Jump to content
The Wifcon Forums and Blogs


  • Posts

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by dgm

  1. When the Government can’t receive an offer and can’t change the due date because the need is important the due date will be the first day the Government can receive the offer at the same time of day.
  2. Don, I think one with a lot of how-to information and in simple terms would be very helpful and I think most the 1102s I work with would agree.
  3. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UcP-uFV4Jek Journey (Arnel Pineda) - Don't Stop Believin' Got watching a documentary on how Arnel was discovered and became the new lead singer for Journey the other night. Good story.
  4. Man, how did I miss that? Thanks for the response. Looks like I need to do a better job reading.
  5. A few of us have been discussing change orders and supplemental agreements with respect to fiscal law and one scenario we've found to be difficult. Suppose a change order is issued pursuant to 52.243-1 but the supplemental agreement can't be done for several weeks. This is an additive change order that undoubtedly will require an increase to the firm fixed price. Is there an Anti-Deficiency Act violation until the supplemental agreement is finalized? We felt that with cost-type/T&M contracts there would not be as the Government's obligation is limited to the estimated cost or ceiling in the contract but a firm fixed price contract operates differently.
  6. This site has been a tremendous resource for me and I think a lot of the information and discussion here has contributed substantially to my understanding of a variety of contracting issues. I recommend the site to everyone I work with and it will be a tremendous loss when its time is up. Thank you for the site and to those who take the time to contribute to the discussion. I've learned so much from everyone.
  7. My understanding is you can't award the contract subject to the availability of funds. You can initiate a contract action though permitting you to get up to award. I'm bringing this up as I've seen a lot of of people award with this language and basically tell the contractor, "you can work but you are doing so at risk as there is no guarantee you'll get paid" so you end up with a contract saying, "Contractor do X and Y and we'll pay you Z if we ever get money and if not you get paid nothing." It looks like, in this thread, there is a practice of signing the contract but not permitting performance to begin until funds are available then you sort of pull the trigger (I'm not sure why you don't just hold off signing until funds are available though). I always thought that awarding subject to the availability of funds was improper ,as does our Office of General Counsel, but it seemed such a common practice I've always wondered if I was just missing something or if it was just being misused. I'd sincerely appreciate it if someone could shed some light on this issue for me.
  8. I'd say my experience has been very similar. It's really become ridiculous.
  9. Wow, that is a really good deal. Thanks for the heads up!
  10. I'd recommend PRISM but not for creating solicitations. In my non-DOD office, it is optional to use for creating solicitations and very few people (I know of only one) use it for that although we've all been trained in how to do so a few times. I think it would take me longer to create a solicitation in PRISM and add an annoyance element. The way it basically works, if I recall, you can create templates in PRISM with standard clauses and sections then you add anything else the system lets you (like non-standard clauses/provisions). Then you download the solicitation into a text file and plug in the statement of work etc. and upload it back into PRISM. Of course, templates have to be modified and such by a system admin type and the clauses have to be pushed into PRISM. It's easier for me to just keep Word file templates and update it as I go through selecting applicable clauses and provisions (if I'm dealing outside of PRISM for a good part of this anyway why bother with PRISM at all).
  11. I have a lot of confidence in all of the attorney's I've worked with in my office. They know the procurment laws and regulations. I try to avoid going to them because they are flat out buried with work and I learn a lot by trying to figure something out. There really is a lot of information out there. Even on important matters we need their input on they often have to juggle a lot to accomodate workloads. I'm guessing a good portion of their workload is ultimately things they shouldn't have to address. I think there is an attitude that you don't go to them unless you know the answer you are going to get and like it (to me that begs they question, "Why go to them at all then and waste their time?" I feel like a lot of people go to them for issues they think may invite a protest or if they think they are going to get protested just so the attorney is aware of what is going on and can comment since they'll be defending it and it's usually easier to fix any problems earlier rather than later. There is some fear, not me personally but in my office generally, about defending a decision you make that may be inconsistent with advice from an attorney (my take is if you feel that nervous about your decision then you shouldn't have concluded the way you did because if you had adequate, strong grounds for why you did what you did you shouldn't be nervous).
  12. Centralization in acquistion Effectiveness of performance based contracts I think the OCI topic would be the most interesting and fun.
  13. FAR 5.202(a)(13) provides for an exception to the notice required by FAR 5.201. FAR 5.202(a)(13) reads: Assuming the conditions in number one and three are met the question we've been debating is whether posting a solicitation to the GPE satisifies the requirement of number two and thereby allows you to forego the synopsis requierd by FAR 5.201. There have been two lines of thought we've been debating. The first is that the solicitation is the notice of proposed contract action through the GPE and you can simply post a solicitation and forego a 15 day presolicitation notice period. The second is that the fifteen day notice period is still required but you don't have to post the synopsis to the GPE but, rather, post something on the GPE that makes everyone aware where the presolicitation notice can be located (e.g. a GPE posting with instructions on how to find the notice on an agnecy web site). What do you think?
  14. I don't think that's a protestable issue (well, I guess a lot of things you can file a protest for but I don't think it would have a good shot at being sustained) as long as you evaluate and award consistent with what is said in the solicitation. Generally, you evaluate options but it is possible to determine it is not in the best interest of the government to do so and award strictly on the X. See FAR 17.206. It's basically a business decision that has to be made so you don't end up with a situation where you got a mediocre X and never buy y or z.
  15. My understanding is that date is the award date for the award document and the effective date for the solicitation document. The award date would be the date the CO signs (we often just put see block 31c). I personally wouldn't formally modify the contract, with the stuff I'd have to do in our system and the time involved, to populate that. I would include it in a future mod though if one was necessary. The only time I see the award date differing from the CO signature date is, as already noted, situations where the authority to being work was given earlier/some other manner and this document is now definitizing that.
  16. What I've witnessed is unauthorized commitments being somewhat common, always ratified, and when ratified the Part 1 requirements aren't always addressed as properly as they probably should be. I've also spoken with friends in other offices where ratifications are treated very seriously and it sounds like are rarely ratified. Occasions where Part 1 requirements aren't followed have been rare or non-existent from what I've seen.
  17. I love these myth buster blog entries you are doing. They are very useful both in improving my understanding and my ability to better communicate and explain things to some of the program offices I work with.
  18. I'm assuming you put in 52.212-5 and you checked 52.225-1 (I'm guessing that is the one you checked but whatever one acutally applies is fine) then you may be ok. The main thing is being able to evaluate the quote with the percentages in Part 25 (e.g. 6 or 12 percnet). In the representations and certifications in 52.212-3(f)(3) (and I believe all the reps and certs clauses have this), or the relevant clause you checked from above, there is the following language, "The Government will evaluate offers in accordance with the policies and procedures of FAR Part 25." Thus, as long as you include the Part 12 clauses and provisions, and check the the applicable clauses in 52.212-5, those Part 25 evaluation factors (12 percent / 6 percent) are, in my opinion, in your solicitation and you can evaluate using them per Part 25 policies and procedures because it is in the representations and certifications they are required to fill out and amend as appropriate for a paritcular submission. Or when you said you only included the restrictions clause you only checked that box as far as the 25 clauses in 52.225-1 is concerned?
  19. Is the myth buster for this that you can simply not rate them at all on past performance i.e. past performance is a non-factor for them? This one confused me a bit. I note that the OFFP site states (http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/procurement/contract_perf/best_practice_re_past_perf.html): "FASA also states that an offeror for which there is no information on past contract performance or with respect to which information on past contract performance is not available, may not be evaluated favorably or unfavorably on the factor of past contract performance." For example, if you were point scoring and past performance was worth 10 points out of a total 110. Offeror A may get 89 out of 110 and Offeror B, who has no past performance information available, may get 89 out of a total of 100. Assuming price is equal, award would then go to offeror B?
  20. Well, I read it more that it articulates when you can although I suppose that is the same as saying you can't except here is when you can. If it doesn't fit in one of those scenarios then it would seem the answer is no, you cannot. Of course, there are a ton of things done across the government that aren't compliant. So a better answer may be you can't do it and be compliant with the regs if you don't meet the criteria that permits that contract type to be used with commercial items. Task orders are contracts in the legal sense of the term at least.
  21. Good question. My guess is they intend on issuing labor hour or T&M task orders and when they say FFP they are referring to fixed, loaded labor rates being set as opposed to the definition in 16.202 "A firm-fixed-price contract provides for a price that is not subject to any adjustment on the basis of the contractor?s cost experience in performing the contract." 16.202 defines T&M as, " Description. A time-and-materials contract provides for acquiring supplies or services on the basis of? (1) Direct labor hours at specified fixed hourly rates that include wages, overhead, general and administrative expenses, and profit; and (2) Actual cost for materials (except as provided for in 31.205-26(e) and (f))." Seems that T&M/Labor hour would fit the best based on the information provided. The government said payment would be based on actual hours worked rather than a total, non-adjustable price.
  • Create New...