Jump to content
The Wifcon Forums and Blogs

All Activity

This stream auto-updates     

  1. Yesterday
  2. Multiple-Year Funding

    Thanks, and sorry if I confused my post. I have two-year money that was awarded in FY16 and performance spanned into FY17.
  3. Multiple-Year Funding

    Despite the title that you gave to this thread, it sounds like you have annual funds. When you wrote "FY16/17," I presume that the slash between 16 and 17 stands for and and that you meant that you used FY16 funds for one part of the contract period and FY 17 funds for another. (Otherwise, with respect to annual appropriations, there is no such thing as "FY16/17" funds. There are FY 16 funds and there are FY 17 funds.) If, in fact, you have multiple year appropriations, then disregard this post. The extension is a new procurement, even if you accomplish through supplemental agreement under the existing contract. If you (1) have FY17 funds, (2) make the extension a separate line item, and (3) accomplish the extension before the end of September 30, 2017, then you can use FY17 funds to fund an extension for up to 12 more months. See FAR 32.703-3(b) and the GAO Red Book, Vol. I, Ch. 5, Sec. 9a.
  4. Multiple-Year Funding

    I have a question regarding multiple-year appropriations. With the end of the fiscal year coming, I’m getting requests to spend money, do extensions, etc. I’m not comfortable with one particular request. Unfortunately, I have no access to an appropriations attorney or another individual that can help out. So here I am. I have a severable services contract that was awarded last September using FY16/17 funds. It’s set to expire before the end of the month and we need an extension for a short period pending a re-compete. The existing T-M contract has funds remaining (no delays etc.- the work has just gone easier than anticipated). Program is asking to use the funds remaining on the contract to fund the extension into FY18. My Finance Office indicates the money can be used to fund performance into FY18 (though I have been given no specific reason why). I took a look at the Red Book and at GAO cases. I found one GAO opinion (B-317636, Subject: Severable Services Contracts) that seems on-point. It indicates “severable services are considered a bona fide need of the appropriation current at the time rendered. Consequently, an agency using a multiple year appropriation would not violate the bona fide needs rule if it enters into a severable services contract for more than 1 year as long as the period of contract performance does not exceed the period of availability of the multiple year appropriation.” That seems straight-forward to me that these FY16/17 funds cannot fund performance beyond September 30, 2017. I’d appreciate comments in the event I’m taking these few sentences out of context. Thanks
  5. Last week
  6. Greetings from Omaha, where I’ve just wrapped up a great half-day training session sponsored by the Nebraska PTAC. If you haven’t been to Omaha, you’re missing out: I’m enjoying exploring the Old Market District, and keep wondering when I’ll run into Warren Buffett. Of course, I’m not about to let a little road trip get in the way of our weekly roundup of government contracts news. In this edition of the SmallGovCon Week In Review, we have an update on an SDVOSB fraud case that we have been following for awhile, a push to close loopholes in the Buy American Act, some promising changes for the SBA Surety Bond Guarantee program, and more. After jurors became deadlocked, a retrial was scheduled in the case of an Arkansas businessman accused of falsely claiming to operate a SDVOSB. [Arkansas Online] Senator Chris Murphy is pushing hard to change federal rules regarding the government buying products from American companies, trying to close loopholes in the Buy American Act. [New Haven Register] FEMA is seeking contractors to provide meals in the wake of Hurricane Maria, and will begin awarding contracts as soon as possible. [Markets Insider] Congressman Will Hurd is one step closer to making his dream of overhauling federal government information technology procurement a reality. [San Antonio Business Journal] The SBA is considering granting a request for a class waiver of the Nonmanufacturer Rule for Positive Airway Pressure Devices and Supplies Manufacturing. [Federal Register] The SBA has finalized two important changes to its Surety Bond Guarantee Program that will increase contract opportunities for small construction contractors. [SBA] View the full article
  7. Thanks for your responses. I'm glad that, at least with respect to this subject, I'm not going crazy. If the interplay between FAR 12 and FAR 13 with other parts of the FAR were better understood or expressed more clearly, it would save me a lot of time and frustration.
  8. IDIQ Decision

    That wouldn't work - if you're trying to establish that acquisition outcomes for awards made in September are "weak" that requires a basis for comparison (worse than what?). If you only review/sample acquisitions in September, you'll only be able to compare them to one another which wouldn't allow you to properly test the hypothesis.
  9. IDIQ Decision

    As an auditor, would it be wrong to only review acquisitions made in September? It may be statistically skewed but the weaknesses would certainly be identified.
  10. IDIQ Decision

    This wouldn't be unique to government contracting. See the following: https://hbr.org/2017/08/the-end-of-quarter-sales-rush-costs-companies-money
  11. I'm glad to see that time has not diminished your sense of cynicism, Bob. Further, I suspect you missed the role of the FAR Councils, whose job it is to focus and aim all that hot air so that it hits the wrong island. And then to blame the contracting folks for being on the wrong island. And perhaps you missed the role of Fort Lee, whose job it is to build bridges between the islands where there are no contracting folks.
  12. IDIQ Decision

    I have a theory in search of evidence that more bad contracting decisions are made in September than in all the rest of the months of the year, combined.
  13. IDIQ Decision

    No, we didn't agree on price. Perhaps they knew it might take some time to finish negotiations and wanted to secure something else. I just wanted to know a reason for a chance at rebuttal. Thanks!
  14. napolik: ------------------------------- here_2_help: Contracting in this country is run by politicians and political hacks that blow a lot of hot air. Contracting folks must view themselves as if they are on a poor Caribbean island waiting for all the hot air from Washinton City to form into a hurricane. Once it does, and they are hit by the hurricane, they are left to pick up the pieces of rubble left by the hurricane and make the contracting process work. Then they wait for the next mass of Washinton City hot air to form into another huricane and watch it kick around the contracting process rubble. Of course, by now, the contracting folks on the island are spinning in the dust from successive hurricanes and they make mistakes as they try to patch the contracting process together. By now, the Washington City politicians get wind of the situation and send GAO into the rubble to report back to them. GAO, after landing on the wrong island several times, finally finds the contracting folks on their wrecked island and reports back to Congress that things are a mess. By now, GAO has told the IGs where contracting island is, and after several failed landings on the wrong island, some IGs find contracting island also. They report back to their Washington City political hacks who work with the politicians to fix the contracting mess on contracting island. As the politicians and political hacks work together, another mass of hot air begins to form around Washington City. It is only a matter of time for that hot air to form into another hurricane, which inevitably will hit the contracting rubble on contracting island again. And the process repeats.
  15. Mandatory E-Payroll

    If any reader here has access to the "higher level policy for [DoD electronic payroll systems?] that has previously undergone the public comment process", would you please identify or provide a link to that policy? That might help mccmark better frame his question(s) to the soliciting agency. Thanks. This Forum method of communications and information seeking Is like texting sound/word bites vs. direct oral conversation. It is available to a wide audience but I'm still unclear about what mccmark's real, underlying concerns are. One appears to be that the NAVFAC is allegedly requiring use of a third party payroll system in addition to their own payroll system. Mccmark hints that they have some type of electronic system, thus may or may not be concerned about having to directly furnish electronic payroll information submission. Another concern is having to provide some type of remote access to their payroll system for (certain? Only designated? Any? ) government personnel. Is this a concern for third party payroll system or any electronic payroll system used? It is obvious to me that the DOL would have minimum technical requirements for determining compliance with the Labor Laws and for audit or inspection capability. Remote access might be open to debate. Such policies might have already been addressed by "higher authority" subject to public comment. Information Security? Remote vs obtaining controlled on-site access? As for access, the FAR and probably DOL and statutes already require that and/or the contractor to provide the information and mention providing access to the KO, authorized reps of the KO and DOL - for certain official purposes. Then, there is the question of authority for the "clause" (?), as written.
  16. Mandatory E-Payroll

    If mccmark's thinks that the NAVFAC solicitation requires that his/her firm use a third party payroll service in addition to whatever the company's internal payroll system is, perhaps mccmark should seek clarification or confirmation of that interpretation, then decide what to do in response.
  17. Mandatory E-Payroll

    Don, Apparently they did. Try this link and see page two, in particular the comment that the issuance of the PIL was to implement higher level policy that has previously undergone the public comment process. That policy was not available at the URL nor was the USACE request that is referred to. And to correct my earlier comment, the USACE clause does not appear to require either internal or third party electronic payroll software. It describes the requirements for such a system or payroll service, if used. http://media.swf.usace.army.mil/pubdata/ec/Payroll/PIL_2011-09_Electronic_Software_for_DBA_Payrolls.pdf The NAVFAC clause on page 74 at the below apparently requires use of a "supplemental electronic Construction Wage Rate Requirements statute payroll processing system to process and submit certified payrolls electronically to the Government that are compliant with appropriate Construction Wage Rate Requirements statute payroll provisions in the FAR. The contractor shall be responsible for obtaining and providing all access, licenses, and other services required..." I don't know what the significance of the word "supplemental" is or if it requires use of a third party payroll service that complies with the technical requirements described in the (unnumbered) "clause". http://4xstt2e0qzc1aqemd10fd9da.wpengine.netdna-cdn.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/07/RFP_WITH_WAGE_DEC.pdf Just because one can't find any evidence that the NAVFAC "clause" went through the public review process, doesn't necessarily mean that NAVFAC didn't use some similar process to that used by USACE for approval to use it.
  18. IDIQ Decision

    You won't be able to compel the Government to make award. It's curious that they went through negotiations with you (did you agree to a price?) and then decided against it. But it's far from unheard of, especially in the last two weeks of September.
  19. IDIQ Decision

    Touchè lol
  20. Which is why coverage of commercial items contracting should be removed from the FAR, Chapter 1 of Title 48 of the CFR, and placed in a separate chapter of Title 48, which should expressly state that it is the exclusive coverage for commercial items. Hear that, Section 809 Panel? While you're at it, take simplified acquisition out of the FAR, as well.
  21. IDIQ Decision

    Yes, you can offer a lower price.
  22. IDIQ Decision

    We have an IDIQ with a set of NSNs. They wanted to add more NSNs and they had us submit a quote. After negotiation they said the price was too high and will not award. Is there anything we can do about it? I'm assuming they found the price to not be fair and reasonable but can we ask the exact decision why they won't award. If we don't agree with that decision, is there any way we can protest somewhere? This is under 10M and I guess it would have been a scope change because they would have added NSNs to the contract where they could then issue DO's under.
  23. Mandatory E-Payroll

    Do you think the higher-ups in USACE even thought about 41 USC 1707? I'm not arguing that the clause in question should have been published for comment (I can't open that link), but I can' find a single USACE provision or clause in Title 48 of the CFR. Chapter 51 of Title 48 only lists three clauses:
  24. Mandatory E-Payroll

    I think that the two agencies were (are) working to implement procedures to implement paperless contracting procedures, which have been mandated at some higher level by (?) . It's a good thing to have to allow public comment and feedback concerning the particular procedures, as discussed herein. It appears that the Corps isn't mandating the use of an independent payroll service. If the contractor does use an independent payroll service, then those requirements would kick in. As mccmark indicated above, it wasn't deemed necessary to publish the SCR for public comment. The NAVFAC version appears to mandate use of an independent payroll service, even where the contractor has an internal electronic payroll process. If that is intentional, why? From my experience, NAVFAC is much more prescriptive than USACE or the Air Force in specifying construction means and methods anyway, so why should I be surprised?
  25. I suspect not. But, perhaps the automated procurement systems, or a more sophisticated AI cousin, can empower them to read, assess, decide and act correctly. B-414785, Bluewater Management Group, LLC, September 18, 2017 http://www.gao.gov/products/B-414785
  26. No, you're correct. However, you're incorrect in thinking that DPAP is responsible for you getting an error message. For some reason, some people just can't accept that if a DFARS provision or clause is not listed in DFARS 212.301(f), then it's not required in a solicitation for the acquisition of commercial items. They seize on prescribing language that says "Insert this clause in all solicitations and contracts..." and become stuck. They don't get the concept that regulations must be read as a whole. I recently had a former student e-mail me with the same dilemma--her legal counsel sent back her solicitation because it didn't contain some DFARS clauses, including DFARS 252.225-7048. This is what her legal counsel wrote: This is what I wrote back to her: So, when her legal counsel saw the FR notice and read 41 USC 1906, they realized their mistake...is not what happened. They responded by saying the statutes that the DFARS clauses in question implement take precedence over the DAR Council determination. This person has a law degree and is the member of a bar in some state. Sad. fr_2011-D056 (1).pdf
  27. Sometimes the Government seeks the best overall value, and at times simply lowest cost. But even when low price is determinative, the bidder must still meet minimum technical qualifications. In a recent case, Level 3 Communications lost a major contract with the Dept. of Defense to Verizon, whose bid exceeded theirs by nearly $40 million. Level 3 was disqualified for what it thought were trivial reasons. When Level 3 protested, it got no relief from GAO, but the Court of Federal Claims came to their rescue. More at Petrillo & Powell's Patterns of Procurement.
  1. Load more activity
×