Jump to content

ji20874

Members
  • Posts

    3,739
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Reputation

0 Neutral

4 Followers

Contact Methods

  • Website URL
    http://

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Male
  • Location
    Virginia

Recent Profile Visitors

28,829 profile views
  1. The IG did not say a UCA is a cost-reimbursable contract during the undefinitized period; rather, the IG said a UCA is essentially a cost-reimbursable contract during the undefinitized period (emphasis added). There is a difference, driven by the word "essentially." I am okay with the IG's formulation. Yes, FrankJon, you can have an undefinitized FFP contract with appropriate fixed-price clauses, and you can definitize it as a FFP contract.
  2. Cost overruns or underruns do not affect the fixed fee. Or, in other words, the fixed fee is unaffected by cost overruns or underruns. Hence, the fee is fixed, and the third letter of CPFF is fixed. See FAR 16.306(a) for description of cost-plus-fixed-fee contracts: "The fixed fee does not vary with actual cost..." Note: OP made no mention of changes in the work, failure to perform, and so forth, so my answer above does not address such.
  3. Yes, I do like the Logan decision. However, I do not encourage widespread use of the Logan decision as justification for any other contracting officer's action -- as I said, the Logan decision goes farther than the text of FAR 13 on the topic of BPAs, and has not been codified in a FAR update. Logan's premise should only be used by competent and careful practitioners. The old adage is that hard cases make bad law. Logan was a hard case, with a tortured history. The agency had a real and difficult need, and stretched the FAR 13 text beyond the comfort level of many in order to meet their need -- the GAO allowed it to stand. Vern says the Logan decision was a big whoopee -- but I think it was a meaningful decision, because until then the approach was untested legally and probably rarely (or never?) used. The Logan players in the DEA were bold and did it, and they won the protest. I like that.
  4. The Logan decision goes farther than the text of FAR 13 on the topic of BPAs, and has not been codified in a FAR update. Logan's premise should only be used by competent and careful practitioners. That said, I like it!
  5. You may establish a FAR Part 13 BPA with any firm you choose, without competition or notice or requisition or J&A -- and if you establish several BPAs, those BPA holders may provide you with adequate competition for some of your subsequent simplified acquisition purchases. A BPA doesn't have a POP as there is no performance; rather, a BPA may have a period for making purchases. A BPA is established, not awarded. If a purchase intended for a BPA exceeds the threshold for posting or synopsis, you will want to comply with those rules for that purchase.
  6. I wish the word “descope” would disappear from 1102 vocabulary. Are we talking about a (1) a change order under to the Changes clause; (2) a partial termination under the Termination clause; or (3) something else?
  7. Maybe we can categorize contractor FFP assumptions into two buckets for this discussion? Proposal Pricing Assumptions. Assumptions an offeror makes as part of developing its firm-fixed-price proposal. Performance Assumptions. Assumptions an offeror makes which condition or limit its offer, provide an excuse for non-performance, and so forth. pconner, what kind of assumptions are you talking about?
  8. I was a Defense employee posted in a Commerce organization -- we used Defense rules and approvals for some contracts, and Commerce rules and approvals for other contracts.
  9. I don't know if it is typical, but certainly it is allowable. I have seen it happen several times in my career. Sure, why not? Several years ago, I simultaneously held an unlimited contracting officer's warrant in the Defense Department and an unlimited contracting officer's warrant in the Commerce Department, and awarded contracts under the jurisdiction of both departments.
  10. But a T&M/LH contract does not buy hours -- the notion is error -- a T&M/LH contract buys a job where the number of hours needed is unknown, and the contractor agrees to provide its best effort to compete the job within the agreed-upon ceiling price.
  11. Yeah, but you have to decide whether you are a professional or a clerk -- and even if you strive to be a professional, your organization might treat you like a clerk. The negotiation examples I shared are legitimate and honorable, and using them will help you shift more to a professional perspective. The clerk perspective pervades the 1102 community, and that is sad. I am glad you are asking questions.
  12. Too many 1102s want to apply FAR 15.306 everywhere. Back in the days when we had 1105s, they understood small purchases/simplified acquisitions and they handled them. When 1102s move into that arena, many of them carry their Part 15 baggage with them -- and they carry that baggage into purchases against schedules, orders under IDIQ contracts, and everywhere else. sam101, Look at these and tell me if you think they are fair... (1) Simplified acquisition, quotes at $36,200, $36,600, and $41,000 -- all quotes are identical except for price -- the contracting officer's requisition or purchase request is for $36,000. The contracting officer asks the first quoter if it can drop its price by $200 -- the first quoter says YES, and the purchase order is issued. I think this is fair and allowed under FAR Part 13. (2) Simplified acquisition, same quotes as above. The first quoter says NO to the request to drop its price by $200 -- the contracting officer asks the second quoter if it can drop its price by $600 -- the second quoter says YES, and the purchase order is issued. I think this is fair and allowed under FAR Part 13.
  13. Yeah, I thought the linked thread was pretty clear, too.
  14. I see them as different. The FAR text on schedule BPAs speaks only of estimate (not ceiling), and even allows for orders going beyond the estimate (not ceiling) -- this leads me to believe that estimate (not ceiling) is the correct and intended word. But I allow others liberty in their practice, and they may impose ceilings if they choose.
  15. If the evidence suggests the parties had a common understanding at the time of schedule BPA establishment that the BPA had a ceiling (and not an estimate, or a separate lower estimate), I think I would want to respect that understanding and enforce the ceiling as limiting on the agency. It might be interesting to see how the attorney would make a case that a ceiling and an estimate are the same thing, and that both mean estimate. I note that we are now talking only about schedule BPAs, not simplified acquisition BPAs.
×
×
  • Create New...