ji20874

Well, I suppose it will if both parties agree to it, and the Government can afford to change its funding profile, and no one else objects (will anyone else ever hear about it?)... I don't know enough about SBIR or your contract to know if the change is merely a funding change, or is a within scope acceleration, or a change outside the scope of the contract...

Is this what you want to do? BEFORE THE MOD AFTER THE MOD -------------- ------------- BASE YEAR $100,000 $100,000 OPTION 1 $100,000 $298,000 (edited) OPTION 2 $100,000 $ 1 OPTION 3 $100,000 $ 1 ------------- ------------- $400,000 $400,000 (amounts are notional except for the $1 values)

Do you mean CR SVC (instead of CR SVR)? Are you saying that the contract clause at FAR 52.227-20, Rights in Data--SBIR Program, is not included in your contract but probably should be? Are you saying you need to increase the funding for the first option year by an amount equal to the other two option years, and cancel the those other two option years?

Does your contract include the clause at FAR 52.232-16, Progress Payments? Is there anything in your contract suggesting the Government's prior approval of overtime?

Carl, When I said its a business decision, I didn't imply the contractor had to accept it -- I meant the contractor had to make a business decision -- the contractor can choose to accept it in the interest of not offending its goverrnment contracting partner, or it can choose to do what Vern suggests. The contractor has to decide whether to fold or to use its backbone. I asked questions to help in making that decision. Wow! My comment led to you think that I'm contributing to the "sometimes questioned capabilities of the acquisition workforce"?

It's a business decision you have to make. Do you object to the new/updated clauses? Do they have cost impacts on you?

It's a business decision you have to make. Do you object to the new/updated clauses? Do they have cost impacts on you?

FAR 22.1003-7 Questions concerning applicability of the Act. If the contracting officer questions the applicability of the Act to an acquisition, the contracting officer shall request the advice of the agency labor advisor. Unresolved questions shall be submitted in a timely manner to the Administrator, Wage and Hour Division, for determination. Having said that, remember that the Act applies to "a subcontractor at any tier whose subcontract is subject to the provisions of the Act" (FAR 22.1001). My first supposition is that the scrap metal dealer subcontracts are not for the principal purpose of furnishing services through the use of service employees, so the Service Contract Act doesn't reach to them. The Act also will not reach down to the subcontractor that supplies the prime contractor's pencils or office supplies. Maybe they are better called vendors rather than subcontractors.

Please, no! No contracting officer's deskbook! Don't take away whatever discretion I might have now by requiring me and every other contracting officer in the country to follow the same template, especially if it is a poor template (most of them are, aren't they?).

The semicolon is merely a series separator. But here, all three are required. Your correct citation is FAR 5.202( a )( 13 ). You must not omit the ( a ). All three must apply for ( 13 ) to apply. That's what the "and" means at the end of 5.202( a )( 13 )( ii ). ( i ), ( ii ), and ( iii ) must apply for ( 13 ) to apply. The "or" at the end of 5.202( a )( 13 )( iii ) applies to the ( 1 ) through (14 ) -- any one ( 1 ) through (14 ) must apply in order for ( a ) to apply. I hope this is helpful.

or are you asking if one party has a right to expect performance of the other party, based on the other party's proposal? or are you asking if one party can claim an excuse for performance based on an un-met proposal assumption? The Air Force Materiel Command had an established provision to address incorporation of an offeror's proposal -- I share this only as fyi, not as an endorsement of the practice... AFMCFARS 5352.215-9006 - Intent to Incorporate Contractor’s Technical Proposal (AUG 1998) ( a ) All or part of the successful offeror's technical proposal may be incorporated in any contract resulting from this solicitation. The successful offeror's technical proposal may be incorporated by reference. Nothing contained in the successful offeror's technical proposal shall constitute a waiver to any other requirement of the contract. In the event of any conflict between the successful offeror's technical proposal and any other requirement of the contract, the conflict shall be resolved in accordance with the Order of Precedence clause. ( b ) The successful offeror will provide an updated technical proposal which reflects the results/responses to all exchanges and/or Evaluation Notices (ENs) issued during the negotiation process for incorporation in the contract. If, after contract award, it is discovered that changes made during negotiations were not incorporated in the SOW and/or technical proposal, such changes to the Contractor's documents shall be considered administrative in nature and shall be made by unilateral modification to the contract, at no change in contract cost or price or other terms and conditions. (End of Provision)

You know, if a contracting officer is making an award not excepted under FAR 4.1102( a )( 1 ) through ( 7 ), he or she may include the clauses at FAR 52.204-7 and -13 in the solicitation even if it is a commercial item acquisition. See FAR 4.1105( a )( 1 ) and ( 2 ) and the matrix at FAR 52.301. I'd like to see the clauses at FAR 52.204-7 and -13 added to the clause at FAR 52.212-5 -- that would make it easier for everyone. And you're right, a contracting officer may include and tailor the 52.212-1 provision in a request for quotations that is really seeking quotations (not offers) -- and if every contracting officer in an agency (or the government) is going to do it, it might be better to have an agency-wide (or government-wide) approach. Usually, for me, there isn't anything I need in the 52.212-1 provision, but if there is, I bring it in in a sentence in my RFQ. Let's look at FAR 52.212-1 and see if it has any value for RFQs seeking quotations (not offers)-- para ( a ) NAICS code and small business size standard. Well, this is true whether or not I use the provision para. ( b ) Submission of offers. It's all nice, but I really don't need the formality. para. ( c ) Period for acceptance of offers. I usually don't need it. para. ( d ) Product samples. If I need them, i can include these same words in the solicitation where the product samples are discussed. para. ( e ) Multiple offers. Well, it's all true even if I don't include the provision. para. ( f ) Late submission, modifications, revisions, and withdrawals of offers. Some people put great stock in this paragraph, but I prefer to rely on the general principle that I can accept a quotation (even a late quotation) anytime before makinjg award, at my discretion. para. ( g ) Contract award. Well, it's all true even if I'm silent on the matter. para. ( h ) Multiple awards. If I'm insisting on an all-or-none award or all-or-none quotations, I know how to do that. I suppose many (most?) people using the provision don't even know what this paragraph says. para. ( i ) Availability of specifications. I don't use this. para. ( j ) DUNS Number. Truth be told, it's very rare when an offeror complies and actually puts its DUNS number in the same block with its name and address anyway. A sentence in the RFQ will be much more effective in making this happen. para. ( k ) System for Award Management. This has been discussed already in this thread. para. ( l ) Debriefing. I have to do it anyway, even if I don't use the provision. In all this, I hope we actually read the provisions and clauses we use in our solicitations and contracts. If we're going to talk about tailoring a provision, this becomes especially important. But you're right, a contracting officer may include and tailor the 52.212-1 provision in a request for quotations that is really seeking quotations (not offers) -- and you're right, if every contracting officer in an agency (or the government) is going to do it, it might be better to have an agency-wide (or government-wide) approach. I agree.

I agree that terms are used too loosely in our practice and even in the FAR. But I do hold to the principle that under FAR Part 13, we can solicit either quotations or offers. One doesn't need FAR 52.212-1 to enforce SAM registration -- para. (t) of the clause at FAR 52.212-4 will do this. But you're right, a contracting officer may include and tailor the 52.212-1 provision in a request for quotations that is really seeking quotations -- and you're right, if every contracting officer in an agency is going to do it, it might be better to have an agency-wide approach. Usually, for me, there isn't anything I need in the 52.212-1 provision, but if there is, I bring it in in a sentence in my RFQ.

In all instances, I am told it is "missing and required." Do you believe the provision at FAR 52.212-1 is required in FAR Part 13 acquisitions? Have you asked your level-above and legal reviewers to share with you the source of their "missing and required" comments? If you want to push back and help others understand correct principles, here's a primer... 1. FAR Part 13 allows for the solicitation of either quotations or offers -- you need to decide which you are seeking -- see FAR 13.106-2 and 13.003( g )( 3 ) and 13.106-1( a )( 2 ).-- don't be sloppy by using the terms interchangably -- and don't let others use the term interchangeably. 2. If you are seeking offers (not quotations), then yes, use the provision at FAR 52.212-1 -- the prescribing language for this provision at FAR 12.301( b )( 1 ) says to use it whenever you are soliciting offers for commercial items -- if you want to, tailor it as appropriate under FAR 12.302( a ). 3. If you are seeking quotations (not offers), then no, do not use the provision at FAR 52.212-1 -- the prescribing language only calls for it when soliciting offers. Just don't use it. You aren't seeking offers. The provision gives you nothing. 4. An offer and a quotation are not the same thing. See FAR 13.004. Once this is understood, go back and re-read 1. above to make sure. 5. If there is still confusion on whether an offer and a quotation are the same thing, then read the definition of offer in FAR 2.101. If you are unable to persuade your level-above and legal reviewers, well, you have to follow your agency rules.

here_2_help gives good advice. I don't understand the concept of "consideration for late deliveries" -- I do understand exchanging consideration for a change in contract terms and conditions, but that isn't the case here. If it's a fact the deliveries were late, then record the fact in CPARS. Is "consideration for late deliveries" intended to mean "penalty for late deliveries"? or "prerequisite to allowing the demonstation to occur"? Did the original contract contemplate these penalties? Why weren't the penalties imposed immediately upon the occurence of the lateness? here_2_help gives good advice.

Who has the money (does a federal agency have the money)? Is that agency authorized to issue grants? Who is your "internal customer"? The state agency? I do not think you are correct at all in "[your] assumptions regarding who receives benefit" -- I think you're stretching in your explanations of who receives benefits.

Who has the money? Who is providing the training? Who is receiving the training?

Why do you always put it in? Stop doing it, and your problem will go away. The prescribing language for FAR 52.212-1 at at FAR 12.301( b )( 1 ) doesn't reach to FAR Part 13 RFQs.

I don't think you need the clause at FAR 52.212-1 in a FAR Part 13 acquisition. The prescribing language at FAR 12.301( b )( 1 ) doesn't reach to FAR Part 13 RFQs.

I know that acquisitions of Electronic and Information Technology (EIT) supplies and services must meet accessibility standards, commonly referred to as Section 508 compliant. See FAR Subpart 39.2. This talks to contractor deliverables or performance. But what about pre-award contractor proposals? I have seen a number of solicitations with Section L or similar language allowing for (or mandating) electronic proposals (such as by e-mail) but requiring all such electronic proposals to be Sec. 508 compliant. This doesn't make sense to me. If your agency accepts electronic (e-mail) proposals, does your agency require all pre-award proposals to be Sec. 508 compliant? Do you benefit from it?

Your agency approach might be dictated by an unfortunate history of contracting officers establishing BPAs and then using the BPAs to circumvent the requirement for maximum practicable competition. If so, it is a corrective reaction to reality rather than a misunderstanding of policy.

Does the contract contain the clause at FAR 52.229-3 Federal, State, and Local Taxes?

Before issuing a solicitation for a set of multiple-award IDIQ contracts (the parent contracts), the contracting officer must make a set-aside decision based on his or her reasonable expectation and so forth. See FAR Subpart 6.2. This is for the parent multiple-award IDIQ contracts. Before issuing a solicitation for a task order under a set of multiple-award IDIQ contracts, the contracting officer may, at his or her discretion, make a set-aside decision solely for that instant task order consideration. See FAR 16.505( b )( 2 )( i )( F ). This is for the task order. In either case, the set-aside/non-set-aside decision is made BEFORE the solicitation is issued.

If we receive two reasonable acceptable bids from Small Businesses that meet the requirements for the Full and Open Pool, must the Full and Open be changed to a set aside? No. The market research and planning and approvals for the acquisition have already been done -- you decided it would be F&OC, and you issued an invitation for bids (or request for proposals?) -- your offers came in -- evaluate them and select the winner. Your large business offerors have acted in good faith, and you need to treat them with good faith. The question of two or more small businesses is answered BEFORE the solicitation is released (the standard is a reasonable expectation of obtaining, see FAR 19.502-2( b )), not AFTER offers are received.

Here's something you might find interesting... http://www.fundsforlearning.com/blog/2011/08/latest-evolution-multi-tier-bid-evaluation This concerns RFPs for utility/communications services under FCC authority, not FAR authority, But if you look at this from a perspective of FAR 1.102-4( e ), then paragraph 12 of the FCC order might be read as follows-- That is, [agencies] may use a multi-tiered vendor selection process when evaluating [proposals], but ultimately, price must be [a] factor in selecting [the best value] vendor. Specifically, [agencies] may use the first tier of a multi-tiered evaluation process to assess whether a proposal satisfies minimum technical capabilities, such as the scope of or quality of service, to ensure that the proposal is responsive to the RFP. This tier may be evaluated on a pass-fail basis or it may be scored numerically, where a minimum score is required to advance to the next phase of the evaluation process. [Agencies] may use the second tier of the evaluation process to examine price and other criteria. Consistent with [FAR 15.304( d )], we expect that any [agency] using a multi-tiered process would provide notice . . . in . . . its RFP . . . to all potential [offerors] as to the specific criteria to be evaluated in each tier, how those criteria will be scored, which criteria will be used as disqualification criteria, and the circumstances under which [offerors] will be disqualified from further consideration. We also remind [agencies] that price must be [evaluated] in a multi-tiered vendor selection process, consistent with [FAR 15.304( c )( 1 ).