Jump to content

ji20874

Members
  • Posts

    3,778
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by ji20874

  1. Ah but nothing in FAR 17.207 requires option exercises in sequential order, with time gaps in between each one. Any or all of those requirements could be done at one time for all the options the OP wanted to simultaneously exercise.
  2. Yes, generally, unless some other constraint presents itself. Such constraints might include the text of the contract itself, availability of funds, and so forth. Several posters here are imagining constraints and are answering No -- it seems they might be answering with No based on facts that are not in evidence. But the OP has not identified any constraints that might lead a reasonable person to a No answer, so I am comfortable with Yes as a general answer. There simply is no FAR-level requirement about exercising options in sequential order, with time spaces in between each option exercise.
  3. Yes, generally, unless some other constraint presents itself. Such constraints might include the text of the contract itself, availability of funds, and so forth. But assuming no such constraints exist, if the contract calls for a dozen widgets to be delivered on the first day of the following month, with six options each for a dozen widgets to be delivered on the first day of each of the following six months, Yes, a contracting officer could exercise all six options at the same time in the same contract modification (rather than six separate contract modifications spaced a month apart).
  4. Was the solicitation for an open market procurement, or was it an RFQ for a schedule purchase?
  5. Beersheba, Your thought was imprecise. See FAR 22.1003-1 through -7 for an understanding of which contracts are subject to Service Contract Labor Standards (note that the FAR uses SCLS instead of SCA in many instances). Here is a way to think about it -- it isn't a perfect analogy, but maybe it will be helpful -- if you want a hamburger for lunch, will you contract for a hamburger as (1) a supply contract, where the contractor will deliver a hamburger to the designated place at the designated time; or (2) a service contract, where the contractor will hire workers to produce a hamburger for you? The first contract might not be subject to SCLS, but the second one might be.
  6. GABE, Please read this thread, FAR 13.106-1(a)(2)(iii), and FAR 12.602(a) and tell us the answer you have discerned for your question -- I hope you feel confident enough to take a position. Others posters here may then respond to either sustain or challenge your position, and your learning will be maximized.
  7. Have you read FAR 13.106-1(a)(2)(iii)? That is where you will find your answer.
  8. It is impossible to use FAR part 12 alone. See FAR 12.102(b). Please don't take my word for it -- please, go and read FAR 12.102(b). FAR part 12 is NEVER used in conjunction with subpart 8.4 or 16.5 -- those are self-contained. If the parent schedule contract or indefinite delivery contract was for commercial items, FAR part 12 may have been appropriately used for the parent instrument procurement -- but the delivery or task order procurement is self-contained within subpart 8.4 or 16.5 and whatever ordering instructions are in the parent instrument. Please read FAR 12.102(b).
  9. Sure! But that courtesy debriefing, however it is styled, and even if styled as a debriefing, does not constitute a required debriefing.
  10. For the benefit of readers, NICRA - NEGOTIATED INDIRECT COST RATE AGREEMENT.
  11. Jamaal, Too often, someone whose practice differs from another will say the other is incorrect -- certainly, it is very easy to do so. This happens within our procurement communities and even in these pages at WIFCON. When an entire organization, with all of their executives and admirals and lawyers and so forth, has decided to adopt a certain practice to deal with their realities, I think it is professionally appropriate to caution someone who self-describes as being "fairly new" but disagrees with the practice to consider and possibly improve the workability of the practice rather than labeling it as correct or incorrect. I wouldn't want the OP, having made inquiry at WIFCON, to go back and assert the incorrectness of his organization's practice to his organization's executives, admirals, and lawyers -- what good would come from that? I think I gave good advice to the OP, and I disagree that a reasonable person would characterize my comment as indicative of an uncritical, anything-goes approach. That said, I do apologize if you or others came to that conclusion -- that was not my intention.
  12. Voyager, Is anyone in this thread supporting "[a]n uncritical, anything-goes approach"?
  13. I thought about the clause at FAR 52.243-4, Changes, but I don't think it fits the facts here because-- para. (b) requires a notice from the contractor to the contracting officer stating that the contractor regards the warranty call as a change order (and OP made no mention of having given notice); para. (d) limits any equitable adjustment to costs incurred within 20 days before the notice (and OP did not mention any timelines); and para. (f) prohibits any equitable adjustment after final payment (and I am assuming that final payment has already occurred). So I'm still thinking there is no contract clause that will provide an entitlement to an equitable adjustment for OP, and I still recommend for David to look at the Disputes clause in his contract. I disagree with characterizations that REAs are for nice people and claims are for mean people -- that mindset is too simple-minded for professional dialogue.
  14. David, If you were to submit a REA to me under FAR 52.236-2, Differing Site Conditions, for the facts described in the OP, I would be duty-bound to reject it -- in my opinion, that clause does not give a contractor an entitlement to a REA under those facts. As I mentioned in my first comment, I still recommend you look at the Disputes clause in your contract -- no one else in this thread has mentioned any other clause that would give you an entitlement to a REA.
  15. Joel, If the OP wants to submit a REA, and you are encouraging that approach, what contract clause will allow for an equitable adjustment in this circumstance? I am not aware of any clause that will entitle the contractor to an equitable adjustment with these facts. I'm thinking that a claim is the right step since OP is seeking "the payment of money in a sum certain, the adjustment or interpretation of contract terms, or other relief arising under or relating to this contract." YES, if there is a clause that gives OP an entitlement to an equitable adjustment, REA all the way -- but what is the REA clause that OP can cite?
  16. ArrieS, You might be the hero in the story if you propose a differing solution that still works for your organization, and persuade others in your agency of its efficacy. I think we need thinkers and solvers in our career field. Talk to others and see what can be improved in the situation you described. I don't know about the DoD PGI, but I would wonder if it defines and limits all of the possibilities or if it merely illustrative of some concepts and possibilities. Of course, people have to follow the rules as they are understood in their localities. Jamaal, If calling an audible means changing an approach because on a newly-realized reality, then calling an audible is good -- the quarterback acts within his authority on the field, right? Being rigid and inflexible is generally thought of as bad in many settings.
  17. Rather than thinking in terms or correct or incorrect, I'm wondering if it works. I have used what I call draw-down CLINs, and they worked for me.
  18. I don't think the clause at FAR 52.246-21 provides an REA entitlement to the contractor for "invalid warranty claims." However, the clause does allow for warranty claims after acceptance -- indeed, that's the purpose of a warranty.
  19. I'm not sure about this -- is there text in your contract that would create this entitlement? But if your contract includes a disputes clause, that clause may give you an entitlement to file a dispute or claim against the agency.
  20. I hope you have mentioned these failures on the part of your contractors in their CPARS submissions.
  21. Does https://www.gao.gov/products/b-294974.6 address your question? Note that this decision occurred after the decision I mentioned above.
  22. Jamaal, If an office establishes pre-priced BPAs for the same items with several sources, it can consider those BPAs as providing competition for those items. If the number of BPA holders goes down over time, the office may (1) establish additional BPAs; or (2) provide for competition by getting quotes from non-BPA sources.
×
×
  • Create New...