Jump to content

C Culham

Members
  • Posts

    2,929
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Reputation

0 Neutral

1 Follower

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Not Telling

Recent Profile Visitors

17,769 profile views
  1. You may find nuggets in this discussion in WIFCON to help you further add substance to comments made to your queston above.
  2. You may find this WIFCON webpage reference useful for the future. A read of "Services Rendered Beyond the Fiscal Year" will help verify Vel's response. https://www.wifcon.com/bonafidecontents.htm
  3. Sorry but I can not. You have presented a position that is not supported by facts. My intent here is to provide factual history for the Forum. I have already pointed out in a previous post the first issue of the FAR in 1983 carried FAR 8.406 regarding BPA's. FAR 8.406 was then removed from the FAR via Federal Acquisition Circular (FAC) No. 90-21 (October 25, 1994). BPA reference then reappeared in FAR subpart 8.4 via FAC 2001 25R in October of 2004. My research found the below referenced protest of 1996. In the protest the GAO opined the following (emphasis added) absent the FAR 8.406 language. "GSA, commenting on this matter at our request, acknowledges that FAC No. 90-21 deleted FAR Sec. 8.406 from the FAR; however, it takes the position that ordering agencies may enter into BPAs with FSS contractors pursuant to FAR Sec. 13.202(c)(3) and clause H.5 of their FSS contracts. FAR Sec. 13.202(c)(3) provides that "BPAs may be established with Federal Supply Schedule contractors, if not inconsistent with the terms of the applicable schedule contract" and, as previously indicated, section H.5 of WIN's and IDI's schedule contracts expressly authorizes the contractor to enter into a BPA with an ordering agency. [9] Purchases under BPAs with FSS contractors are not limited to $100,000. FAR Sec. 13.204(b). " https://www.gao.gov/products/b-274626%2Cb-274626.2 I would bet, admittedly without further research that I am not going to do, that language was added back into the FAR regarding GSA FSS BPA's in 2001 in part due to the protest I have referenced. While your think otherwise the factual history supports a nexus of GSA FSS BPA's to FAR part 13. I would add that IDIQ contracts and their related task/delivery orders are not charge accounts. This fact is clear from the guiding principles of the FAR and common contract law. As a reminder GAO has also stated that BPA's issued pursuant to a GSA FSS are not contracts, yet task/delivery orders are. So if a BPA is not a contract under a GSA FSS what are GSA FSS BPA's but charge accounts where a call placed against a GSA FSS BPA must be confirmed by a call/order (task/deliver order). I will agree that it really does not matter as procuring agencies, and GSA in managing the FSS program, will do anything they want. And while agencies and GSA think it makes sense to utlize BPA's, as evidenced by the protest in the original post to this thread it does not, and that is my view.
  4. Thanks for the history but I am not convinced. I have reviewed the Federal Register (Volume 48, No. 182 dated 9/19/1983) which was the issuance of the Federal Acquisition Regulations where on page 42166 at FAR 13.203-1(f) provided the following wording which is essentially as it remains today. "(f) BPA’s may also be established with Federal Supply Schedule contractors (see Subpart 8.4) and ADTS Schedule contractors (see Part 39), if not inconsistent with the terms of the applicable schedule contract." Noted FAR 13.201 in the 1983 FR noted above did use the term "charge account". More interestingly FAR 8.406 addressed BPA's for ordering from Federal Supply Schedules. The wording from 8.406 is as shown below and I have added the emphasis. "8.406 Blanket purchase agreements. Ordering offices should consider using a Blanket Purchase Agreement (BPA) with schedule contractors to reduce the number of orders and billing and payment documents required for repetitive orders. When the schedule provides for quantity discounts, considerable savings may be effected by establishing a BPA for items for which there is a foreseeable demand. Ordering offices shall comply with Subpart 13.2 and the schedule when establishing a BPA." I still conclude that it was not GSA who chose the same term but the drafters of the FAR. Again placing the wording in FAR Part 13 so that FAR subpart 8.4 could allow for BPA's. Along the way, and I have admittedly not reserached the FAR yet the current 8.405-3 regarding BPA's has greatly expanded the GSA FSS use of BPA's. My further research was prompted not only by your reference to history but by my own recollection, admittedly very foggy, that I may have written a BPA against a GSA FSS for IBM Selectric Typewriters back in the stubby pencil days. As I noted in my previous post the now explosion of BPA's to establish charge accounts way beyond what might be viewed as a simplified acquisition procedure does not make sense. So yes I shake my head in wonder because I was around years ago. I realize the Federal government is a huge procurer of all kinds of stuff but establishing a "charge account" in any form where millions upon millions of dollars of stuff can be acquired, again, does not make sense. For reference - https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/FR-1983-09-19/pdf/FR-1983-09-19.pdf#page=1
  5. FAR subparts 17.5 thought 17.6 might be of an assist in answering your question.
  6. It seems the allowance to use BPAs for GSA FSS is derived from FAR subpart 13.303-2(3) and as such a simplified acquisition method. The CBP effort for establishing the BPA's was not simplified.
  7. Oversimplification or misuse of a Simplified Acquisiton method. Afterall the Court reasoned that it was not a negotiated procurement.
  8. I played off of your mention of "measure". So in your scenerio if you are not worried about measure and as you say payment then why do you care about parsing the hours? The effort was as noted, shovel, axe, tractor, and time digging, chopping, and watching, the level of each does not matter because you are not doing anything with the level of the effort exerted to accomplish the removal of the stump.
  9. They have exerted 27 hours of effort for which measurement for the purpose of payment will only be nine hours.
  10. That is not the reason. It is because you digressed. This exemplifies my concern. I brought up the thought of pricing (and cost) by posting a rhetorical thought and was chastised for doing so. You should and can. Yet do you not have to accept the territory and the even the rules in doing so as frustrating as it may seem to you? Level of effort is what one or many put into a task to accomplish it. The measures of the effort comes in many forms like time and stuff and each of the forms has a level, dare I say quantity, that contributes to the effort to achieve success.
  11. @Vern Edwards I can answer but I won't as it is my belief you have now taken the thread beyond intent of Beginners. As to count of references I am sorry you were offended. As I said "no biggy".
  12. I did say this. To clarify "effort" could mean more than time such as materials, equipment But I did not say this. My post may have implied it but my use of "work defined" was to set the parameters of why a level of effort type contract (per the FAR) is needed. My apology for the confusion. Yes in a general view they are as they require level of effort. But doesn't every contract? It would seem the difference between any contract is with regard to how the cost or pricing of the the effort will be paid to the contractor. No biggy but I got 34 results back in my search.
  13. Nope. Example - Work can not be clearly defined. There is agreed to sideboards by the parties on the effort with it acknowledged that the effort will accomplish the intended result. Contract is for 6 months yet the effort needed to accomplish the result in the stated 6 months is only 3 months because folks won't be "working" on weekends, holidays, inclement weather, fire prevention levels, birthdays, fish runs, etc. etc.
×
×
  • Create New...