C Culham

Okay CPSR then I suggest you consider this guidance as to what your entity may or may not want to do. Page 24 starts discussion on Debarred etc. https://www.dcma.mil/Portals/31/Documents/CPSR/CPSR_Guidebook_091021.pdf

Play on words? Certification as opposed to a disclosure in writing as to is or is not. Seems due dilegence is occuring. A problem if the intent is not to give a PO to a debarred etc. contractor but if it happens then reporting per the clause seems to be the fix in my view. Once reported let the dice roll as they may.

Is there a reference that you can provide that this was going to occur?

I guess it depends on the context of "problem". Would you not request such certification prior to issuing the PO in the quote/solicitation process and do due diligence to determine if the certification is correct? Could not that certification have a statement of something like "Upon issuance of a purchase order in response to this request for quotation you the seller hereby certifies that upon promise to ship the goods or by actually shipping the goods hereby cerifies that is not debarred........" Noting that the ideal with regard to the clause is for a prime/subcontractor to report that the prime/subcontractor intends to use a lower tier subcontractor that is debarred etc. and it is determined post issuance that the contractor is debarred etc. the prime/subcontractor in the case of a "surprise" post issuance finding of a debarement etc. would be left to either canceling the PO or reporting per the clause.

Rescinded and now be reignited. Here you go - https://www.whitehouse.gov/fact-sheets/2025/04/fact-sheet-president-donald-j-trump-creates-new-federal-employee-category-to-enhance-accountability/ @Dugtastic Anything is possible but it would appear from the Fact Sheet that the rank and file 1102 is not in consideration.

To bolster the responses with references that may be of interest. As noted most agencies have a policy relating to warranting. Many refer to it as the "Contracting Officer Warrant Program" or something close. You might take a look internal to your Bureau to see what you can find. You might also take a look at OFPP Policy Letter 05-01 "Developing and Managing the Acquisition Workforce." Here is an interesting quote from it. "The GS-1102 federal acquisition certification is not mandatory for all GS-1102s. However, members of the workforce issued new CO warrants on or after January 1, 2007, regardless of GS series, must be certified at an appropriate level to support their warrant obligations. New CO warrants are defined as warrants issued to employees for the first time at a department or agency. This requirement does not apply to senior level officials responsible for delegating procurement authority or those whose warrants are generally used to procure emergency goods and services." And from my experience. GS-1105, 1101, 1106 and from the series 0800 have had warrants.

By experience it was efficent but intent has changed. I was CO for many a MATOC for A-E where they were used equal to establising a pool for future orders equal to or less than the SAT, think short selection process. Things have changed and today they are simply veiled as "competitions" to establish "contracts" veiled as either IDIQs or even BPA's that act like IDIQs that are not really the FAR envisioned IDIQ's to put all interested contractors in the pool so as not to offend them. Participation awards that may never evolve into actual performance awards. And I believe agencies adopted the processes not only to avoid the whinners (make then inclusive) but to make the acquisition force lives "seem" easier with the shrinking workforce.

I will hold my hope but not my breath!

From my chair the "No" seems too explicit of a answer with regard to 52.216-22. If FAR clause 52.216-22 provides a date in (d) that is commensurate with the end of the effective period stated in the IDIQ the order would need to be completed by effective date of the IDIQ should it not? As an alternative if the paragraph (d) provides a date or period of say 1 year after the end end of the effective date of the IDIQ then work could continue on an order from end of effective period plus one year could it not?.

My view is that all 3 of your questions are hinged to FAR Clause 52.216-22 if, and hopefully, the clause is in your contract. See paragraph (d) of the clause.

At first blush without seeing the announcement and any information about the selection process I just wonder how this passed muster pursuant to FAR part 36.6 and the Brooks Act. Sounds like they should have just issued 13 BPA's (lol).

Hmmm. AI was invented by humans but can make a better decision than a human? I will always question the decision of humans whose track record for the purposes of AI are what create an AI decision. From the eye of this beholder.

With no specific experience my thoughts... 552.216-70 sets no limitation as to what constitutes a EPA increase/decrease. Or in other words "only for" is NOT stated in the clause so the door is wide open it would seem so if me I would attempt the request per the clause if in the parent GSA MAS contract. Is clause 552.238-78 in the parent GSA MAS? You might want to read it. Joel's suggestion to contact GSA is a good one as well.

Thanks digging deep. This quote from "AI" started me on my basic search. "The DOT awards funding through both grants and contracts, but it's difficult to definitively say which method receives more money overall, as the Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act (IIJA) provided a significant amount of funding for both discretionary grants and contracts. "

This link might change the numbers I previously quoted and I did not study completely but it seems DOT's obligations are higher for contracts. Not a big deal to the conversation just sharing. https://www.usaspending.gov/agency/department-of-transportation?fy=2025

Very! $63 billion Department with 13 agencies! Watching what the responses are will be as well!

Do some homework and maybe these thoughts can help with legal. In the end 22.404-9 provides for an "or" so you might not win legal over but........ First, does the new determination even increase the SCA required wage and if so have you determined that it would in turn increase the GSA MAS hourly rates for the contractor that was awarded? By example if the GSA MAS rate is already above the previous determination and the new determination then are you sure adding it would suggest an equitable adjustment? Just becasue the SCA goes up or down does not suggest that the contractors proposed rates have to especially for higher SCA is their labor rates are already higher. Have you discussed the issue with the contractor? Has the contractor told you their pricing does not comply with the most current SCA determination noting that they are a GSA MAS contractor and should have considered. Bolstered by the post by ricroy that the right "refresh" may be in the parent GSA MAS. Likewise remember compliance with SCA is the contractors responsibility so for a sophisticated GSA MAS contractor, again their pricing may have considered being compliant with SCA and what is most current. Finally, and again in consideration that the competition was with regard to a GSA MAS has legal considered the parent GSA MAS, the refresh, the responsibility of a contractor to comply. All the above also revolving around when was "notice" of the new wage determination? My personal view is that an order under a GSA MAS competition presents a different landscape regarding "violate the competition" than what I will call full and open competiton and depending on how the above sorts out I could see where one could modify the contract and I could also see where one would not. As to viloate the c ompetion

Thank you

Solely agents of Congress? Are not the agencies agents of the President in that they assist in the President's effort via Article II, Section 3 of the Constitution to "take care that the laws are faithfully executed"?

Our perspectives I think align even though we may be debating. I know one can argue what is good and what is not from an industry standpoint but then I wonder. The quick examples. The Changes Clause, industry standard or government created? Davis Bacon not socio-economic? The discussed and cussed use of FAR part 12 for construction? 30,000 foot views that I know have history like that of FAR part 15 that Vern has mentioned but then I start wondering......to this I would offer that I think even with the FAR it is of sorts all over the place today. In the end I wonder if history counts? FAR 2.0 is the forward look and it will be interesting to see where it plans to take Federal contracting in total.

Yes, but the FAR helps with that above and beyond the private sector ones. That socio-economic thing I mentioned. I guess industry was crazy before Federal contracting came along as I imagine every private contract was all over the place. I will just use Vern's most recent post to support that case law has an impact on the wording of FAR provisions and clauses. Dumb me but I found the original FAR fun to a point and then it became an exasperation as it grew. What won't make 2.0 any fun is that it will be based on systems, AI and the like to alleviate the continued shrinkng workforce. I for one think that the inability to lace ones boots up AS A CO, and head out to the field (as used in the broad context) will be the detriment to even 2.0. But my idea of fun is different than that of others such as playing golf on a couch with a controller versus roaming (and I mean roaming) around a real golf course.

I am all in from the responsibility aspect. Like many that is why you see my name in this Forum. What would need to change is accountability of responsibiluity of those that would have their names stated. I suspect their phones might ring off the hook as in this day and age give anyone a minute and they will find the contact numbers for Arthur, Jane, Janet and Tom. And usually that "finding it" it is to raise hell not compliment them on a great product. It takes "broad shoulders" to be a civil servant.

The purpose of the FAR as a regulation is to provide uniform policies and procedures for acquisition so that one who is within the Executive Branch of the Federal government can comply with a statute and keep within the sideboards of case law. Dare I say "Federal Contracting for Dummies" even in light of the complications of the socio-economic ideals of Congress that have been woven into the statutes that govern Federal acquisition. My simple view.

I have read other places that the "100 page FAR" is being confused with the official FAR rewrite (aka FAR 2.0). I am not sure what is what but the confusion makes sense. From my seat I am waiting for the 2.0 to hit the streets whether it be for comment or is just it, something again that is being debated. Just a thought as the airways are cluttered with a lot of jet streams right now.

My simple anedotal view of what is going on based on experience. The current FAR. When it was brought forth I was a young and energtic contract specialist. I spent hours reading and sent comments regarding its wording. I had a very seasoned 1102 supervisor who told me that I was wasting my time on my efforts because the FAR would never happen. It did but in my humble opinion the history since, fostered by the thinking of the never ending line of seasoned 1102's, has turned it into something more cumbersome than what was ever intended via supplement, policy and additional guidance. A long history of disappointment. Rarely in my career had I ever seen a FAR part 12 procurement include a "tailored" provision and clause , FAR 52.212-1 and FAR 52.212-4 respectfully, that took much of the paragraphs in each and turned them into dust to follow what happens in the commercial world. (And I was an offender myself.) Even to today it still seems so. Too bad a tool that was not used to make everyones life easier. My first simple answer in this thread still stands - I hope the current effort is one of revitalization, with the added hope that the current workforce embraces it as such and works very hard to make it the revitalization it can and should be.