Search the Community
Showing results for tags 'TINA'.
Found 4 results
I am being challenged about my interpretation of DFARS 252.215-7002 Cost Estimating System requirements. Wherever I read the word "proposal" in the clause, I'm interpreting it as any and all proposals provided by a contractor. It seems pretty black and white to me. My challenger thinks it only applies to proposals above the TINA threshold. What say you? Does DFARS 252.215-7002 apply to ALL proposals, or only those which require certified cost or pricing data? Any insight you can provide is greatly appreciated.
Good afternoon, Does anyone have a reference to the COFC case that determined that prior actual costs incurred on prior buys are required under TINA? I know it exists but I can not find it. I currently have a Major defense contractor refusing to submit actuals on extremely large procurement and I would like to send them the case. V/r Jake
In general terms, what does having a "directed source" do for a Prime with a certified procurement system other than relieve them of justifying the decision not to compete? I have a case where the Prime is considering using "directed source" as rationale for saying that a review of price reasonableness is not required (cost or price analysis). The logic here is that since the CO directed the source, the Prime has no option and therefore has to purchase at the offeror's price. I wholeheartedly disagree with this - source direction has nothing to do with price reasonableness. Has anybody experienced a case where source direction was successfully linked to price reasonableness?
I have a CPFF contract awarded competitively. If I submitted a cost growth proposal for over $700K (scope changes/rates/overruns). its my understanding that we would need to provide Certified Cost & Pricing Data. The proposal was submitted a while a go and when the government was ready to discuss, I updated the pricing with current G&A rates due to my belief that the change falls under TINA. At this point some of the data was actuals. Based on the new rates, its significantly higher than the original cost growth proposal. Government wants us to agree to cap the rates for the out years. My question is three-fold (1) is that ok even if our rates change during those years? (2) I thought there was some type of provision that pretty much forbids the government from forcing an agreement that could significant and detrimental impact to the health of a company, did I imagine this provision? (3) Can the government make the decision to make the award based on the previous proposal?