Jamaal Valentine

Probably right on the BOA aspect. I really wish the FAR Councils would rewrite FAR 5.202(a)(6) or (11). However, I think a careful read of FAR 16.504(c)(1)(ii)(B)* could lead to a single-award path, but you know your agency better than I do. *assuming you don’t reach FAR 16.504(c)(1)(ii)(D)(1)

Two or more single-award IDIQs or BOAs?

The concepts and principles have application in any evaluation that includes price and other factors. Me commentary is based on my Oct 2020 attendance.

@JeanJ Without knowing the particulars (e.g., grant or contract) I would suggest you check here for Service Contract Reporting applicability: https://www.sam.gov/SAM/transcript/SCR_QSG.pdf or here (e.g., SCR criteria in SCR Guidebook): https://dodprocurementtoolbox.com/site-pages/service-contract-reporting-scr

ECMRA was de-commissioned as of COB June 19th, 2020. I recommend contacting the contracting officer for instructions. I presume they will be modifying the contract.

Nobody will be able to answer this question with certainty unless they’ve read the contract or you provide some more details. We can make some assertions based on DARPA being a Defense Agency, but we don’t even know if it’s a FAR-based contract. If it is a DoD FAR-based contract it may include ECMRA (Enterprise Contractor Manpower Reporting Application) or SCR (service contract reporting) requirements depending on when it was awarded. For example, ECMRA applied to FFP contracts. ECMRA provided instructions on what contractors needed to report. The what should help determine the how. What manpower requirement was flowed down? How? Is your inquiry about a prime contract issued by DARPA?

Disciplinary action on the employee is a separate issue that government officials can’t seem to separate from unauthorized commitments. There isn’t enough information here for me to decide or make a recommendation on how this should be treated; I simply raised another solution that overcomes the Agency’s argument for not being able to ratify. The Agency appears to think they can’t ratify...I didn’t read that they don’t want to.

Since this is related to or arising from a contract, the Agency could potentially settle the claims involving unauthorized commitments pursuant to FAR Subpart 33.2 instead of FAR 1.602-3(b)(2) and (c). (Ref. FAR 1.602-3( b )(5))

It’s invaluable if you really want to understand source selection more deeply and broadly. It’s a gateway to streamlining and innovation that many offices want. I’m not aware of anything similar. The course content is great, but the instruction and dialogue may be even better. (Vern was the instructor when I took it.) It’s usefulness may be limited or delayed by organizational norms and traditions that prevent or discourage students from applying what they learn. In my experience, contracting offices can’t be changed from the bottom up. This course should be required for contracting officers, reviewers, policy makers, clearance authorities, etc.

What law? Do you think inclusion of service clauses in leases is addressed in FAR or prohibited by law or some other rule? I don’t read but four clauses FAR 8.1104(e) says to exclude. Many (most) leasing of vehicles is going to be a commercial acquisition so the service vs supply clause set argument is moot. Nonetheless, in exercising initiative, Government members of the Acquisition Team may assume if a specific strategy, practice, policy or procedure is in the best interests of the Government and is not addressed in the FAR, nor prohibited by law (statute or case law), Executive order or other regulation, that the strategy, practice, policy or procedure is a permissible exercise of authority. Well played!

Depends on the purpose of categorization, right? For example, if the purpose is for application of the non-manufacturer rule, 13 CFR § 121.406(b)(4) states that “[t]he rental of an item(s) is a service and should be treated as such in the application of the nonmanufacturer rule and the limitation on subcontracting.” Then the PSC Manual, Defense Acquisition Guidebook, and SBA regulations state equipment rentals/leasing are services. FAR Part 37 gives a definition for service contract for the purposes of that part (e.g., clauses, policies and procedures). FAR 8.1104(e) is simply stating what clauses to use and doesn’t really categorize anything. FAR Subpart 22.10 categorizes services for applicability of Service Contract Labor Standards.

@bob7947 Great catch...guess I better start calling you the Wizard of Wifcon and not just an oracle.

Seems to be some variation in FAR 2.101: Agency head or “head of the agency” means the Secretary, Attorney General, Administrator, Governor, Chairperson, or other chief official of an executive agency, unless otherwise indicated, including any deputy or assistant chief official of an executive agency. Head of the agency (see “agency head”). Executive agency means an executive department, a military department, or any independent establishment within the meaning of 5 U.S.C.101, 102, and 104(1), respectively, and any wholly owned Government corporation within the meaning of 31 U.S.C.9101. (Emphasis added)

I think risk-aversion is derived from basic human motivations for safety and security. In that sense, it is rational behavior. Under rules-based contracting, a term I’ve coined, the minimum is the maximum. Know what the rules (statutes, case law, regulations, policy, etc.) require; and satisfy those requirements. This concept relies on professionalism and competence and provides maximum flexibility and discretion to get things done within the rules (including grey areas and loopholes). My belief is that competent professionals can and should use the minimum force appropriate to the situation at hand (a use of force continuum). If a contracting officer is not required to furnish information they should decide based on what is necessary and permitted—to meet their overall objective(s)—under specific circumstances such as perceived risks and rewards. This may result in furnishing or withholding more than the bare minimum and that’s fine. Some may dislike this theory, but those people probably dislike LPTA simply because they misunderstand it and it’s proper application. FAR says “[t]he authority to make decisions and the accountability for the decisions made will be delegated to the lowest level within the System, consistent with law.” Let’s do that!

Since debriefings are hotly contested they are often less useful than they could (should?) be. Notifications and debriefings are uneven from office to office and contracting officer to contracting officer. For example, some offices/contracting officers won’t provide the successful offeror’s past performance rating and some will. The variation comes from inconsistent beliefs on whether or not the rules permit release of the rating.

You might want to start with the DoD FMR if you are DoD. (See pages 8-13 and 8-14 for definitions) https://comptroller.defense.gov/Portals/45/documents/fmr/current/03/03_08.pdf Principles of Federal Appropriations Law, also known as the Red Book, is a good place to look for civilian agency employees. (Chapter 5?) https://www.gao.gov/mobile/legal/appropriations-law-decisions/red-book

Both. Read it as either or. In other words, it’s required if either condition or both conditions are met.

FAR 15.503(b)(1) states that notifications to unsuccessful offerors shall include, in general terms, the reason(s) the offeror’s proposal was not accepted... FAR 15.506(d)(2) postaward debriefings include the overall evaluated cost or price (including unit prices) and technical rating, if applicable, of the successful offeror and the debriefed offeror, and past performance information on the debriefed offeror... What are your thoughts on providing the past performance rating (e.g., Past Performance Confidence Assessment Rating) of the successful offeror on either document?

In reality, there is a discrepancy, but there are deviations (that came much later) to resolve them. For purposes of this poll, just respond to the question based on the information and scenario provided and add commentary in the comments. No different than many standardized WIFCON quizzes, polls, etc. that are framed. Don’t read into it, overthink, or over-complicate it with extrinsic information (Deviations). (If it helps, consider what you would have done during the years there weren’t any class deviations)

Both; however, the poll relates to the regulatory language (without consideration of the DoD Deviation or CAAC Letter). It’s a single, scenario-based, question asking what people would do ‘as framed’. I fully expected commentary and discourse in the comments. It’s WIFCON.

Why? The poll isn’t about the DoD’s deviation nor the CAAC Letter. The question stands alone. If that’s hard to understand, just consider the years there was no deviation; think about future cases such as FAR Case 2016-002, Applicability of Small Business Regulations Outsidethe United States. This was and is a post to talk through appropriate responses to conflicting regulations.

@ji20874 in the past the FAR council has stated that contracting officers should follow FAR. I recall that the case law doesn’t necessarily support their statement, but I’m with you, the solution is just a deviation away. Unfortunately, many (most) contracting officers don’t have easy access to deviations authorities. One would think that class deviations would be appropriate considering it’s taking several years to process the open FAR Case (2016-011).

—Poll Question Is Above— FAR 19.505(c)(5) Exception to the nonmanufacturer rule. The SBA provides for an exception to the nonmanufacturer rule when— (ii) The cost is not anticipated to exceed $25,000; vs. 13 CFR §121.406(c) The performance requirements (limitations on subcontracting) and the nonmanufacturer rule do not apply to small business set-aside acquisitions with an estimated value between the micro-purchase threshold and the simplified acquisition threshold (as both terms are defined in the FAR at 48 CFR 2.101).

You’re likely going to get tied up with more than SAM — 4.1804 Solicitation provisions and contract clause. (a) Insert the provision at 52.204-16, Commercial and Government Entity Code Reporting, in all solicitations that include– (1) 52.204-6, Unique Entity Identifier; or (2) 52.204-7, System for Award Management.

I moved across the globe and started a new role as a Division Chief and have been spending most of my time at work or doing work related tasks. I’ve finally got a full staff and some stability at most of the seven locations so I should be active again.