Jump to content
The Wifcon Forums and Blogs

Recommended Posts

46 minutes ago, C Culham said:

Thanks for the clarification.

Except here, the government can’t exercise the option as it is. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 56
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

On 2/27/2021 at 6:02 PM, 2FARGone said:

To begin, I have already engaged my agency’s OGC and they have no opinion on the matter at this time; we are exploring what other agencies are doing in possible similar situations. 

2FARGone, can you say what your OGC are saying now?

Of course, we don’t know what your (?) agency’s procedures may be either.

You don’t have to answer if it is necessary to remain anonymous. Hopefully there is some food for thought here.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Vern Edwards said:

@joel hoffman 

Why the strong reactions from some people? The issues seem to be mere practical matters. I stand by my earlier response to the OP:

1. change the contractor's mind, or

2. change your mind and seek a waiver, or

3. say goodbye to the contractor when the current contract ends.

I think your earlier response above is sound. Why my possible "strong reaction"- What has been missing to me, and appears to be missing in the original post, is that adding the 889 clause(s) to change the contractor's mind in this original posting of an option situation, should have included a written condition to negotiate and definitize consideration (i.e, an equitable adjustment) for impact of adding the clause(s). You, Joel and others have talked about consideration. I referred to the Congressional Research Service piece to emphasize and educate some to understand when there may or may not be contract interference when new laws are implemented in pre-dated contracts. Agency guidance regarding 889 implementation may not have been clear about this.

Peace.

Edited by Neil Roberts
sp and afterthought
Link to comment
Share on other sites

19 minutes ago, Vern Edwards said:

2FARGone doesn't have to answer in any case. 😆

True enough. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 4 months later...

I'm intentionally inserting a statement that does not directly address any questions or answers.

However, it is in keeping with one of the few logical statements of the FAR.

FAR 1.102(d)"...In exercising initiative, Government members of the Acquisition Team may assume if a specific strategy, practice, policy or procedure is in the best interests of the Government and is not addressed in the FAR, nor prohibited by law (statute or case law), Executive order or other regulation, that the strategy, practice, policy or procedure is a permissible exercise of authority."

Every last CO should have immediately implemented actual sound business judgment in having the appropriate FAR Clause 52.204-24, 252.204-7016, and 252.204-7017 checked off by the quoter/offeror/vendor/contractor.  Then doing nothing more.

What a ridiculous burden the Government puts on small businesses.  It is not in keeping with sound free market business principles nor does it actually help small businesses in any way.  To audit your supply chains for yet another Government requirement makes no sense.  Does anyone think that if you ask your suppliers from the Asian region, "Hey does your widget violate Section 889?" that you will get an actionable/meaningful response?

We operate in good faith or we do not.  No clause on CTIP, 889, etc. will ever change that.

This is exactly the kind of thing that leads to a $2M dollar bathroom, https://www.hsgac.senate.gov/subcommittees/fso/media/flushing-away-tax-dollars!

For DoD, upload these two memorandums to your file if it's not an IT purchase.

http://thecgp.org/images/08-12-20_Memo_DNI-Response-to-DoD-Waiver-Request_20-00733_U-FOUO_SIGNED-....pdfhttps://thecgp.org/images/Memo-20-00823_DoD-Request-for-Section-889-Waiver-2.pdf

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
 Share


×
×
  • Create New...