Don Mansfield

Thanks Bob.

I agree with Todd.

Yes, but Retreadfed's point is still valid. The clause could be an unauthorized deviation from the LOF clause. If it is, it may not be enforceable.

Neurotic, I don't get it. What problem does your CO think they are solving by using an adjectival rating for cost risk? To add to Vern's question, if contractor B also proposed an estimated cost of $1,000,000 and the most probable cost is $1,500,000, would it be possible for contractors A & B to get different cost risk ratings?

I don't think the notice in the Digitalis decision complied with FAR 5.207( c )(16). Here's what the notice said: The propriety of the notice itself wasn't an issue in the case, and it doesn't seem that the protester argued that it wasn't compliant with FAR. In any case, I wouldn't conclude from Digitalis that you don't have to include the statements at FAR 5.207( c )(16), that you don't have to post a solicitation for a sole source requirement, or that you don't have to consider a quote in response to the posted solicitation.

First, I think the RFQ should contain instructions on what to include in a quotation. That way, you won't get crap. If I ended up getting a quote that I didn't expect, I would re-evaluate my determination that "the circumstances of the contract action deem only one source reasonably available." If, based on my consideration of the quote, that were no longer true, then I would amend the RFQ to include evaluation criteria. Alternatively, I could have included the evaluation criteria in the RFQ--it's SAP so it shouldn't be that big a deal. If my re-evaluation of the quote didn't change my original determination, then I would say "no thanks". As far as the problem with your system, I don't think you should be using a special notice for posting the intent to negotiate with a sole source. According to FAR 5.205( c ), the special notice is for publicizing "business fairs, long-range procurement estimates, prebid or preproposal conferences, meetings, and the availability of draft solicitations or draft specifications for review." I think you need to issue the presolicitation notice required by FAR 5.207.

GeoJeff, I don't think your hypothetical synopsis complies with FAR 5.207(c)(16). If you're using SAP and soliciting a single source, you need to include a statement that "all responsible sources may submit a bid, proposal, or quotation which shall be considered by the agency." If you're using the sole source authority at FAR 6.302-1, then you need to include a statement that "all responsible sources may submit a capability statement, proposal, or quotation, which shall be considered by the agency." I don't see either of those statements in your notice.

Assuming you're using SAP, wouldn't your synopsis have to contain the statement at FAR 5.207( c )(16)(i): "all responsible sources may submit a quotation which shall be considered by the agency." If so, how could a source submit a quotation without seeing the solicitation?

Jamaal, The criteria for required publication, stated at 41 U.S.C. 1707, are whether the policy, regulation, procedure, or form: has a significant effect beyond the internal operating procedures of the agency issuing the policy, regulation, procedure, or form; or has a significant cost or administrative impact on contractors or offerors What in the Source Selection Procedures do you think meets either (or both) of these criteria?

You need to post a copy of the solicitation to the GPE IAW FAR 5.102(a). You need to post a copy of the solicitation to the GPE IAW FAR 5.102(a). There is no prohibition on negotiating with the intended source after the pre-solicitation period has ended. Yes, you are correct. The timeframes can be shortened.

I think the way to read the definition is that "clause" is in the general category of terms and conditions. What distinguishes it from other things in the category is that it is (1) used in contracts or solicitations and contracts and (2) it applies after award or both before and after award. For the sake of argument, let's assume that the definition of "contract clause" is broad enough to include parts of a contract that we don't typically think of as contract clauses. What's the absurd consequence? You brought up that definitions in part 2 would apply to the SOW, CDRLs, etc. Ok, but I don't think it's that absurd. It's strange that the definition is that broad, but unless it is being used somewhere in the FAR that would make application of the definition absurd or impractical, I don't see it as a problem.

According to FAR 2.101(a)(1), the definitions in 2.101 apply to the entire regulation unless "The context in which the word or term is used clearly requires a different meaning". I think in the context of FAR subpart 14.2 and 15.2, which cover the UCF, "contract clauses" in both clauses refers to Part II of a contract in UCF. Note the other entries on the list that are other parts of the UCF.

No, I don't say that. If "all the text in a contract, including the SOW or specification, CDRLs, etc." are terms or conditions that apply after contract award, then they would meet the definition of "contract clause". Where is the term "clause" or "contract clause" being used in the FAR that would make the definition a problem?

Potentially, yes. If that discrete piece of text is a term or condition that applies after contract award, then it would meet the definition of "contract clause".

Right. We need to know the purpose of the classification before we can classify. There is no universal classification system. The response to the question "is software a supply or a service?" should be "for what purpose are you classifying it?"

Nothing. I quoted the relevant part. I think this is a gray area (popular term lately). I don't think the location of a contract term affects its status as a clause. There's nothing in the definition of "contract clause" to suggest that. As such, I don't think moving something from Section H to an attachment would make something that would otherwise be a deviation no longer be a deviation. As far as standard and nonstandard, are you referring to how Jamaal is using the words or how Congress used it in 41 U.S.C. 1302? I think Jamaal was using it to mean clauses that are not in Title 48 of the CFR. As far as what "nonstandard" means in the statute, that's what the FAR Council was supposed to define, but didn't. Jamaal, Did this issue come up in an audit or something?

Todd, I posted an excerpt of the Congressional Record of October 1, 1984. If you're interested in reading it, send me a message with your e-mail address and I will send it to you.

Jamaal, DFARS 201.304(1) implements what is now 41 U.S.C. 1707 within DoD. In congressional testimony introducing the legislation, then located in Section 302 of H.R. 4209, the following exchange took place: See p. 29976 of the attached. 19841004_CongRec_29976.pdf

I'll take it on.

You can see a demo at http://www.visiblethread.com/products/visiblethread/. Except for the long sentence score, your other scores were all green. Nothing to be ashamed of. If this link doesn't work, let me know and I'll e-mail the report to you. Clear Language report for INSTRUCTIONS TO QUOTER1.docx.pdf

This is too much fun. I just ran my FAR 52.212-1 Tailored for SAP for readability. The results: Long Sentences: 24.32% (18 sentences) Passive Language: 20.27% (15 sentences) Readability: 32 (out of 100) Grade Level (US): 13 The results for Vern's plain language version of FAR 52.212-1: Long Sentences: 25.93% (14 sentences) Passive Language: 1.85% (1 sentences) Readability: 54 (out of 100) Grade Level (US): 9 Gettysburgh Address: Long Sentences: 50.00% (5 sentences) Passive Language: 30.00% (3 sentences) Readability: 68 (out of 100) Grade Level (US): 10

I just signed up for the company's free trial and did a "Clear Language" analysis of FAR 52.215-1, Instructions to Offerors--Competitive Acquisition. The results: Long Sentences: 37.50% (30 sentences) Passive Language: 31.25% (25 sentences) Readability: 24 (out of 100) Grade Level (US): 15 Least readable paragraph, with a grade level of 36: Most readable, with a grade level of 10: I think they are on to something.

Can you make it appear when we click "Unread Content"?

That's been my experience, too. "It's all gray" is used more as an excuse than a conclusion based on a deep understanding of laws, regulations, etc. Having said that, contracting does not have the precision of mathematics. I don't think there are many online discussion boards debating what a2 + b2 = c2 really means, or what Pythagoras's intent was when he devised his theorem. We have a lot of questions without definitive answers, so we should develop our most reasonable positions and stand ready to be corrected.

FAR 13.104(b) applies to circumstances when a synopsis is not required.