Jump to content
The Wifcon Forums and Blogs

Search the Community

Showing results for tags 'FAR 36.6'.

  • Search By Tags

    Type tags separated by commas.
  • Search By Author

Content Type


Forums

  • Instructions and Terms of Use
    • Terms Of Use
    • Before You Register, Before You Post
  • Contracting Forum
    • What Happened?
    • Polls
    • COVID-19 And Its Effect on Contracting
    • For Beginners Only
    • Contracting Workforce
    • Recommended Reading
    • Contract Award Process
    • Contract Pricing Including CAS & Allowable Costs
    • Contract Administration
    • Schedules, GWACS, MACs, IDIQs
    • Subcontracts & Subcontract Management
    • Small Business, Socioeconomic Programs
    • Proposed Law & Regulations; Legal Decisions

Blogs

  • The Wifcon Blog
  • Don Mansfield's Blog
  • Bob Antonio's Blog
  • NCMA HQ Blog
  • Professor Ralph Nash's Blog
  • Emptor Cautus' Blog
  • Centre Knowledge Blog
  • Leftbrainpro.com Answer Blog
  • SmallGovCon.com
  • Patterns of Procurement
  • SAM
  • “Three-In-Two” Rule for Joint Ventures

Calendars

  • Community Calendar

Product Groups

There are no results to display.

Categories

  • Rules & Tools
  • Legal Opinions
  • News

Find results in...

Find results that contain...


Date Created

  • Start

    End


Last Updated

  • Start

    End


Filter by number of...

Joined

  • Start

    End


Group


AIM


MSN


Website URL


ICQ


Yahoo


Jabber


Skype


Location


Interests

Found 2 results

  1. Would love some input here from any knowledgeable folks about this. If an agency intends to issue a single solicitation for multiple A-E services IDIQ contracts, is that a "multiple award" as defined under FAR 16.505 and does the fair opportunity process apply at the task order level? FAR 16.5 exempts AE IDC's from the statutory multiple award preference, I get that. And the Brooks A-E Act as implemented by FAR 36.6 applies, i get that too. But by logic, if one solicitation results in multiple IDC's it seems that's a "multiple award" situation. And as for Fair Opportunity, I'd think the most appropriate COA would be to articulate in the synopsis how the agency will provide fair opportunity at the task order level by selecting the best A-E for each particulat task order SOW (using competency/qualifications criteria not price). In my experience this issue is consistently something that is discussed inconclusively, since, to me at least, the FAR is a bit convoluted on the topic. The DFARS used to have instruction under citation 216.505-70 (it was ¶(a)(4) I believe) that specificially exempted A-E contracts from fair opportunity under the IDIQ ordering process--however sometime in 2012 or 2013 that content was removed. The USACE's Architect-Engineering Contracting Guide (EP 715-1-7), which was updated in 2012 states at page 4-9 that the Contracting Officer must document the file as to why a particular contractor is selected. Although that's not policy that applies to any non-USACE contracting agencies, they are considered to be one of the premiere A-E contracting agencies across the federal Government. The EP also provides a standard synopsis template (appendix O) that states verbatim, "If multiple IDCs, state method to be used to allocate task orders among contracts when two or more IDCs contain the same or similar scopes of work such that a particular task order might be awarded under more than one IDC. See FAR 16.505 for guidance." Anyone have any experience with this issue?
  2. Hi - My question pertains to a change in non-key personnel on competed CPFF task order under a FAR 36.6 procured IDIQ. In a response to a request for proposal (RFP) / statement of objectives, the contractor is required to identify key personnel by name and non-key personnel by labor category and level (e.g., Senior, Mid, First, etc.) Information required for non-key personnel includes: minimum qualifications, location, number of staff proposed, and level of effort for the labor category and level. There is a difference in opinion in what is allowed in regards to a change in non-key personnel that results in a change of a labor category and/or labor category level under a cost-reimbursable task order. One opinion: Any new labor categories needed to complete the objectives requires a modifcation to be requested by the contractor and must include the rationale and cost implications. Since the task order was competed, the contractor was selected based the personnel it proposed. As the goverment selected the proposal based on the personnel it proposed, any revision requires justification including the value it provides the goverment. Other opinion: The non-key personnel were used to establish a total estimate of the cost; however, since scope is partially unknown, the contractor has flexibility to use any labor categories listed in the prime contract so long as it stays under the total cost. A modification is not necessary as there is no language in the prime contract nor the RFP that states a contractor does not have the flexibility to utilize the resources available to them to complete the objectives. Who's correct and what's the rationale/reasoning? If you need more information, please let me know. Thank you for your time in reading this. I really appreciate the help.
×
×
  • Create New...