Jump to content
The Wifcon Forums and Blogs

Krimz

Members
  • Content Count

    36
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by Krimz

  1. Good morning WifCon, I have very little experience with formal acquisitions in FAR 15, but in the Air Force it was the rule to have funding up front before issuing an RFP. I understood that to be because we were requesting formal offers, one of which we will accept for award. Now, in my current, non-DOD office, COs are considering issuing RFPs without funding in hand. Is there really no requirement to have funds available prior to issuing an RFP? I've gone through the FAR and haven't seen anything in Part 15. When I issue an RFQ I am ultimately only requesting information, an
  2. This is a standalone contract. I think Don’s found the source of the confusion. Thank you for the feedback!
  3. Good afternoon Wifcon, I have a disagreement w/ a coworker about when to synopsize to the GPE and when not to. I have a construction requirement under the SAT which I am about to synopsize, but I'm told I nothing in the FAR requires me to, and they cited FAR 5.202(a)(13😞 as well as the below "Ask the Professor" answer: My thought is that 5.202(a)(13), as confusing as it is, still requires a notice to be posted in some form or fashion. Am I missing something here?
  4. For the record, my agency's contracting system allows the CS/CO to choose which number goes in the box. We can choose either the vendor's DUNS number, or their Vendor Number (ie, a local number assigned to that vendor by our system).
  5. I realize this is an old thread, but my agency is doing exactly this. I email a DUNS number to specific email address and within 20-30 min. receive a Contractor's Responsibility Assessment that consolidates SAM Registration, FAPIIS, Reps & Certs, etc.
  6. Thanks for taking the time to explain it to me. I believe I have a way forward that will satisfy myself & my customer.
  7. I do want our agency to be successful, that's for sure. My final question is, what is the difference in a labor-hour contract for 2080 hours, and a FFP contract for 2080 hours, both having identical SOWs? That's what's confusing me, and I am only just realizing that. I know what FFP is, and think if we defined exactly what the contractor was expected to do with defined quantities and deliverables, I can see how FFP would be appropriate whether the contractor proposes an hourly or each (task) UOM. But our SOW is open-ended, and since the UOM is based on hours worked, I don't see how that ca
  8. FAR 37.104 Like I said before, this isn't a pass/fail test, but the contracts in question tick almost every single box in FAR 37.104.
  9. That is exactly what is happening with these contracts. A very apparent employer-employee relationship has been established, and I do not know any other way to structure this contract so as to avoid that. There are other details that I can't share here that I am sure would make this much more clear, but I think based on what I've given so far, it's pretty clear these are LH or personal service contracts, and should not be FFP. Maybe I'm wrong. As for FAR 37.112, that's exactly how some of these contracts began, as NTEs for 120 days. These required approval at a very high level (I don'
  10. jl20874, out of curiosity, what do you consider a personal service? We can state service contracts in terms of outcomes, but the FAR is pretty clear that personal service contracts are prohibited unless authorized by statute, which they are not in my organization. I'll try to find the law referenced in the FAR and by our HR that states circumventing the hiring process is illegal. Some of these started as temporary personal service contracts NTE to 120 days, and then grew into base + 4 contracts, which was expressly prohibited. Maybe I have a different definition of personal service tha
  11. Because they are attempting to contract for a position that parallels a government employees PD. And they explained to me that they’ve tried hiring a federal employee to do the work, but they can’t get certain approvals, so that they will need to contract for this person. I’m fine with contracting for performance based acquisition and defining the need in terms of required results/deliverables, but that’s not what my customer wants. They want an employee that they can assign work to on an as-needed basis. They tick almost every box for FAR 37.104(c)(2)(d): (d) The following descri
  12. Asking them to provide a receptionist is exactly what I am trying to avoid. To me, that is very clearly a personal service.
  13. I'm fine with a broad scope as long as it can be administered without much CO intervention. We've been told that labor-hour contracts will not be approved, so that we should treat them as FFP and do our best to structure them so. I'm just not sure how to do that since LH and FFP are polar opposite contract types.
  14. I'm not saying we can't contract for these services, but I don't see how an open-ended contract for undefined services meets the definition of FFP: In the scenario at hand, these contracts are not actually FFP because they are open-ended. How can the contractor provide an FFP quote unless we define exactly what work/tasks will be required? The only way I know to structure a contract for this kind of requirement is to go the labor-hour route, which I'm told we will not receive approval for. I asked my customer to re-work their SOW so that it addressed a specific, well-def
  15. Hello Wifcon, I'm a specialist at a civilian agency, and, along with a few colleagues, I continue to come across "support service" contracts that are being administered inappropriately. I'd rather not be too specific for obvious reasons, but I'll do my best to lay this out in as helpful a manner as possible. My goal is to find a way to get my customers what they need, as difficult (or sometimes impossible) as that may be. The current scenario is this: the service contracts in question are essentially open-ended labor-hour contracts (2080 hours annually, no specific tasks or proj
  16. Well, a BPA call becomes binding. A BPA never is binding.
  17. Thanks for the suggestion. It's a good read, and it really confirms my own thoughts. That said, I've just come across a BPA against which I am authorized to place calls with a per-call limit of $1,000,000, which does not require synopsis. I do not have all the details on how it was established, but I know of no procedures that would allow me to circumvent the synopsis requirement of 5.201.
  18. I consider a call a contract action because it triggers a CAR, and so to me, over $25k, it must be synopsized. I guess what really matters is 1) whether or not your boss is okay with forgoing the synopsis over $25k, 2) whether or not your auditors are okay with you forgoing the synopsis over $25k.
  19. If that’s the case, then why does 5.202 except TOs against IDIQs? Wouldn’t the TOs be within the scope as synopsized?
  20. Right, Don. I was making a point in response to the people who say, “calls above $25k placed against a BPA that was awarded under competitive procedures do not require synopsis.” That’s the line I’m hearing in my office and I think formerfed mentioned it. But, just like IDIQs, awarding a BPA competitively does not exempt $25k+ calls from synopsis.
  21. That’s initially what I thought myself, but then why is there an exception for TOs cut from IDIQs? Because the IDIQ was synopsize and competed as well.
  22. I think the only exceptions at FAR 5.202 are for IDIQs or contracts. So, technically, none of them.
×
×
  • Create New...