Jump to content

Retreadfed

Members
  • Posts

    3,115
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by Retreadfed

  1. Look at exemption (b)(5) to FOIA and 18 U.S.C. 1905 for starters.
  2. What does this mean? Is the contract an indefinite delivery contract or is it incrementally funded or something else?
  3. A quick question for clarification: are you with the government or a contractor?
  4. Looking at the decisions at the ASBCA website, that appears to be an accurate statement. To add to this, in my experience, matters can be settled after a claim is filed but before a COFD is issued. Many times having a set of eyes other than those of the CO look at an issue can lead to a resolution.
  5. In your hypo, is the procurement a negotiated procurement? If so, is it LPTA? Also, if a negotiated procurement, does the RFP state that award will be made without discussions?
  6. Vern, I am in complete agreement with your post concerning contracting officer independence. I have made the same point to contracting officers regarding DCAA findings, but generally to no avail. I think IG oversight is something that is lurking in the background causing COs not to go against DCAA for fear of an adverse IG finding somewhere down the line. Another but lesser factor is congressional deference to auditor "infallibility." I think the overarching point is that some COs are substantially risk averse.
  7. I agree with the general thrust of your thesis. However, while there may be problems caused by COs supporting CORs, in my experience there are more problems with contracting officers kow towing to DCAA. I don't know how many times I have heard contracting officers say that once DCAA has taken a position on something, the CO cannot go against DCAA. This causes needless litigation.
  8. Don and Joel, how does FAR 33.204 factor in to your answers?
  9. If the information is public, what kind of line are you talking about? Do you not want to provide it because it is available from some other source?
  10. The general authority to contract is the authority to do. The FAR does not contemplate government agencies contracting only with commercial organizations. See, for example, FAR 31.3, .6, and .7. Also, how could an agency achieve full and open competition if state agencies were excluded. Finally, although it is not covered by the FAR, when contracting for cafeteria services under the Randolph-Shepard Act, the award is made to a state agency. Why is this question being raised?
  11. What is the nature of the vendor's request, e.g., FOIA request, litigation request, formal discovery request, etc.?
  12. Yes it was. As I recall, the contractor regularly billed the government using the cost principles in effect on the effective date shown on the contract document and the government reimbursed the contractor without question. It was only after the contract was signed did the government question which cost principles applied. The court based its decision on what it perceived to be the intent of the parties.
  13. To Vern's point, I recall a case some years back where there was a gap between the date a cost reimbursement contract was signed and the backdated start date. In this case, the cost principles were changed in the interim and a dispute arose as to which version applied to the contract. The version in effect when the contract was signed was favorable to the government while the version in effect on the start date was favorable to the contractor. Here, the court accepted the contractor's argument.
  14. Maybe maybe not. In the non-commercial items arena, in the Krygoski decision, the CAFC held that a T4C done in bad faith would be a breach of contract. If the government breaches a contract, the contractor is entitled to receive traditional breach of contract damages, which in many cases is the profit the contractor would have received if it had been permitted to complete the contract. Although, I can find no case applying or rejecting this reasoning in regard to a contract for commercial products/services, I see no reason why it should not be applied in that context.
  15. Isn't this what frequently happens in August and September when contracts are written to begin in October?
  16. ji, for clarification, by use of the word "guidance" are you indicating that the SBA regulations are mere suggestions and not mandatory?
  17. Have you or they read FAR 52.245-1(b)(1)? That should permit you to answer the question.
  18. Reading the press release makes me think he was bought cheap.
  19. You used the term "opportunity" so I will let you define what you meant by that. However, I take it to be some sort of solicitation. If that is correct, my question was will the solicitation be synopsized in accordance with FAR 5.2?
  20. Dawn, I think Joel and Fara have answered your question concerning CCPD. However, based on your original post, I wonder if you believe that the FAR governs the way you award subcontracts?
  21. Dawn, you seem to be focusing on whether you would need to get certified cost or pricing data from vendor B. While there are several other issues with what you have written, two questions immediately come to mind. First, were you as the prime required to submit CCPD in regard to your contract under which this buy will be made? Second, if you were, have you considered how FAR 15.403-1 impacts your situation?
  22. mgovcon, without seeing the exact language from the contract, I don't think anyone can answer your question.
  23. It is a fundamental principle of contract interpretation that all terms of a contract are to be given a reasonable interpretation so that no clause is read out of the contract. Thus, if a clause is in your subcontract, you may be held to that clause even though it should not apply to you. I understand it is frustrating to have a prime contractor be professionally lazy and merely insert the clauses from its contract in subcontracts without any thought as to the applicability of the clause to the subcontract. As for flow down clauses, there are two types of those clauses - mandatory flow down clauses and necessary clauses. Mandatory flow down clauses will have language in them, usually in the last paragraph of the clause, stating that the clause is to be included in subcontracts. However, if the subcontract is for commercial products or services, in accordance with FAR 52.244-6 some of those clauses may not be applicable to your subcontract. Necessary clauses are those that are necessary for the prime to be able to carry out its obligations under the prime contract. What those clauses are will vary from contract to contract. To determine if a clause might apply to you, you should read the prescriptive language for use of the clause and the clause itself.
  24. Are FAR 52.215-22 and 23 in your contract? If so, your statement may not be correct. You need to check it out,
×
×
  • Create New...