CardinalChange

Same old tired argument about reciting authority in the mod. Either you have the authority or you don't. Whether or not the modification recites it is of no consequence whatsoever.

I am put in mind of the case "Funding of Maintenance Contract Extending Beyond Fiscal Year," B-259274, May 22, 1996, where the Air Force used FY94 annual appropriations to fund a total of 15 months of severable services (11 months in one option period and 4 months in the next option period. The GAO had no problem with this. Each option period is a separate contract, neither of which was longer than 12 months in duration, which is the limitation contained in 10 USC 2410a.

More facts necessary. What is being purchased? Services? If so, is this a severable service contract or non-severable (the fact that you've got what sounds like optional performance periods with incremental funding of the same period with two different FYs suggests severable, but without addtional information, who knows)? What is the basis of the change order?

I did not reply to the first question, but will do so here: Yes, a person who, without a license, drives a truck on a public road is still a driver under the definition given. Interestingly, in that scenario, assuming that the rule is punitive, a person who drives a car on a public road without a license could not be punished for violating the rule. On the second question, my answer is "yes." The hypothetical does not state that the claimant is also seeking the right to payment of the adjusted amount upon adjudication of the claim.

Agree with Vern. I would go with the BPA. In the first post, buddyandme noted that a business case had been made that the Red Cross could provide the travel at a lower cost than the Government. Moreover, ITAs can be a pain in the rear. Why not kill two birds with one stone?

Issued as a handwritten note by the CG, MICC on a copy of a solicitation in which the Contracting Office outlined just such an evaluation process (the language was highlighted and marked "Prohibited"). The pdf copy of this was distributed by email from HQ, MICC to the Directors of all MICC offices. Why? The handwritten note states that this process is "disingenuous on our part" and "sets up a screen." I don't see anything wrong with doing it. The only potential downside is if one were to receive debriefing requests - what can you tell them about their strengths and/or weaknesses if you haven't evaluated them? If I were an unsuccessful offeror, I would want to know if I hit the mark or not.

To start with the lowest priced proposal and work up until you find a technically acceptable one (including OCI considerations) seems logical and efficient. I do not believe that it would be contraindicated by the FAR. This was discussed in this forum a while back: http://www.wifcon.com/discussion/index.php?showtopic=103&hl=lpta&fromsearch=1 where it was referred to as "Economical LPTA." I should note that recently, the Commander of the US Army Mission and Installation Contracting Command determined that it should not be utilized. You would need to check your agency's policies.

I would not recommend sitting in on job interviews, or being involved in the contractor's hiring process. Your agency might wind up being considered a "joint employer" and thus subject to potential liability for Title VII claims under the Civil Rights Act. See, for example, Harris vs. Attorney General of the United States at: http://www.fedsmith.com/articles/records/file/04-220-3harrisvag.pdf. It is a DC District case, but is illustrative of what can happen when an agency gets into the HR business with respect to contractor employees. There is certainly nothing wrong with specifying certain qualifications in your work statement, and there is nothing wrong with notifying the contractor when the Government believes that the contractor has not complied with the requirements of the contract in that it might have supplied personnel lacking appropriate qualifications (and taking appropriate action under the contract should the contractor fail to correct the situation). However, the Government should not get involved in hiring and termination decisions.

You should get an opinion from your servicing legal office; as you have recognized, the timing of payment has statutory and fiscal implications. You may want to read this: Matter of: United States Department of Interior-- Purchase of Warranties in Advance http://www.gao.gov/products/476451#mt=e-report A 1993 case, but still a righteous one. On the other hand, you may want to read this: Matter of: Authority to Make Advance Payments for Technical Support Associated with Computer Software Packages http://www.gao.gov/products/403305#mt=e-report A 1995 case, but also righteous. The point is, fiscal issues are almost always nuanced and extremely fact dependent. Talk to your attorney.

The premise of the book was disturbing considering that EMP is possibly the likeliest threat to us from any small country possessing a limited nuclear capability (i.e., Iran, North Korea). If you are intrigued by that kind of premise, here are a couple of more recent publications on that order: 77 Days in September, by Ray Gorham Winterkill, by Gene Skilleg Perhaps I'm too critical, but I give all three of these a "C," primarily because the character development is not very . . . mature. However, plot and premise are interesting in all. As a fan of post-apocolyptic fiction, I'm currently re-reading an old favorite: Farnham's Freehold, by Heinlein. Nostalgia reading for one raised in the shadow of the Soviet nuclear threat.