Jump to content


  • Posts

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Posts posted by JaxD8282

  1. 17 hours ago, Vern Edwards said:

    @JaxD8282Read the executive order, Section 11:

    The FAR Council has not yet issued final regulations, so inclusion is optional. Has someone in authority in your organization decided to include the clause mentioned above in your solicitation?

    Thank you for noting the Section 11 portion of the EO, I'd missed that.  No, I have not received instruction to include the clause.  For now, I believe I'll omit this until the FAR Council officially incorporates the clause.  

  2. 10 hours ago, joel hoffman said:

    I question whether EO1455 has any relevance to your task order. It was issued on Nov 18 and was published on Nov 23, which was only a month ago. Vern quoted the effective date and conditions and indicated that the FAR Council hasn’t published final revisions to the FAR to implement any clause.

    Did someone include the stated clause in the open task order solicitation before selection and award? Did the proposers have any opportunity to assess any effects of such a clause to their pricing or proposals before the closing date for submission? 

    What “clauses to this effect” are in the awarded task order?

    Or is the task order competition/task order proposal request still open? If still open are you posing a hypothetical “what if “ delay scenario?

    Can you please clarify? Thanks.

    I agree with you that the EO has no relevancy until the pending clause is incorporated into the FAR by the FAR Council. 

    The requirement in question is a follow-on which has not hit the street yet, but will soon.  So this is a "what if" scenario; however, only for the short term since the IFB will be issued in the next month (or so). 

  3. 3 hours ago, Vern Edwards said:

    Emphasis added.

    I presume that the "we" in your post is a government agency.

    Do you mean required to hire incumbent contractor EMPLOYEES? I don't know of any executive order requiring that the government hire incumbent contractors.

    Yes, I work for the DON.

    You're correct that I meant hiring incumbent employees not the contractor company. 

    Again, that was initially worded poorly on my part, sorry about that.

    The successor awardee is required to offer the predecessor contractors right of first refusal.  If there is a gap in service and no bridge, would the aforementioned right of first refusal still be applicable?

    Please see attached EO, thanks.


    EO Nondisplacement of Workers.pdf

  4. As always, thank you in advance for any help.  WIFCON has proven to be very useful and I appreciate it.

    I have a question related to Executive Order 14055 "Nondisplacement of Qualified Workers Under Service Contracts" which was authorized last month.  Basically, we're back to being required to hire incumbent contractors for follow-on task orders of same or similar services.  In my current situation, based on some unfortunate missed milestones which I will not delve into, there is quite possibly going to be a lapse in service between the end of our current services task order and the award of the follow-on.  My question is this...if there is a lapse in service (length of time unknown) are the current TO contractors still considered incumbent with right of first refusal?  I.e. What if a period of say two months went by before the new TO began...are they still incumbents? 




  5. My question relates to a service contract which I am developing to procure professional services...

    Historically, the command at which I'm stationed has issued FFP service contracts with a clearly defined number of full-time equivalent contractors necessary to complete the associated tasking.  It was mentioned in a recent review that we should not be calling out the number of contractor personnel and to let the company(s) propose this information.  In my opinion, I feel it prudent to clearly call out the expected number of personnel, because though our requirement tasking is thorough and well defined, the actual number of assessments (basic reference to the overall scope of tasking) to be performed is a forecast and not a definite number.  As such, I do not feel a company would have adequate information to propose with any confidence without this information.  FAR/DFARS/PGI/NMCARS (just to start) are mostly silent on this topic.  The SeaPort NxG ConOps DOES call out that the number of FTEs should be defined in a Sources Sought, so I can't fathom why that strategy would just disappear within the solicitation phase... 

    I would appreciate some insight as to whether I'm tracking right with my thought process.  Thanks!

  6. My question is somewhat overarching...What is an acceptable level of assistance/responsibility from the contracting officer in assisting the contractor to submit a properly substantiated wage increase and/or health & welfare request?  The FAR and DFARS don't speak to this topic directly so I thought I'd just gather some opinions from fellow KOs. 

    Both the prime contractor and their sub in this instance have submitted 5+ iterations of the accompanying spreadsheets, payroll records, etc….all of which have contained errors and omissions resulting in a substantial amount of my time and effort.  Aside from a significant number of phone calls, I’ve had to rework the mod documents numerous times and we still aren’t even to a proper request as of yet. 

    Basically…at what point does my involvement surpass a reasonable level as I have essentially been walking the contractor to the finish line.

    Thank you in advance for any assistance!

  • Create New...