Jump to content
The Wifcon Forums and Blogs


  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

0 Neutral

About FARmer

  • Rank

Recent Profile Visitors

2,041 profile views
  1. So keep in mind that was never in agreement of how others were interpreting the minimum guarantee. Unfortunately the "others" are high up the flagpole and any rebuttals need to be well supported. Came to WIFCON for a sanity check and based on the responses, I received it! I agree with what everyone is saying. What led me down this rabbit hole is that someone told me there was case law that somewhat stated otherwise. However, I am unable to find the case law and the person that told me has left the agency (probably a good thing) so I have no way to ask "where does that case law exist?"
  2. Retreadfed - T&M Ji20874 - I hear you. Its an absolute mess of a project and with no easy solution. However, I'm trying to analyze all potential risk to the Government. In my office there appears to be some idea that the vendor would be able to file a claim for the full amount of the minimum guarantee (of which the contractor hasn't satisfied on their end), but that doesn't seem nowhere near sane to me. How can a contractor in breach/default be allowed to receive the minimum guarantee? Just sounds wrong wrong wrong to me. Maybe its one of those things where case law etc doesn't exists
  3. Hey WIFCON, Trying to see if there is any good advice from WIFCON experts, GOA cases, or other written decisions out there with regards to a Contractor, in breach/default/about to be terminated from an IDIQ contract, and that contractor's right to receive the minimum guarantee. Without going into a ton of details, performance on a service task order is well below sub-par, the Government awarded the task order competitively via a MA-IDIQ, the requirements/funding on TO award was enough to satisfy the minimum guarantee, however due to a complete breach of contract/lack of performance the c
  4. Thanks Vern. Competency in using and actually understanding the AFDP is the issue here, not the Agencies use of Award Fee Incentives. This all boils down to a few people not paying attention to the plan. I guess on the flip side of your post (being in the Government's shoes), if the risk of converting the contract to a CPFF is too great in terms of diminished performance then the Government could 1) Breach the contract and pay a claim if one is submitted in hopes of keeping the CPAF contract structure. 2) Terminate the contract and re-compete if a CPAF contract is that important. I don'
  5. Thanks for all the questions. I don't want to try to go too deep into what's going on because I am sure the opposing side is watching as well..... To answer your questions, let me go in this order: 1) The Award Fee Determination Plan (AFDP) does not incorporate the language specifically from DFARS 216.405-2(2) and states a period longer than 45 days. Lets say 60 days. The Contract does include the appropriate DFARS clauses for Award Fee contracts (DFARS 252.216-7004 & 7005). 2) Based on the situation and a misunderstanding by the award fee board chair and AFDO (of which is n
  6. I will keep this short and sweet - DFARS 216.405-2(2), Award-fee evaluation and Payments, states "The fee-determining official's rating for award-fee evaluations will be provided to the contractor within 45 calendar days of the end of the period being evaluated." What happens/What rights does a contractors have should the award fee determination be delivered late? the DFARS and PGI are silent on this.
  7. Thanks Vern! This is how I go about building an order off of a GWAC, Schedule, IDIQ or BPA. I do not see it beneficial to add every clause under the sun to an order/task order if its already covered under the contract. With regards to the last paragraph of your statement, that is exactly what I am dealing with within my agency and tasked with helping educating folks. Most of our task orders are written off of the GSA GWACs and Schedules, and those task orders normally have clauses that shouldn't be in the order because its covered by the contract and/or have clauses that wer
  8. Hey Folks, I am working on a rather large project for my agency and there has been several discussions in which there has been no end to with regards to clauses that flow down to orders placed under a Schedule, GWAC, IDIQ, or BPA etc. The discussion goes further into the provisions as well. I have scoured the internet and this forum and i'm able to piecemeal information pertaining to this topic but was wondering if there were any blogs, GAO cases, white papers that discuss clause flow down from the master contract to the orders placed under the master contract. A lot of the discussions I am fi
  9. Hello All, I have been searching WIFCON for information on the interpretation of consolidation want to piggyback off a post from 2013 (link provided at the bottom of the post). Essentially I am wondering if I am over interpreting the definition of consolidation. FAR 2.101 states: “Consolidation or consolidated requirement”-- (1) Means a solicitation for a single contract, a multiple-award contract, a task order, or a delivery order to satisfy-- (2) Separate contract as used in this definition, means a contract that has been performed by any business, including small and oth
  10. Thanks Todd! You are right! The date I was looking at was specific to the subpart. Thank you for the acq.osd.mil link, while its a pain to use, I can manage! Cheers
  11. Hi Everyone, I have been trying to access the Hill AF website for the latest and greatest DFARS and keep receiving a "Connection timed out" notice. I have had other 1102 buddies try accessing and all are having the same result. I have been trying to access the site since last week with no success. I have tried to google etc. to see if there was any known maintenance taking place over the Holidays and was unable to dig anything up. Does anyone know whats going on? Also, does anyone one know any other electronic means to search the DFARS. It appears that the one posted on DPAP
  12. So this topic took off like no tomorrow. Based on my original posting, my scenario involves a past performance evaluation factor that puts experience and performance together but fails to have a confidence assessment scheme; like whats in the DoD SSP. Because of this, the past performance evaluation factor is less than effective.
  13. Vern- Yes indeed. I realized and will learn from my mistake. Thank you everyone for contributing!
  14. So I am going to post again because after reading many more cases, it appears that in my example above, both Offerors A and B should/would be treated the same........... So I guess what I thought is common sense isn't necessarily the case.
  15. Ok, so Past Performance, FAR 15.305(a)(2)(iv) has been a hot topic. I truly understand that. So in laymans terms and using Vern's example above as well as what Todd Davis cited right before Vern's post- Offeror A submitted past performance for the requirement. Offeror A's past performance specifically states that they have similar work that is relevant (using Vern's definition above) in all facets. When evaluated, the evaluators determine that the past performance submission is only relevant to Task 1, and is completely not relevant to any of the other tasks. As a matter of fact, base on
  • Create New...