Jump to content
The Wifcon Forums and Blogs

Search the Community

Showing results for tags 'far 15'.

  • 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
    • Section 809 Panel
    • Polls
    • 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
  • Federal Contracting: A New Beginning
    • The Competition in Contracting Act

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

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 5 results

  1. FAR 15.101 describes how agencies can use different source selection approaches (or their combinations) to obtain best value. FAR 15.101-1 then describes the tradeoff process and 15.101-2 describes LPTA. The DoD Source Selection Procedures (which I personally find very confusing) describe VATEP (which I also find very confusing). My question is: Are there any other named/identified source selection procedures? (not including hybrids of ones already mentioned). Someone at work mentioned Highest Technical Rating at a Fair and Reasonable Price? Is that a viable approach where I work (Army)? It actually sounds closer to what our customers need than the others as they need highly experienced and specialized technical support people. thanks!
  2. Newish CO here. I am pre-award with an IDIQ that will have a BOM for a bunch of contractor-provisioned IT COTS hardware (maybe 100 different items, up to $80K unit price). These IT materials are from a dynamic market. Prices, models, features all change quickly. I am being asked by management to get 5-year pricing at the unit level for everything, and incorporate that pricing into the IDIQ. To me, this is a bad idea and a waste of time. My question to you all is - am I right in my assessment? Am I missing something? I see nothing in FAR 16.5 requiring any pricing of any type at the IDIQ level. Pricing and price analysis occurs at the order level. I understand that ceiling unit prices can be established by the IDIQ and found fair and reasonable, so that orders with unit prices at or below those levels are also fair and reasonable automatically, and this greatly speeds up the procurement process. However, this is predicated upon the assumption that the unit prices and things being priced will be stable over time. For example, carpenters and database administrators exist now and are reasonably likely to exist five years from now, and their hourly rates aren't going to change very much between now and then. This is not the case with IT hardware. Basically everything on the IDIQ's BOM has a lifecycle of less than 5 years and prices will change quickly, and by a lot. Also, new stuff comes onto market all the time. So why bother with IDIQ level pricing, you are going to have to do the price analysis per order anyways? If you know now, before award, that the IDIQ unit pricing will be obsolete and therefore can't be used for price analysis in the future, why bother having it? I know I will not win this battle with management, so this is for my personnel edification.
  3. I support a program with contracts defined as firm-fixed price (FFP), labor hour (LH), time and material (TM), indefinite delivery indefinite quantity (IDIQ) with economic price adjustments from collective bargaining agreements (CBAs)/ wage determinations (WDs). The contracts were awarded under FAR 15 with adequate price competition. Due to some security aspects in the SOW the effort is considered non-commercial and agency described as design/detail. Historically, the program has considered these contracts exempt from Cost Accounting Standards (CAS) per the exempted category (15) below, as there was always adequate price competition and they have not collected cost or pricing data with the offers. Is this interpretation correct? (b) The following categories of contracts and subcontracts are exempt from all CAS requirements: (1) Sealed bid contracts (2) Negotiated contracts and subcontracts not in excess of $500,000. For purposes of this paragraph (b)2 an order issued by one segment to another segment shall be treated as a subcontract (3) Contracts and subcontracts with small businesses. (4) Contracts and subcontracts with foreign governments or their agents or instrumentalities or, insofar as the requirements of CAS other than 9904.401 and 9904.402 are concerned, any contract or subcontract awarded to a foreign concern. (5) Contracts and subcontracts in which the price is set by law or regulation. (6) Firm fixed priced and fixed price with economic price adjustment (provided that the price adjustment is not based on actual costs incurred) contracts and subcontracts for the acquisition of commercial items (7) Contracts or subcontracts of less than $7.5 million, provided that, at the time of award, the business unit of the contractor or subcontractor is not currently performing any CAS-covered contracts of subcontracts valued at $7.5 million or greater. (8-11) [Reserved] (12) Contracts and subcontracts awarded to the United Kingdom contractor for performance substantially in the United Kingdom, provided that the contractor has filed with the United Kingdom Ministry of Defence, for retention by the Ministry, a completed Disclosure Statement (Form No. CASB-DS-1) which shall adequately describe its cost accounting practices. Whenever that contractor is already required to follow U.K. Government Accounting Conventions, the disclosed practices shall be in accord with the requirements of those conventions. (See 9903.201-4(d).) (13) Subcontractors under the NATO PHM Ship program to be performed outside the United States by a foreign concern. (14) Contracts and subcontracts to be executed and performed entirely outside the United States, its territories, and possessions (15) Firm fixed price contracts or subcontracts awarded on the basis of adequate price competition without submission of cost or pricing data.
  4. Hi All, Long time reader, first time poster. I'm doing evaluation on a competitive FAR 15 cost-reimbursement contract. Most of the primes have submitted subs providing full cost and pricing detail as required in FAR 15 to determine fair and reasonableness. However, some primes, for some subs, have only submitted T&M loaded rates or in some cases only one amount with no LOE to back it up for what they claim are their commercial subs. During discussions, where additional material was requested in order to determine fair and reasonableness, they claimed that because these subs are proposed as commercial subcontractors, it is not required and pointed to 52.244-6. I've dealt with commercial sub approval at the post-award stage before, but not at the pre-award. Any suggestions on material I should be requesting and am allowed to request in order to determine fair and reasonable cost? Its a very detailed requirement with different approaches, so price analysis is not really applicable.
  5. I'm looking through course material from Source Selection taught by Management Concepts and they have the following definitions for "Marginal" and "Unacceptable." Marginal - Fails to meet minimum evaluation standards; low probability of satisfying the requirement; has significant deficiencies, but they are correctable. Unacceptable - Fails to meet a minimum requirement; deficiency requires a major revision to the proposal to make it correct. This goes against everything I thought I knew. Has anyone ever rated a proposal that had "significant deficiencies" anything other than unacceptable?
×