Jump to content
The Wifcon Forums and Blogs

Freyr

Members
  • Content Count

    72
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

0 Neutral

About Freyr

  • Rank
    Member

Recent Profile Visitors

The recent visitors block is disabled and is not being shown to other users.

  1. Hopefully this is a pretty straightforward question: We have a Task Order for 12 months that includes FAR 52.217-8 and ends on 9/30/2021. The IDIQ's ordering period ended on 9/30/2020. The IDIQ's clause 52.216-22 paragraph d states "Contractor shall not be required to make any deliveries under this contract 12 months after the last day of the ordering period." My question is, since exercising the -8 on the task order would put it outside of the 12 month period after the last day of the ordering period are we not allowed to use it? Edit: Follow up less straightforward questi
  2. Thanks all, I'll try to answer the questions as best I can and clarify the situation. I'm not sure I'd call it an "assisted acquisition." The agreement itself cites "49 U.S.C. 106(1)" as the authority to enter into the agreement, that citation doesn't seem to be useful or accurate at all... The agreement essentially says that we'll provide services to this other agency which is normally in the form of our fed employees helping them with their projects. Of course we also need to purchase supplies/services to assist with that. As far as the couches, what I'm talking about isn't a late deliv
  3. Hi all, this is the first time I'm working with an interagency agreement and the question has been brought up of whether or not delivery of an item can be outside the period of performance of the underlying interagency agreement. For example, we have an interagency agreement from 1/1/2021 through 6/1/2021 and award an order to deliver 10 couches but the contractor can't make delivery until 6/15. Would that be allowable? What if they couldn't make delivery until 12/15 (just an example)? Is what matters the POP of the interagency agreement or the available period of the funds (like FY21 funds vs
  4. @Don Mansfieldthanks for the forum link, beta Sam post, and gao case! Gives me lots to think about. Do you think this language and approach could be used for FAR 16.505 procurements as well?
  5. Thank you Vern, this is very on point with the situation at hand. I'll probably read through this another 3 times and then see if our Chief is open to revising the standard language we use to be more clear and more flexible. The CO already awarded this to Offeror A without communicating with either of them after receiving the offers, since it's such a low dollar procurement I doubt Offeror B will look to protest anything or even ask for any kind of debrief but you never know.
  6. FAR 52.212-1 was included but there was nothing mentioned about possible communications after submission. The terms for offer and selection/acceptance are pretty standard in the office for all commercial SAP buys, it really just says that offerors shall propose prices in accordance with the CLIN structure provided and that award will be made on best value in terms of price.
  7. Hi all, this got brought up during an office meeting this week and I've been mulling over what I thought. We had a commercial SAP requirement for an Off-Road Vehicle with a maintenance agreement each year for 2 years. The CLIN structure we solicited was a single CLIN for the vehicle with a second CLIN for 1 year maintenance and a third CLIN that's optional for the second year of maintenance. The issue is that we had two vendors submit offers, the first vendor (Offeror A) conformed to what we submitted but the second one (Offeror B ) provided a quote for the vehicle plus 5 years of maintenance.
  8. I have a CO who is citing FAR 5.202(a)(11) as a reason she doesn't need to synopsize this her FAR 15 requirement because it's a "follow-on" to the current contract in place. It is a sole source and that document will need to be posted but she says she doesn't need to synopsize it first before awarding. There's no change in the PWS at all, it's just that we need more of this requirement. I've read the language in the FAR, definitions in FAR 5.001 and 2.1, and it seems permissible. It just doesn't pass the sniff test to me, seems like an easy way to try to sneak through multiple sole sources for
  9. Hi all, when awarding an IDIQ for a civilian agency should we be citing funds for the minimum guarantee on the base IDIQ or immediately be issuing a task order that has the funds? To be clear, I mean getting a purchase request that has a line of accounting then commit and record an obligation for the minimum guarantee (I saw a few threads where nomenclature seemed important on this topic). Seems our office does both with some COs vehemently opposed to putting money on the base IDIQ and others who don't care, just wondering if there's advantages/disadvantages to either method. The COs that are
  10. I had a feeling these would be the responses (I don't disagree)! It's curious to me though that such a large/visible program like OASIS would take this approach, if it's a poor/non-compliant approach then why would they write it like that? Did they just try to be too clever to make it user friendly?
  11. Hi all, I was reading through the OASIS Contract (page 52) and came across the section on Clauses. It states: "All “Applicable” and “Required” provisions/clauses set forth in FAR 52.301 automatically flow down to all OASIS task orders based on their specific contract type (e.g. cost, fixed price, etc.), statement of work, competition requirements, commercial or not commercial, and dollar value as of the date the task order solicitation is issued. (Note: Any Applicable and/or Required provisions/clauses that require fill-in information must be provided by the OCO in full text)." Basically,
  12. Hi all, as I was reconciling my payment records I saw that our accounting folks paid the contractor using the wrong LOA. The vendor billed to the correct one, but for some reason our side billed the LOA on the CLIN below it. My question is whether this is going to require us to 1) have the contractor pay back that money and reinvoice on that CLIN again or 2) if it'd be possible for us to issue a modification to move money around between two different LOAs. #2 seems like it'd be in violation of some kind of rule (misappropriations act?). Looking for the most efficient solution to the correct is
  13. First off, congrats finding a ladder that goes to 13, most go to 12. That said, those yearly promotions are not guaranteed and you still need to be meeting your performance goals to obtain them typically. Some offices will just promote you on the clock, others are more strict on deciding when they get to promote you (DHS for example will hire folks at 12/13 ladder positions and never give them a 13). Formerfed really nailed it though, pick jobs based on the work you want to do, work/life happiness, and your own goals. In DC you can get to a 15 relatively easily if you're smart, work hard
  14. Hi all, my organization seems to put periods of performance on everything. Supplies, services, construction, everything from Hotel rooms to hardware maintenance. We use PRISM and I guess there's some issues between our financial system and PRISM that makes it so our purchase requests cannot be set up with X days after award and the award must match the purchase request exactly in terms of CLINs, dollar amounts, quantities, delivery dates, etc. It also seems to prevent vendors from invoicing for things before the ultimate delivery date or the end of the period of performance. For some of t
  15. I have a customer who's able to define what their bare minimum requirements are but they're willing to pay more if a contractor can propose something that exceeds those requirements in specific areas. I'm having trouble thinking of how to phrase the requirement though (It's a simplified acquisition, likely commercial). It's like saying at a minimum I need a vacuum that works on carpet but I'd be willing to pay more if it has a detachable hose. Would we be able to say we'll rate their technical acceptability as satisfactory if it meets the minimum XYZ, good if it meets XYZ and either A, B, or C
×
×
  • Create New...