Jump to content
The Wifcon Forums and Blogs

Search the Community

Showing results for tags 'modifications'.



More search options

  • 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
    • 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
  • Vern Edwards' Blog
  • Don Mansfield's Blog
  • Bob Antonio's Blog
  • NCMAExecutiveDirector's Blog
  • Professor Ralph Nash's Blog
  • Emptor Cautus' Blog
  • Centre Knowledge Blog
  • Leftbrainpro.com Answer Blog
  • SmallGovCon.com
  • Patterns of Procurement

Calendars

  • Community Calendar

Categories

  • Rules & Tools
  • Legal Opinions
  • News

Found 4 results

  1. Hello! I thought this would be a good question for this forum to get a good idea on how things are done in other agencies. How often do you check the System for Award Management (SAM) for active exclusions? Do you check it for every contract action? That is how I was trained but someone brought up today that this may not be necessary. The FAR prohibits soliciting, or awarding to vendors that are on the excluded parties list but does not specifically require the Contracting Officer to check for every modification (e.g. admin changes). I found two applicable references which are verbose but nothing specific to requiring the check for every contract action - FAR 4.11 and 9.404-9.405: FAR 4.1103(a)(1) says that the Contracting Officer "(1) Shall verify that the prospective contractor is registered in the SAM database before awarding a contract or agreement. Contracting officers are encouraged to check the SAM early in the acquisition process, after the competitive range has been established, and then communicate to the unregistered offerors that they shall register;" FAR 9.404(c)(7) says that each agency must "(7) Establish procedures to ensure that the agency does not solicit offers from, award contracts to, or consent to subcontracts with contractors whose names are in the SAM Exclusions, except as otherwise provided in this subpart;" I'm at the Dept of Homeland Security. I can't find any agency specific information to requiring a check for every contract action either. Do you think this is something that was passed down as a best practice but not a requirement? This could also adversely affect a CO if they award a modification and find out that a vendor has been suspended so it could result in more dire consequences. I would love to know what you think!
  2. I'm trying to show where price analysis are required for the cumulative value of a contract vs the value of the contract action. I have always been taught that a price analysis needs to be completed for anything over $3500 for the cumulative value of the contract. However, I'm having a hard time finding that information in the FAR. For example my original award is $3,000 I purchase additional quantity for $1,000 Is a price analysis needed because the procurement is $4,000. If so where does FAR state that. Thank you in advance!
  3. I am looking for professional opinions on this issue which has been argued for quite a while in my office. I’ve done my research and feel that 52.243-1 -- Changes -- Fixed-Price, Alternate III is the correct authority based on the following: 1. FAR 52.249-14 – Excusable Delays is not applicable to fixed-price A-E Services per FAR 49.505( and the FAR Clause Matrix. 2. 52.249-8 -- Default (Fixed-Price Supply and Service) was not included in the contract, and although 49.504(a)(1) does not specifically say not to use it for A-E services, the clause matrix shows it not to be used . 3. FAR 49.503( states that 52.249-7, Termination (Fixed-Price Architect-Engineer) is the clause to be used for Termination for Convenience of the Government and Default for A-E services. The clause does not include the liability exception for government delays that is included in 52.249-8 and 52.249-10. 4. 52.243-1 -- Changes -- Fixed-Price, Alternate III allows the Contracting Officer to make changes within the general scope of the contract in the services to be performed, which I consider a PoP extension to be “general scope”. Paragraph (a) is not as specific as the other versions of the clause on what changes can be made. The other side of the argument says that a Changes clause should never be used strictly for a PoP extension. They argue that 52.249-8 -- Default (Fixed-Price Supply and Service) is the correct clause, because a Changes clause should never be use strictly for a PoP extension and there is no other clause to use. Opinions on the correct modification authority and reasoning behind the opinion would be appreciated.
  4. Let me start by stating the term modification will be used in a few different contexts in this posting, as follows: Modification-As defined associated in Army Regulations, not the Federal Acquisition Regulation, as a repair type procedure "within the current performance envelope" and a modification that "increases the current performance envelope." Important because the distinction has implications with respect to the type of appropriations used for the modification. Contract modification means any written change in the terms of a contract. Modifications are considered as one of the elements under the umbrella of Contractor Logistics Support services; however, modifications, which increase the performance envelope, are generally not known in advance and generally require appropriations other than O&M. Thus, limiting the ability to provide data necessary to include in a solicitation for offerrors to propose on for a CLS requirement. My question is can you contemplate the type of work associated with the modifications, that increase the performance envelope, without having them proposed on as a part of the original contract award and use an ECP type process to negotiate a price for these increased capabilities? The train of thought is yes, because modifications are contemplated under a CLS services effort or no because it would be considered new work and a J&A would have to be completed for each and every increase in capability. The second thought process does not make sense to me because the current contractor is already performing a baseline of maintenance services on X aircraft, vehicle, whatever with the resources on staff. To write a J&A for each and every effort associated with increased capability does not make sense. Nor does competing each and every increase in capability and potentially having a different contractor performing the associated work. The only sensible approach is using an ECP like process, and the reason I say like process, is as I understand only used on systems that are in production, while MWO's are used for out of production systems. If none, of these paths are correct please advise.
×