the situation. The balance of your post speaks for itself, is clear and concise, and doesn't rely on whether there is a "contract price" or not. What's your point with making an issue over the usage of the term?
  18. Isn't adjusting the target cost and target fee as described precisely what the quoted language leads you away from? If you make no adjustment to the target cost and target fee, the result will be exactly the same as if you make one, due to "the contract?s incentive structure." In the example provided, if you make the suggested adjustment, and the contract comes in at the new target cost ($9,900,000), the contractor will earn the adjusted target fee ($150,000). If no adjustments are made to the target cost and target fee, and the contract comes in at the same $9,900,000, the contractor will earn the target fee ($100,000) plus 50% of his underrun (50% of $100,000 underrun - $50,000), for a total fee earned of $150,000. So the same result ensues in either situation. Why bother going through the target cost and fee adjustments?
  19. Brian, Have you read FAR 15.503(? "(Postaward notices. (1) Within 3 days after the date of contract award, the contracting officer shall provide written notification to each offeror whose proposal was in the competitive range but was not selected for award (10 U.S.C. 2305((5) and 41 U.S.C. 253b©) or had not been previously notified under paragraph (a) of this section. The notice shall include? (i) The number of offerors solicited; (ii) The number of proposals received; (iii) The name and address of each offeror receiving an award; (iv) The items, quantities, and any stated unit prices of each award. If the number of items or other factors makes listing any stated unit prices impracticable at that time, only the total contract price need be furnished in the notice. However, the items, quantities, and any stated unit prices of each award shall be made publicly available, upon request; and (v) In general terms, the reason(s) the offeror?s proposal was not accepted, unless the price information in paragraph ((1)(iv) of this section readily reveals the reason. In no event shall an offeror?s cost breakdown, profit, overhead rates, trade secrets, manufacturing processes and techniques, or other confidential business information be disclosed to any other offeror. (2) Upon request, the contracting officer shall furnish the information described in paragraph ((1) of this section to unsuccessful offerors in solicitations using simplified acquisition procedures in Part 13. (3) Upon request, the contracting officer shall provide the information in paragraph ((1) of this section to unsuccessful offerors that received a preaward notice of exclusion from the competitive range." Note that this says "shall." Any contracting officer not providing this basic information to unsuccessful offerors is not doing his/her duty, and is doing a great dis-service to industry and the entire acquisition community.
  20. Is the contract a cost-reimbursement type of contract? If so, does it include FAR 52.216-7, Allowable Cost and Payment? If not, what tpe of contract do you have, and what Payment clause is included?
  21. It's actually exactly the opposite. As the actual final costs go down, the fee goes up, and if the costs go up, the fee goes down. The scenario you described would be a cost-plus-a-percentage-of-cost contract, which is illegal.
  22. Are you looking for a particular section of the FAR or a FAR clause with a specific date, or that would have been current as of a particular date?
  23. I don't know where Prezmil2020 works, but if it's in DoD, it's possible that he has read DFARS PGI 201.602-2(i)(A), which states "For contract actions for services awarded by a DoD component or by any other Federal agency on behalf of DoD, contracting officers shall designate a properly trained COR in writing before award." Now, as we all know from reading the recent shall/must/will thread, "shall" indicates that the action is mandatory. It is pretty obvious that a CO can represent himself, but DFARS PGI requires, nonetheless, that the CO "designate a properly trained COR in writing before award." Most DoD activities have a specified COR training course, or courses, that must be completed in order for a COR to be considered "properly trained," and if the CO hasn't completed the specified training course(s), some might argue that the CO doesn't meet the definition of "properly trained," and isn't allowed to designate him/herself. Thus, the question. I expect others may have engaged in the same semantic line of inquiry, so what's the harm in posting it here? Besides, we all like to keep you "amused."
×
×
  • Create New...