napolik

Who is guilty of the insidiousness - Secret Svc or contractor?

I would prefer to see the GAO retain bid protest jurisdiction. In fact, I would prefer that the COFC get out of the bid protest business. But, I know this will not happen. First, the GAO knows the procurement legislation and processes better than COFC judges. This superior knowledge allows the GAO to issue decisions more quickly than the COFC and to be more consistent with the practices flowing from procurement law and regulation. Second, the GAO will issue a single decision, and it will follow precedent. The COFC takes longer than GAO, and its 16 judges can issue different decisions on the same topics. Third, the GAO decisions are expressed more clearly and are, therefore, more readily comprehensible than the COFC decisions. These are my opinions based upon my years of experience in procurement. I do not have any empirical evidence to support them.

In my experience, a clearance is a document setting out a plan of action and supporting information. The document can be prepared as an Acquisition Plan, as a Pre-negotiation plan, as a Post-negotiation summary and source selection or as an explanation/ justification of a contract administration action (e.g. option exercise). The approval or disapproval of the clearance is made by a contracting officer, an SSA, or another reviewer/review board within or above the contracting office. The degree of detail contained in the clearance varies by contracting office. Some agencies address clearances in their FAR supplements.

Past performance can encompass "commercial" or private contract performance. See FAR 15.305(a)(2): See also FAR 12.206:

“Difficulties strengthen the mind, as labor does the body.”

Use your customer's estimates of labor categories and labor hours. If you have issued an order for the same task, compare the current estimate to the historical figure. If they don't coincide, ask your customer to explain why they do not. What is an ICG?

But, one wouldn't need to prepare a Pre or Post Negotiation memo, would one?

The contracting officer has the discretion to require the contract holders to recertify their small business size status when competing an order under an IDIQ. See InuTeq, LLC, B-411781, Oct. 21, 2015: Also, see Title 13, Chapter I, Part 121 of the Code of Federal Regulations.

This would not be a problem if the CO had done his/her job. Will the CO's performance bonus be reduced?

Go to google and enter DLA Director's External Briefing Template - Defense Logistics Agency. This will give you a PPT. Slides 10 to 13 specifically address the Questionnaire.

A phrase used by far too many contracting professionals when explaining decisions from acquisition planning through source selection and contract admin. One can only hope that they will engage their brains to read the regulations and discern business practices as well as they engage their fingers to enter their automated procurement systems.

It seems to me that the FAC reference is certainly afowl of the law.

How do you add new text unilaterally?

Do you do this unilaterally by accepting the contractor's offer or bilaterally by drafting a new contract for signature by both parties?

So, after source selection, you draft, and both parties sign, a contract containing a clause with the pertinent Section L material. Correct?

How do you incorporate it into the contract?

The solicitation stated that a proposal/ offer consisted of, inter alia, prices and an identification/ description of the vehicles to be used to meet the requirements set forth in the Section C/ SOW. The solicitation includes the SF 1449 which the contractor signed and which the contracting officer will sign to create a contract after signing in block 31a and after checking block 29 and entering info relevant to the proposal/ offer.

First, the cars must meet the minimum spec. Then, additional value will be assigned based upon horsepower, max velocity, seat space, IT mechanisms, etc. Like many, if not most, solicitations, there is no clause explicitly stating that the proposed vehicle must be furnished. However, the solicitation defines clearly the contents of the proposal/ offer, and the contracting officer will accept the proposal/ offer. PS - Another competitor will offer a Renault.

Greenleaf Constr. Co, Inc., B-293105.18, B-293105.19, Jan. 17, 2006 Dual, Inc., B-280719, Nov. 12, 1998

Brandes’s allegation that Amelex failed to inform the agency of a material change in its key personnel was not clearly meritorious at the time the agency filed its agency report. In this regard, our Office has held that offerors are obligated to advise agencies of changes in proposed staffing and resources, even after submission of proposals. Greenleaf Constr. Co., Inc., B-293105.18, B-293105.19, Jan. 17, 2006, 2006 CPD ¶ 19 at 10. The failure of an offeror to inform the agency of a change in proposed staffing and resources may render the evaluation and subsequent award decision unreasonable where it results in the agency being unable to evaluate the actual employees as they existed at the time of award.

What would one do in this scenario? A Fed agency covered by the FAR issues a solicitation calling for transportation services. The SOW includes a spec for the motor vehicles. The award will be made on a tradeoff basis. Quality of the motor vehicle is an evaluation factor. Contractor X will compete relying on a subcontractor to furnish the motor vehicles. One subcontractor, Luxurious Imports Inc. (LMI) furnishes Mercedes. The other subcontractor, Cinque Cento (C2 )motors, provides Fiat 500s. Both meet the solicitation spec requirement. Since the source selection will be a tradeoff, X proposes LMI vehicles. Later, after dispute breakouts our between X and LMI, X decides to use C2.. Is X required to notify the contracting officer that it will provide Fiat 500s instead of Mercedes?

Would the MATOC, or GSA BPA, contain clauses governing submission and evaluation of quotes/ proposals? Maybe. I used those clauses. Every contract specialist must read the clauses contained in the MATOC or GSA BPA to see how they affect contract performance AND the solicitation and evaluation of quotes/ proposals. If the the MATOC or GSA BPA clauses don't contain proposal submission and evaluation language, the CO could add the same language on proposal submission and evaluation in the solicitation as seen in provisions in a solicitation for a new contract.

This is a clause is pertinent to the administration of a contract. It is not a solicitation provision relevant to the evaluation of proposals.

https://www.law360.com/articles/928640/risks-for-contractor-with-new-info-after-proposal-submission Brandes Associates Inc., B-412548.5, Aug. 24, 2016 https://www.gao.gov/assets/680/679861.pdf

It appears that you cannot use the FY 16/ 17 funds in FY 18. See B-317636, April 21, 2009. https://www.gao.gov/special.pubs/appforum2010/contract_law.pdf Go to the bottom of page 3 and the top of page 4: