bob7947

Section 865 provides an example of how a defense authorization act can affect all federal agencies covered under the FAR. As you can see, the following excerpt from Section 865 directs the Secretary of Defense to evaluate the FAR--consulting with the Administrator of OFPP. It is up to the Secretary to "consult" other agencies he considers "appropriate." I assume it is written this way to work around any jurisdictional issue of the defense committees. "The Secretary of Defense, in consultation with the Administrator for Federal Procurement Policy and the heads of such other Federal agencies as the Secretary considers appropriate, shall review the Federal Acquisition Regulation and the Defense Federal Acquisition Regulation Supplement to ensure that such regulations include appropriate guidance for and references to services acquisition that are in addition to references provided in part 37 and the Defense Supplement to part 37." Remember, the House changed leadership. That filters down to any Committee and Subcommittee. When leadership of a Committee or Subcommittee occurs, the former majority staff, who may know what the legislation meant, are usually purged in the changeover and sent scurrying for a job. The former minority staff, some of whom are the new majority staff, might be able to help but they probably will be cautious. If any part of ISNDAA is unclear as what to do, well, good luck.

It is H. R. 6523, the Ike Skelton National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2011. Congress thought so much of it that it finished the bill in about 7 days. It is at the White House waiting for a signature. A major part of the bill is the Improve Acquisition Act which includes several sections on the Defense Acquisition Workforce. Also, there is at least one provision that will affect the Federal Acquisition Regulation. Since there is no explanation for the bill from Congress in the form of a report, it is set up on Wifcon.com a bit differently from past years. To understand this legislation, I explained how it is set up here. Here are the contents.

It will be on Wifcon.com by January 3, 2011, at the latest.

There is an area under the protests page that might be useful. http://www.wifcon.com/pdcg21_8e.htm Or you can look at the subjects yourself. http://www.wifcon.com/pdbyforum.htm

Those That Mattered by Barbara Angle. By a friend I haven't seen in over 30 years.

I posted a GAO report on this topic on the Home Page. I thought someone might find worth commenting. The title is: Defense Contracting: Enhanced Training Could Strengthen DOD's Best Value Tradeoff Decisions.

I'm always reading about a new contracting requirement. One example of waste is the collection of data from contractors and suppliers that is not used. I know there are a lot of dumb, wasteful, or junk requirements out there--and you deal with some of it every day. Let's see if we can identify several items that are either worthless or near worthless but they are done because it is the rule.

Another rush job through Congress before recess. Please see the post at Wifcon Blog.

Wow. Over 10 years. I've been at this for over 12 years. Next July, this site will be a teenager.

Any kind of information that you search for in regard to contracting. I'm trying to improve the small business page and make it more relevant. Thanks.

To small, minority, women-owned, veteran businesses, etc.; in regard to contracting; what type of information do you search for on the internet? Thanks.

Parity is now a done deal. The bill became law today. See Parity Is Here.

This one caught me by surprise. I am still searching for when the small business contracting subtitle was added but I believe it was done in the Senate during the last 10 days--in a hurry. Without looking at it closely, I assume it was a wishlist of items. Because of politics, this bill was moving quickly and was sure to pass. As a result, it was decorated with various items. The defense authorization bill, where it would normally end up, has been delayed and/or endangered because of politics.

Parity is almost here. See Section 1347 of H. R. 5297.

Posted for lkinser: "Would like to know if a RFQ goes out Open Market and the quotes all reference a GSA Contract for services but Open Market for equipment how should this be handled? The RFQ went out GSA with no quotes to start with."

I hope John found it on wifcon.com. Its been here since last October. http://www.wifcon.com/dodauth10/dod10_lpna.htm#smallbusiness

Vern: I feel for you. Fortunately, I have none of those distractions here.

rdy2retire: Over the years, I had the GAO liaison at agencies pull contract contract files out of storage. So, there is life for contract files after closeout.

It does. I don't have it used based on experience.

I am adding this for Albrightken I am new to contracting and have been assigned a case study. The case deals with a $3 million FP supply contract. The contract has been delegated to DCMA. The COR is now reporting nonconforming items, and deliverary times. What are my options, if any?

Posted for vmatthews Question on the SF 30, block 3, how does effective date relate to funding of supplemental agreements? On the reverse of the SF 30, it states that "for a supplemental agreement, the effective date shall be the date agreed to by the contracting parties." I have researched the issue of available funding and effective date, but I can't find any discussion. For example, the supplement agreement adds $10,000. During January, the contracting office received certified funding of $8,500 Block 3, effective date is 1 Feb. The remaining funds are received on 10 Feb, the contractor signs the mod on 10 Feb and the contracting officer signs the mod on 11 Feb. Question: For a supplemental agreement that adds funds to the contract, when should all funding be certified? On or before the effective date or before the contracting officer signs the mod?

This was posted by "Nell" on the Blogs. I am posting it here. "Under the Bona Fide Needs Rule discussion, B.7. Contract Modifications and Amendments Affecting Price, WIFCON states that "in order to avoid over-obligating the original appropriation, the contracting officer must estimate the expected net additional obligations to insure that available appropriations are not committed to other purposes." WIFCON then references Comp. Gen. 609, 612 (1982) for cost-reimbursement contracts and B-192036, Sept 11, 1978. I find the same information in the GAO Red Book. However, as I read the '78 decision, I cannot find where the contracting officer (CO) is specifically identified as the individual responsible for estimating antecedent liability (AL) funding. The decision states that "there should be an administrative reservation of sufficient funds to cover the excess of the estimated increases over decreases resulting from variations...". And, the decision concludes by stating that "the contracting agency is responsible for instituting administrative controls...". Clearly, the contracting agency encompasses all those supporting a contractual requirement but does not in and of itself apply solely to the contracting officer. Is there some other regulatory or legal basis for requiring the contracting officer to estimate AL? In my 25+ years of contracting experience, the responsibility for estimating antecedent liability or management reserve has always been a program manager (PM) function. In most situations, contracting officers do not sit on Change Control Boards. Often, until a funded PR for a change arrives on the CO's desk, the CO does not know about it. And, frankly, if I were a PM, I would not want the CO estimating the amount of my budget that is going to be spent on changes. In the agency where I work, the Financial Manual has been revised to state that the CO must provide an estimate for all future ECP changes. The COs do not make technical decisions on the program and they do not control the budget, but somehow they are being made responsible for estimating changes. I concur that the CO decides whether changes are in or out-of-scope. However, most PMs and Fiscal folks with appropriations law training understand the principle and are able to make planning and budgeting decisions in this regard. It may be that the Red Book used the CO nominally only intending that the reservation of funds be performed by the agency. Unfortunately, the specific naming of the CO as the individual responsible has had the consequence I described above." ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Neil: The Bona Fide Needs Rule appearing on Wifcon.com is the same information from GAO's Red Book and its annual updates. As such, it is a handy way to see what GAO says--not Wifcon.com. Which reminds me, I need to check this year's updates.

Note: The question below was posted on the blog section by member TWorthington. I've transferred it here for him: "In college, I learned that if a contract (not necessarily a federal contract) is defaulted on, there must be something of value given from the defaulting party to the other party (the party that was wronged). However, in reading a post by Vern Edwards that directed me to Administration of Government Contracts, I understood that it is up to the contracting officer whether to require consideration if, for example, the delivery date is not met. However, I have heard from my peers that even though consideration is often not required, it should always be required if the contractor does not deliver on time. Can anyone definitively clear this up for me? The posts by Vern Edwards and others are not 100% clear on this matter. My specific situation is this: a contractor had to purchase new equipment to fulfill the contract, and the equipment was delivered late. The delivery to the government will be 3 weeks late. Once the item (which was repaired and rejuvenated for around $30,000) is delivered to the government, it will sit in our warehouse room for another month or two before it can be reinstalled. Should I require consideration? Am I required to seek consideration? Because of the relative small price tag, even $500 would be a significant hit to the contractor?s profit margin. Thank you."

I forgot to mention that I will be adding the decision this weekend.

On page 29 of the decision, the Court mentions that: "The HUBZone statute was introduced as part of the Senate version of the Small Business Reauthorization Act. Def.'s Resp. 26 (citing Small Business Reauthorization Act of 1997, S. 1139, 105th Cong., tit. vi (as reported by S. Comm. on Small Bus., Aug. 19, 1997, S. Rep. No. 105-62)). Defendant notes that the original Senate version of the bill contained a "Parity Relationship" provision, which stated that the HUBZone provisions "shall not limit the discretion of a contracting officer to let any procurement contract to [sBA] under section 8(a)." Id. (quoting 143 Cong. Rec. 18,118 (1997)). Defendant also notes that after the House of Representatives removed the entire HUBZone program from the bill, the Senate reinstated the program--but without the parity provision. Id. at 27 (citing 143 Cong. Rec. 24,094-108)." No explanation for the parity provision's omission was provided in the Senate record." Id. (citing 143 Cong. Rec. 24,106). defendant then lists a number of comments by House members, expressing their concern "that the new HUBZone program not harm the existing 8(a) program." Def.'s Resp. 28. With no explanation from the Senate as to why the parity provision was omitted, the fact that it was omitted is inconclusive." Apparently, the bill entered what our legislature refers to as a "conference." In truth, it is a shuffling of papers by a bunch of guys and gals who may or may not have a clue about what they have before them. Anyway, it appears that what some learned members of our "legislature" wanted was trashed in conference. Why? Who knows. Maybe some old fuddy-duddy hoping for a defense plant in his state just was being ornery and hid the provision. Anyway, that is the legislative process. In the latest major piece of "contracting legislation," the National Defense Authorization Act For Fiscal Year 2010, our "legislature," had another shot at removing a "shall" and replacing it with a "may." Maybe that would have provided clarity to this situation. Instead, "our legislature" again omitted the change. You can see it here at the bottom of this page. The provision was deleted in "conference." Why? Who knows? Again there was no explanation. Maybe the provison dropped to the floor and no one picked it up and stuck it back in the pile of paper before it was voted on. Who knows? Anyway, apparently a disappointed congressional staffer decided to try to scold the government into submission by using a Justice Department declaration. Nice try little one. It doesn't work as you can see from the Court's decsion below: Congress's statements about the proper interpretation of a statute subsequent to the statute's passage are of little persuasive authority. (p. 31 of decision) Now, we can all anxiously wait for the next piece of garbage contracting legislation to clear everything up. Legislative intent reminds me of a personal story. I had been flying around the country visiting contracting offices to review the experience gained under an OFPP contracting test. Before I got down the steps of the contracting office at Rock Island, I found out that a bill incorporating the test's provisions had been signed into law. At the end of my work, I sat down with a congressional staffer explaining our review of the test. There was a problem. One provision of the law scared everybody. I tried my weak explanation of what the legislative intent wanted. The staffer looked at me and said there was no such thing as "legisative intent" since no one knew what they were voting for. Then the staffer said "what have we done." The staffer immediately called OMB and--over the phone--it was agreed that there would be no regulation to implement the troubling provision of law. It worked. In the future, I suppose the legisation was fixed.