Jump to content
The Wifcon Forums and Blogs

FAR-flung 1102

  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

0 Neutral

About FAR-flung 1102

  • Rank

Recent Profile Visitors

2,672 profile views
  1. I'm not convinced this is a small matter. Indemnification is only a part of the larger issue the Federal Government has with routine terms of Commercial Supplier Agreements, Terms of Service, EULAs and other like terms usually found in online agreements. In 2015 GSA identified 15 common terms it takes exception to as incompatible with federal law, below is the initial action taken (Class Deviation) and the below that the 2018 Final Rule. https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&url=https://www.gsa.gov/cdnstatic/insite/MV-15-03.pdf&ved=2ahUKEwiXrtup6ZfwAhU9ITQIHQFEA
  2. For reference see https://www.acq.osd.mil/dpap/cpic/cp/docs/New_Contractor_Manpower_Memo_16_Oct_2019.pdf which explains the threshold change, reporting criteria and mentions that further implementing guidance, a DFARS rule and contract clause implementing the change from ECMRA to SAM are all in the works.
  3. Implement a standard practice where the unsuccessful protestor pays the reasonable proximate costs incurred. No settlement fee in advance. Hand the filer a good faith estimate of the potential cost to them (and likelihood) of various outcomes, then they decide their course of action....
  4. How about this what if: "I'm going to a training conference in two months...registration is expected to fill up a month before the conference. Can I pay the registration fee via GPC? I have a travel card, but don't expect to get orders until a few days before I travel."
  5. Government Purchase Card is an interesting subset for two reasons: 1) Coordinators receive a high volume of questions from users who are not Contract Specialists and 2) Many of those users find themselves facing edge cases not readily resolved by their established procedures or by their reading of the regulation.
  6. Have you checked with Watson? https://www.washingtonpost.com/business/economy/the-pentagons-procurement-system-is-so-broken-they-are-calling-on-watson/2016/03/18/a6891158-ec6a-11e5-a6f3-21ccdbc5f74e_story.html
  7. Motorcity, The nature of the risk boils down to what economists term an "Agency" problem. Checks placed on what is sometimes called in DoD a government support contractor (what you termed the third party contractor) can be effective or if unaddressed, the risk can turn out to be a huge blind spot attracting opportunistic unethical behavior. These checks include many tools and they are not all found in one place or wielded by one individual. Organizational Conflicts of Interest, Non Disclosure Agreements, and Contractor identification are three of the more obvious aspects to consider.
  8. In a minor aside, I find that FAR 1.108-c is the subject of yet another disagreement in meaning. It has led me to question whether most folks accept the plain meaning of "all options" in FAR 1.108(c.). Who here is sure to include the value ascribed to the FAR 52.217-8 Option to Extend Services, when present, in determining the threshold value? If that's not what you do in practice, then why not?
  9. https://www.gao.gov/mobile/legal/appropriations-law-decisions/resources...Scroll down to find links to ADA Reports for recent years.
  10. Ji20874, don't count on the status quo remaining...Congress has already enacted legislation calling upon DoD to implement a preference for acquisition of commercial construction services...What do you think can/will change? See DFARS Open Case 2019-D034...https://www.acq.osd.mil/dpap/dars/case_status.html
  11. So, what are your recommendations...In unilaterally establishing the new delivery date what mod authority might the Government cite?
  12. ...since the the JTR rather plainly states in its introduction that it does not apply to contractors (other than personal services) don't forget to look first to the contract for the language that establishes some relationship to the JTR (e.g., "at rates not to exceed those set forth in the JTR", or alternatively, "at rates consistent with the limits at FAR 31.205-46").
  13. If commercial, look also for the standard commercial offer instruction at FAR 52.212-1 (e): "Multiple offers. Offerors are encouraged to submit multiple offers presenting alternative terms and conditions, including alternative line items (provided that the alternative line items are consistent with subpart 4.10 of the Federal Acquisition Regulation), or alternative commercial items for satisfying the requirements of this solicitation. Each offer submitted will be evaluated separately."
  14. A Note About Terms: FAR Part 13 does not use the term "Sole Source" to refer to single source acquisitions at or below the Simplified Acqusition Threshold (SAT). FAR Subpart 13.5 does use the term "Sole Source" to refer to single source acquisitions using Simplified Acquisition Procedures above the SAT.
  15. Further discussion of ODCs (based on the observation that an ODC is not a deliverable and why under the FAR that matters) and Vern Edward's topical remarks see:
  • Create New...