Jump to content

joel hoffman

  • Posts

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by joel hoffman

  1. The clause at 52.228-5, Insurance-Work on a Government Installation should be in a construction contract on an installation and there should be specified types of insurance required by the contract. Builders Risk insurance should likely cover deliberate or accidental damages to materials and work prior to inspection and acceptance.
  2. The Contractor is responsible for protection of the new work prior to acceptance of the work. See 52.236-7 Permits and Responsibilities. As prescribed in 36.507 , insert the following clause: “Permits and Responsibilities (Nov 1991) The Contractor shall, without additional expense to the Government, be responsible for obtaining any necessary licenses and permits, and for complying with any Federal, State, and municipal laws, codes, and regulations applicable to the performance of the work. The Contractor shall also be responsible for all damages to persons or property that occur as a result of the Contractor’s fault or negligence. The Contractor shall also be responsible for all materials delivered and work performed until completion and acceptance of the entire work, except for any completed unit of work which may have been accepted under the contract.” FAR 52.245-1 is not applicable.
  3. What is the stated required purpose of the office, if any? If not stated what would the function of the office be ? In other words, what is the actual stated requirement?
  4. Vern, I don’t disagree with you. And a specific texting ban is just an example of the insatiable need to add regulations , many of which are already covered by state, local laws, regulations, etc. that many contract administrators don’t enforce anyway. This would be a specific one which probably wouldn’t be enforced either. As an example, yesterday on the WIFCON Homepage, there was an article citing a GSA OIG Report regarding lack of administration and oversight of the actual performance of building maintenance contracts. Doesn’t surprise me in the least. https://www.oversight.gov/report/GSA/Building-Maintenance-Contractors-Are-Not-Complying-Their-GSA-Contracts-Due-Poor “Building Maintenance Contractors Are Not Complying with Their GSA Contracts Due to Poor Performance and Ineffective Oversight”.
  5. Ok, so there has been at least one executive order directing all agencies to include language in contracts to ban or encourage contractors to ban texting while driving for performance of contracts. I didn’t read the prescription and background for the clause mentioned in this thread: But here one by Obama:from 15 years ago in 2009: “Executive Order 13513 --Federal Leadership on Reducing Text Messaging while Driving THE WHITE HOUSE Office of the Press Secretary ___________________________________________________________________________ For Immediate Release October 1, 2009 EXECUTIVE ORDER - - - - - - - FEDERAL LEADERSHIP ON REDUCING TEXT MESSAGING WHILE DRIVING“ https://obamawhitehouse.archives.gov/the-press-office/executive-order-federal-leadership-reducing-text-messaging-while-driving EDIT: ok, looks like this is the source for the new FAR coverage to “encourage contractors to implement policues banning texting while driving. looks like this is more wishywashy than actual state, local and federal laws, regulations and policies…🤠
  6. As of Sep 2023: “Text messaging ban: 49 states, D.C., Puerto Rico, Guam and the U.S. Virgin Islands ban text messaging for all drivers”. See, for instance: https://www.ghsa.org/state-laws/issues/distracted driving I believe that there are contract clauses that require conformance to State, local and installation laws and regulations. See, for instance, 52.236-7 Permits and Responsibilities applicable to construction contracts. “The Contractor shall, without additional expense to the Government, be responsible for obtaining any necessary licenses and permits, and for complying with any Federal, State, and municipal laws, codes, and regulations applicable to the performance of the work.” I’m not going to research it tonight but I’d bet that every installation specifically prohibits texting while driving, either directly or by citing applicability of state driving laws to driving on base. See also : https://www.fmcsa.dot.gov/newsroom/us-transportation-secretary-ray-lahood-announces-federal-ban-texting-commercial-truck
  7. If the state law prohibits texting while driving, that likely is already a contract requirement. No need to duplicate it…
  8. We had a clause for this when specific proposed key personnel positions were a discriminator. The qualifications and experience of the named key personnel meeting or exceeding the minimum solicitation requirements became the standard for KO approval of any proposed substations after award. If key personnel were only evaluated to ensure technical acceptability, then proposed substitutes would have to meet the minimum solicitation/contract requirements. I don’t remember making a technically acceptable key personnel evaluation during a source selection for routine contract performance but it could be done if that is the objective. It would depend upon the reason for evaluating proposed key personnel.
  9. No didn’t know.
  10. Can one or both of the bidders or offerors provide the compliant product if you conduct discussions and allow them to revise their proposals (assuming not an IFB)?
  11. How are they “responsive”? You said that they are non-compliant with the terms of the solicitation and a waiver is unavailable. Is this an IFB? Did you mean that they are “in compliance” (RFQ or RFP)? If so, how?
  12. Some of the references I read indicated that you must submit a protest over an improper NAICS designation within 10 days of the date of publication of the solicitation.
  13. Absolutely . Please provide context to the situation.
  14. I remember Mobile District Corps of Engineers years ago (1990s) soliciting similarly for work in Panama - the Canal Zone. Offerors could select which contract bid schedules to propose on. These were year end O&M funded projects. And contract awards were subject to availability of funding. The Panama contracting community was well aware of the methodology and the year end funding situation. Funds might have been made available at 10:00 PM on Sep 30. There could be separate, multiple awards off one solicitation.
  15. I believe that there is a difference between adding 100% costs as direct costs or as additional “profit” for one or more possible contingencies that may or may not occur versus identifying possible risks and then considering the probability of individual or multiple risk occurrences in the direct cost portion of the proposal. Our Chemical Weapons Demilitarization, Systems contractor identified various risks and ran Monte Carlo probability simulations for the risk analysis in developing its CPAF direct cost estimate proposal for a task order for the design, construction and systemization of a plant to safely disassemble various types of chemical weapons munitions, drain and collect the agents, neutralize the agents, clean all the parts of the munitions and dunnage and dispose of the waste byproducts and metal components.
  16. Im surprised that this topic is still open. @TippHill, can you advise what the resolution was? Thanks.
  17. I doubt that you would report subcontracting prior to the requirement for a subcontracting plan or reporting. However this is a question that you should contact GSA directly to ask, not here on an informal Forum. You must have dealt with someone at GSA when they modified your contract, correct ???
  18. Perhaps a BPA with the several arbitrators , with the proviso that the arbitration procedures would apply to selection of the arbitrator.
  19. That can be tricky. If you decide to conduct discussions and have one or more firms with deficiencies that may be curable, You need to consider pricing and non-price aspects of the proposals in establishing the initial competitive ranges. However, technically, materially deficient proposals aren’t eligible for award unless and until the firms can clear the deficiencies during or after discussions.
  20. …for inclusion in conducting discussions. If no discussions, there is no competitive range or competitive range determination. If the firm is initially included but no longer in the competitive range after discussions at the time of a trade off analysis for selection, it’s not included in the trade-off analysis and its price isn’t considered. …of the selected vendor. If the firm is not included in the competitive range for discussions or is no longer competitive (unawardable) due to unacceptable ratings (and/or price) the government doesn’t have to and might be unable to consider its price (per the previous reasoning in this thread ).
  21. Thanks, Jamaal. This ought to be obvious. But apparently isn’t to everyone.
  • Create New...