Jump to content
The Wifcon Forums and Blogs

napolik

Members
  • Content Count

    679
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by napolik

  1. What does your payment clause say?
  2. Are you sure you haven't got a firm-fixed-price level-of-effort (FFP LOE) contract? See FAR 16.207.
  3. napolik

    Quotes vs. Proposals

    Do not use FAR 15 procedures to conduct a simplified acquisition. Read this article from Monsieur Edwards: Competitive Processes in Government Contracting: The FAR Part 15 Process Model and Process Inefficiency. You will find it here: http://www.wifcon.com/anal/analcomproc.htm. Here is a useful excerpt: In addition, read this protest decision: Finlen Complex, Inc., B-288280, Oct. 10, 2001: http://www.gao.gov/products/407353. You will see how the Army converted a FAR Part 13 simplified acquisition into an onerous FAR 15 negotiated procurement and fell victim to all the FAR 15.3 procedures.
  4. napolik

    Quotes vs. Proposals

    Under FAR Part 13, you may issue either an RFP or an RFQ. When you issue an RFP, you can create a contract unilaterally by accepting the offer or proposal. When you use an RFQ, you cannot accept the quotation and create a contract. The contract arises from a RFQ when the contractor signs a contract document you provide or when the contractor commences performance of the work covered by the quotation.
  5. Here is the status of implementation of Section 825 of the 2017 NDAA: Open FAR Cases as of April 07, 2017 Case Number: 2017-010 Part Number: 13.106-1, 15.304, 16.505(b)(1), 16.505(b)(2) Title: (S) Evaluation Factors for Multiple-Award Contracts Synopsis: Implements section 825 of the NDAA for FY 2017 (Pub. L. 114-328). Section 825 amends 10 U.S.C. 2305(a)(3) to address the requirement to include cost or price to the Government as a factor in the evaluation of proposals for certain multiple-award task- or delivery-order contracts and 2304c(b) to modify the exceptions to fair opportunity. Applicable to DoD, NASA, and Coast Guard. Status: 03/23/2017 CAAC received DARC revisions to draft proposed FAR rule and FRN. CAAC discussed draft proposed FAR rule on 04/05/2017.
  6. napolik

    Procurement Swamp Article

    I have maintained, futilely, that procurement offices need to be staffed via a deductive approach, not an inductive one. The inductive approach assigns billets based upon number of actions and number of dollars awarded, degree of competition, types of contracts, etc. This provides no incentive to be efficient. In fact, I have seen it create deliberately inefficient behavior so staffing can be maintained and increased. It's time to go deductive. Tell each office your staff is being cut XX% and suggest it use more efficient means to issue solicitations, evaluate offers/ quotes, make awards and administer contracts. The FAR has plenty of flexibility to let offices do more with less.
  7. R613 Support- Administrative: Post Office
  8. The general rule appears to be that subcontractors need not possess CAGE codes: https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2014/05/30/2014-12387/federal-acquisition-regulation-commercial-and-government-entity-code. However, agencies may sometimes require a subcontractor CAGE code (e.g. for security clearance or preaward survey or small business participation plan). See here for examples. http://www.gao.gov/assets/680/670041.pdf http://www.gao.gov/assets/670/669420.pdf http://www.gao.gov/assets/680/679880.pdf
  9. Go here: https://search.usa.gov/search?affiliate=acq_osd_mil_dpap&query=modification+training. Click on first result entitled “[PPTX] No Slide Title”. Go to slide 15. See “New work, requiring J&A” / "Cite the appropriate exemption to CICA" See also the second result entitled "[DOCX] MODIFICATIONS GUIDE" Go to page 2:
  10. Cite the authority you choose under FAR 6.302. 6.303-2 -- Content. (a) Each justification shall contain sufficient facts and rationale to justify the use of the specific authority cited. (b) As a minimum, each justification, except those for sole-source 8(a) contracts over $22 million (see paragraph (d) of this section), shall include the following information: (1) Identification of the agency and the contracting activity, and specific identification of the document as a “Justification for other than full and open competition.” (2) Nature and/or description of the action being approved. (3) A description of the supplies or services required to meet the agency’s needs (including the estimated value). (4) An identification of the statutory authority permitting other than full and open competition.
  11. napolik

    Oxford Comma

    Me thinks that you PUNKtuators are going a wee bit overboard. Let's get away from Oxford and put things into a greener perspective: Erin go Bragh! Here’s to a long life and a merry one, a quick death and an easy one. A pretty girl and an honest one. A cold beer-and another one.
  12. FrankJon, have you done a tradeoff under any FAR procurement method (i.e. 8.4, 13, 15 or 16.5)?
  13. Take a look at Monsieur Edwards timeless essay here: http://www.wifcon.com/anal/analcomproc.htm. Read his entire essay, but focus on these two paragraphs: 1) Simplified Acquisitions, and 2) Do not follow the FAR Part 15 Process Model when making simplified acquisitions.
  14. You are correct that an IAA is not a contract governed by the FAR, but I have seen some peculiar IAAs with unusual terms. In any event, it is not clear to me if we are addressing the IAA itself or the contracts issued pursuant to the IAA.
  15. Do you, or do you not have written interagency agreement that establishes the general terms and conditions governing the relationship between your agency and the other agency?
  16. What does the written agreement say? See FAR 17.502-1(b )(1) What does your agreement with the other agency say?
  17. napolik

    Contracting Scandals

    A very serious case that, perhaps, could have been avoided, or identified earlier, if the Navy had implemented the appropriate system for monitoring husbanding contracts.
  18. napolik

    Contracting Scandals

    This is a case where Fat shaming is appropriate!
  19. napolik

    Small Business Set-Aside

    You might wish to read Camden Shipping Corporation, B-406171; B-406323, Feb.27, 2012: http://www.gao.gov/assets/590/588932.pdf
  20. napolik

    Small Business Set-Aside

    19.506 -- Withdrawing or Modifying Small Business Set-Asides. (a) If, before award of a contract involving a small business set-aside, the contracting officer considers that award would be detrimental to the public interest (e.g., payment of more than a fair market price), the contracting officer may withdraw the small business set-aside determination whether it was unilateral or joint. The contracting officer shall initiate a withdrawal of an individual small business set-aside by giving written notice to the agency small business specialist and the SBA procurement center representative (or, if a procurement center representative is not assigned, see 19.402(a)) stating the reasons. In a similar manner, the contracting officer may modify a unilateral or joint class small business set-aside to withdraw one or more individual acquisitions. (b) If the agency small business specialist does not agree to a withdrawal or modification, the case shall be promptly referred to the SBA representative (or, if a procurement center representative is not assigned, see 19.402(a)) for review. (c) The contracting officer shall prepare a written statement supporting any withdrawal or modification of a small business set-aside and include it in the contract file.
  21. napolik

    Not a good clerk

    Speaking of FPDS, the GAO likes it, sufficiently: http://www.gao.gov/assets/690/683273.pdf
  22. napolik

    Not a good clerk

    These days, most 1102s can't spell FPDS as their automated procurement systems "populate" FPDS automatically. In fact, many, if not most, automatic procurement systems create solicitations and contract awards with minimal involvement by 1102s. Gone are the days when 1102s assembled line items and specs, deliveries, inspections and acceptances and when they reviewed clause and provision prescriptions to assure compliance with FAR and with common sense (e.g. are Sections B, C, L and M consistent internally and with each other?). Gone are the days when they reviewed contract files as they entered data into FPDS. Errors are attributed to the software, not to the 1102 and the COs. Perhaps it's time to modify FAR 1.602 to reflect the new IT reality!
  23. napolik

    Not a good clerk

    I have a good deal of sympathy with the 1102’s abandonment of his efforts to post a synopsis on FBO. This is particularly true if he abandoned his efforts on FBO in favor of reading, interpreting and applying the FAR correctly and of developing an acquisition strategy that enables his customer to meet its mission. With the wholesale application of IT to procurement over the past 20 years, the procurement knowledge of 1102s has declined noticeably. They spend too much time attempting to comply with arbitrary and capricious IT dictates and too little time reading FAR and GAO decisions interpreting the FAR, doing market research, putting together concise and comprehensible solicitations, and conducting efficient and effective source selections. When I was a young 1102, I didn’t fight with a typewriter or fax machine; a clerk did. Let’s restore an environment where the 1102 masters the FAR and the markets supporting his or her customers, not the incomprehensible software underlying FBO, SPS and FPDS!
  24. napolik

    SB Set-Aside LPTA Evaluation Factors

    When conducting a competition involving a set aside, it is not uncommon to use responsibility factors as evaluation factors (e.g. past performance, personnel résumés). However, one cannot avoid the requirement for a responsibility determination and, if necessary, a certificate of competency, if the factor is evaluated on a “pass/ fail” basis and if the small business contractor’s quote/ proposal is determined to have failed. FitNet Purchasing Alliance File, B-410263, Nov. 26, 2014. http://www.gao.gov/assets/670/667235.pdf See also this decision involving an IFB and an assessment of personnel résumés: Coastal Environmental Group, Inc., B-407563; B-407563.3; B-407563.4, Jan. 14, 2013. http://www.gao.gov/assets/660/651544.pdf
×