Navy_Contracting_4

Carl, I maintain that one would have to know (1) what authority had been granted to this particular cardholder, and (2) what specific terms are at issue, before answering the question. Some cardholders are limited to, for example, buying office supplies or ordering off GSA schedules. Without knowing what authority has been granted, I don't think you can properly conclude that the cardholder has authority to sign.

Carl, I think you've come to an unsupported conclusion. As a general rule, contracting officers, and other officials authorized to obligate the government, are limited in their authority by the terms of their grant of authority. For example, some contracting officers are granted limited warrants -- limited to specified dollar limitations, or limited to only placing orders under FSS contracts, etc. Therefore, one can't tell whether Iron Man's cardholder has authority to sign the particular agreement or not. Some card holders are warranted contracting officers with unlimited warrants; most are not. I think one would have to (1) know what authority had been granted to this particular cardholder, and (2) know what specfic terms are at issue, before answering the question.

Paragraph (a) of the clause begins, "Consistent with the efficient performance of this contract, . . . " I wonder if there isn't some additional wiggle room in that phrase. For example, if it isn't "consistent with the efficient performance of the contract," could one argue that there's some flexibility about which predecessor contract employees must be offered the right of first refusal?

None of the statements offered are necessarily correct, standing alone. 1. The requirement for CPD is statutory, and there are only 4 exceptions. The circumstances you describe might fall under the fourth exception (Waivers), but only the Head of the Contracting Activity can decide if the specific circumstances justify a waiver, and that will probably depend on the method used to make the F&R determination. 2. A contractor's audited forward pricing rates may be considered F&R only if the circumstances upon which they are based remain substantially unchanged. For example, if the contractor's audited forward pricing rates were based on a certain level of revenue, and your proposal was going to result in a significant increase in that level, the contractor's indirect rates might well be affected, and the forward pricing rates might no longer be F&R. 3. A rote roll-up of calculations based on "reasonable" rates cannot, by itself, support a F&R determination. One must examine and consider the resulting price as well. And since you're doing a cost analysis, you'll have to consider profit/fee separately.

DMB044, There is no resource such as you have asked for. Each situation is dependent on the circumstances - type of contract, type of work, risk of performance, specific contractor, line of business, importance to overall success, etc. In some circumstances, the G&A and profit might be reasonable, while in others they may not.

Don, I'm not familiar with the terms of NAVSEA's MSMO contracts, but from your comment, I conclude that the contract doesn't specify an amount at which the option may be exercised, so are you suggesting that "the option [was] evaluated as part of the initial competition and [is] exercisable at an amount specified in or reasonably determinable from the terms of the basic contract" based on the fact that there's a "maximum fee amount [that] is determinable by applying a formula contained in the basic contract"? Without some estimate or ceiling on the estimated cost of the option, how do you "reasonably determine" the amount at which the option is exercisable?

Carl, It sure sounds like we're talking about DFARS 252.203-7000, Requirements Relating to Compensation of Former DoD Officials. There is no definition of "contractor" in DFARS Part 203. Both DFARS 203.171 and 252.203-7000 are the result of DoD's implementation of Sec. 847 of the National Defense Authorization Act for FY2008, Pub. L. 110-181.

general_correspondence, Why do you say foreign businesses are exempt from submitting subcontracting plans? The law, at 15 USC 637(d)(2), implemented at FAR 19.702, says the "clause . . . shall be included in all contracts let by any Federal agency except any contract which-- (A) does not exceed the simplified acqusition threshold; ( including all subcontracts under such contracts will be performed entirely of [the US]; or (C ) is for services which are personal in nature." Is there an exemption for foreign businesses somewhere else in statute?

formerfed, Some term type contarcts allow for the labor mix to vary and some don't. For example, a contract may require 20,000 staff-hours as the required level of effort, and may have an estimated labor mix (e.g. 4000 staff-hrs Sr Eng; 4000 staff-hrs Jr Eng; etc) but allow for the number of hours to vary among the specified labor categories as the demands of the work require. Other term type contracts may have a specified level of effort and labor mix under which the labor mix is not allowed to vary. One must read the contract to see if variations in the labor mix are allowed. You can't determine the answer just be seeing it's a term-type.

Section 814 of the FY2007 National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA), Pub. L. 109-364, required that, in DoD, award fees be linked "to acquisition outcomes (which shall be defined in terms of program cost, schedule, and performance." It also required a number of additional standards and controls on the use and administration of award fee contracts. Section 867 of the FY2009 NDAA, Pub. L. 110-417, effectively extended most of the Section 814 requirements to civilian agencies. It's possible that if you've noticed a trend away from CPAF to CPFF, it may be because folks haven't fully figured out how to comply with these "new" requirements yet. Alternatively, it could be viewed that CPFF is just "easier," particularly in light of the fact that AF contracts have been coming under greater scrutiny, thus demanding more time and attention to get things right. Personally, I doubt it's due to "administration costs," but I have no data or specific information to either prove or disprove that.