Vern Edwards

Milcon is asking whether it makes sense to change the "total task order value" in light of the fact that the deobligation of funds associated with the travel CLIN does not reflect a change in the scope of the order. In order to answer that question, those of you who have chosen to respond to Milcon should ask yourselves: What, if anything, is the (1) contractual and (2) administrative significance of the "total task order value"? The answers to those questions depend in part on the location and context of "total task order value" in the task order. Maybe "total task order value" is just an entry on a form, with no contractual or administrative significance whatsoever, and Milcon should just go along with his policy shop's program. Maybe it's just a product of simple arithmetic. Or maybe Milcon's question is just a bureaucratic mystery, like the proper entry in SF 30, Block 13C.

@Milcon I haven't seen any mention of this, and I may have missed it, but I'm wondering where in the order the "total task order value" appears. Some questions: Was the order issued under DD Form 1155 or Optional Form 347? Some other form? If DD 1155, are you talking about the amount that goes in box 25? If OF 347, are you talking about the amount that goes in box 17(h)? If neither form, where does the "total task order value" appear? Is the "total task order value" the sum of (1) the firm-fixed price (for performance) and (2) the estimated cost of travel?

I don't know what you mean by "receiving/accepting," but see FAR 7.503, Policy [about contractor performance of inherently governmental functions] If "receiving/accepting invoices" entails more than routine invoice receipt and examination, then you should describe the work.

here_2_help has already recommended training. I suggest that you buy a copy of Cost-Reimbursement Contracting, 4th ed., by Cibinic and Nash (2014), published by Wolters Kluwer. It's pricey, but worth it if you really want to understand the concepts and principles that apply in cost-reimbursement contracting. It's slightly out of date on some of the regulations, mainly with regard to the cost principles, but it's excellent on ideas and practices. Very detailed.

It should be made clear that the 70 percent referred to in the above posts is not some limit on the amount of work that a prime or subcontractor can award to subcontractors and sub-subcontracts. It is the percentage of subcontract effort under a prime contract or subcontract at which "pass-through charges" must be reported to the contracting officer.

Emphasis on "expressly" added. Go to www.acquisition.gov and download the entire FAR in pdf format. Then open Adobe Acrobat Reader and search for "other direct costs" and "ODC" in full search. Then see if any of the references mention any limitation on the percentage of ODC that a prime can "give" to a sub. Takes less than five minutes. Easy peasy. FYI, the phrase "other direct costs" appears in FAR only nine times. I didn't search the FAR supplements. I figure you can do that for yourself.

@Bill Elliott Bill, just some thoughts. First, the best reference to the SBA Final Rule is 85 FR 66146, 66180, October 16, 2020, amending 13 CFR 121.103(h)(4), "Facility Security Clearances." Second, here is what I suspect: SBA changed its own rules with respect to facility clearances for joint ventures, but that might not cut any ice with DOD, which has its own rules. (I doubt that SBA can dictate to DOD when it comes to industrial security.) Even assuming that DOD is open to changing, it would first go through the Federal Register process of changing the rules in 32 CFR § 117.9, "Entity eligibility determination for access to classified information," paragraph (k), "Joint ventures." It may be that since the SBA change happened just last October, DOD has not gotten around to considering whether to change its own rules. The Defense Security Service and the contracting officer will be bound by the existing DOD rules and couldn't care less about SBA's rules. In other words, the SBA change may not do anything for you. This is all speculation on my part.

I am not aware of any governmentwide rule. FAR is silent on the matter. I presume it is a matter of agency or local policy. You may have to solicit offers in order to fulfill an annual requirement before funds are appropriated.

@DWGerard1102 Thanks, DW. Interesting perspective and ideas.

@C CulhamThanks, Carl. I don't think GAO has ever ruled on the question of whether application of Part 15 procedures to fair opportunities under 16.505(b) via 52.215-1 is a FAR deviation requiring approval. GAO has said that Part 15 does not govern, but has acknowledged in at least 27 decisions that agencies apply it, and they say they will enforce such applications. I don't think the application of Part 15 to fair opportunities has ever been challenged, and I believe that GAO is unlikely to take up the issue sua sponte. Have I missed a decision? The one you cite doesn't address the issue I have raised.

@DWGerard1102 I'm surprised that COs don't stipulate an amount against which all competitors must plan. Do you know of any who do that?

What about my FAR deviation question, above? Anybody got any ideas in that regard?

Carl, the requirement for a maximum is statutory. See my post, above. I think formerfed is suggesting that the maximum can be set at zero.

Well, for what it's worth, I understand you and agree. If you have multiple minimums, one for each contractor, and if the minimums counts against the maximum, then, assuming that more than one contractor receives its minimum, no one contractor can receive all of the maximum. Right? Now, what about my FAR deviation question, above?

Would it be a FAR deviation to incorporate 52.215-1 into a "fair notice of intent" (aka RFTOP) issued pursuant to 16.505(b)(1)?

I think everybody gets what you've said.

Well, formerfed, I don't know. And I'm beyond arguing about such stuff at my age. So maybe a maximum of none is okay.

Have you called the Defense Security Service? See https://www.afdw.af.mil/Portals/31/documents/Small-Business/SB_Guide_Facility_Clearance_Process_FINAL_LINKS.PDF?ver=2018-08-24-145011-637 Do yourself a favor and write a list of short and carefully worded questions before you call. Think about what information you want and be clear and direct in asking for it.

Withdrawn.

I disagree. FAR implements statute. See 41 USC §§ 4101(1)(A) and (2)(A); 4103(b)(2) and (e); and 4106(f)(1)(A). I don't know how GSA managed a deviation, especially in light of 41 USC 4103(b)(2) and (e). Same requirements in 10 USC. Have I missed something?

Yes.

GSA's OASIS GWAC, which is a MAC, has a minimum, but does not have a maximum. I don't know how that was done. I saw no mention in the contract of a FAR deviation.

@formerfedI think what you will see now if you look at RFPs for MATOCs and MADOCs is one of the following: a min is set for each contractor and the program max applies to the pool of contractors; or a min is set for each contractor and a share of the program max is allocated to each contractor as its max. Under 1 and 2, the sum value of all orders cannot exceed the program max. I have not seen an RFP in which the entire program max was set as the max for each contractor, but I have not seen all the RFPs. I would not think that appropriate if a MATOC/MADOC is one contract with multiple parties, but if it's multiple separate contracts... ?

All relatively recent and relatively brief. Page counts include indexes. Barzun, Jacques, Simple & Direct: A Rhetoric for Writers, 4th ed, (2001), paperback, 268 pages. Dreyer, Benjamin, Dreyer's English: An Utterly Correct Guide to Clarity and Style (2019), hardcover and Kindle, 291 pages. Evans, Harold, Do I Make Myself Clear? Why Writing Well Matters (2017), paperback and Kindle, 407 pages. Fish, How to Write a Sentence and How to Read One (2011), paperback and Kindle, 164 pages. Casagrande, The Best Punctuation Book, Period (2014), paperback, 249 pages.

@ Marshal Zhukov: Try searching at Google Scholar. Lead time has long been a matter of concern. There is a lot of material available online about "procurement lead time" and "administrative lead time" and "procurement administrative lead time," both in government and in the private sector. Some of it is readily available online, some of it is available through public or university libraries, and some of it is available only through subscription services or with online payment. I'm not sure what you're looking for or what you buy, so I'm not sure if any of the stuff would be helpful to you. See, for instance, MacKinnon, "A Forecasting Model for Procurement Administrative Lead Time," available through the Defense Technical Information Center (DTIC), https://apps.dtic.mil/dtic/tr/fulltext/u2/a258016.pdf