Jump to content

Search the Community

Showing results for tags 'Contracting Officer'.

  • Search By Tags

    Type tags separated by commas.
  • Search By Author

Content Type


  • Instructions and Terms of Use
    • Terms Of Use
    • Before You Register, Before You Post, Instructions for Writing Your Question
  • Contracting Forum
    • What Happened?
    • Polls
    • For Beginners Only
    • About The Regulations
    • COVID-19 And Its Effect on Contracting
    • Contracting Workforce
    • The Good, The Bad, the Ugly
    • Recommended Reading
    • Contract Award Process
    • Contract Pricing Including CAS & Allowable Costs
    • Contract Administration
    • Schedules, GWACS, MACs, IDIQs
    • Subcontracts & Subcontract Management
    • Small Business, Socioeconomic Programs
    • Proposed Law & Regulations; Legal Decisions


  • The Wifcon Blog
  • Don Mansfield's Blog
  • Government Contracts Blog
  • Government Contracts Insights
  • Emptor Cautus' Blog
  • SmallGovCon.com
  • The Contractor's Perspective
  • Government Contracts Legal Forum

Product Groups

There are no results to display.


  • Rules & Tools
  • Legal Opinions
  • News

Find results in...

Find results that contain...

Date Created

  • Start


Last Updated

  • Start


Filter by number of...


  • Start





Website URL







Found 8 results

  1. Is anyone aware of a contracting officer bootcamp style training program? Looking for something like a weeklong course that prepares KOs by reviewing pertinent material required to be successful (fiscal law, CICA, pre and post award, protests, etc.) and for the warrant board. I checked the usual places, but didn't find anything like this. Greatly appreciate any recommendations.
  2. FAR 52.219-14, Limitations on Subcontracting (Dev. 2021-O0008) provides an exclusion from the 50% LOS calculation where it says: The following services may be excluded from the 50 percent limitation: (i) Other direct costs, to the extent they are not the principal purpose of the acquisition and small business concerns do not provide the service. Examples include airline travel, work performed by a transportation or disposal entity under a contract assigned the environmental remediation NAICS code 562910), cloud computing services, or mass media purchases. Would a contractor be allowed to exclude transportation and disposal entity costs under a SBSA contract for Hazardous Waste Removal and Disposal assigned NAICS code 562211, using definition (2): This U.S. industry comprises establishments primarily engaged in (1) operating treatment and/or disposal facilities for hazardous waste or (2) the combined activity of collecting and/or hauling of hazardous waste materials within a local area and operating treatment or disposal facilities for hazardous waste. Various other related services, including analysis, recycling, non-RCRA waste disposal, packaging, tracking, industrial cleaning, etc., are also included in performance work statement, but the largest cost of the contract is the disposal entity. Additionally, 86 FR 44233, received similar question: 12a. Additional SBA Rule—Hazardous Waste Industry Comment: Six respondents stated the hazardous waste industry should be excluded from the limitations on subcontracting as disposal facilities and transportation costs are prohibitively expensive for small businesses to own and operate. Therefore, small businesses subcontract out these services, which would cause them to exceed the limitations on subcontracting. Two respondents stated environmental remediation requires the purchase of significant materials, which is similar to construction. The respondents requested these materials be excluded from the limitations on subcontracting. Response: These changes are included in SBA's final rule at 13 CFR 125.6(a), published in the Federal Register on November 29, 2019 (84 FR 65647). SBA's rule updates the limitations on subcontracting. A new FAR case would have to be opened to implement the additional changes, which require public comment under 41 U.S.C. 1707 prior to implementation in the FAR. Therefore, the suggested changes are not incorporated in this final rule. These questions can after SBA at 84 FR 65647, already said the following: In the environmental remediation industry (NAICS 562910), a large part of the cost of the contract is tied to the transportation and disposal of hazardous, toxic, and radiological waste. According to some SBCs in this industry that have contacted SBA, given the fact that these services are highly regulated and capital intensive, these particular transportation services can generally be performed only by other than small business concerns. For example, all the disposal facilities in the United States are large businesses, and most railroads and shipping companies that transport hazardous waste are other than small business concerns. This rule proposed to exclude transportation and disposal services from the limitations on subcontracting compliance determination where small business concerns cannot provide the disposal or transportation services. (…) Based on the positive feedback from industry, the final rule at 125.6(a)(1) adopts the language that specifies that the above-mentioned industries are excluded from limitations on subcontracting compliance calculations. The regulatory text provides that direct costs may be excluded to the extent they are not the principal purpose of the acquisition and small business concerns do not provide the service, “such as” in the four identified industries (airline travel, work performed by a transportation or disposal entity under a contract assigned the environmental remediation NAICS code (562910), cloud computing services, or mass media purchases). The regulatory text is not meant to be inclusive. It allows a small business in another industry in a similar situation to the four identified to also demonstrate that certain direct costs should be excluded because they are not the principal purpose of the acquisition and small business concerns do not provide the services. It appears 86 FR 44233, says the Hazardous waste Industry was excluded, but the mention of environmental remediation NAICS is so specific, it does not seem clear if HW removal/disposal NAICS 562211, could also use it.
  3. Good morning Contracting Professionals, My command has a $750M procurement project. A Level III Procuring Contracting Officer is assigned with commensurate warrant for the project. Acquisition Plans, Source Selection Plans, Business Clearance, release of the contract require appropriate warrant level to sign. Market Research Report, Inclusion of Options, Request For Proposal in SPS, etc. does not require warrant levels for signature and release. My question is Can other Level III contracting officers with less than $750M warrant have authority to sign documents related to the $750M project? Thank you.
  4. Hi everyone, I provide business/proposal development consulting to a number of clients, and I just came across a situation that I could really use some advice on. I have a client who is bidding on a solicitation that is easily the worst RFP I have seen in 25 years in the business. After digging a little, the "Contracting Officer" who issued this RFP appears to be a contractor who lists his job title as a "Contracting Specialist Consultant" on his LinkedIn profile. It is very apparent that the solicitation is defective (they state the contract type as Hybrid T&M/FFP/CR with one CLIN), but my client would rather press forward and fix problems after award. My sense is that if this RFP is being issued by a contractor who is pretending to be a CO, it's not even awardable, but I wanted to check with the experts to see if the world has turned upside-down recently and now they now allow the contracting officer role to be outsourced. Grateful for your advice OG
  5. As a long-time Government contractor for large and small businesses, my experience with Government contracting officers has been mostly positive. I have had a situation for the last couple of years however where I have encountered a very abusive contracting specialist that is relatively new to the government contracting arena. I don’t blame her completely as her contracting officer has left her mostly unsupervised and, when he did provide any guidance, it was usually wrong. That said, she has been continually NOT acting in good faith (although my lawyer, while agreeing, always stops short of actually using those words), driving small businesses nearly out of business, and costing the government a significant amount of money. I have several documented examples of her bad-faith and am disappointed that she (and her CO boss) are ruining an otherwise noble profession tasked with assuring the public trust. This young contract specialist is power-hungry, ambitious, and attempting to quickly advance her career. I have no doubt that she is, or soon will be, seeking promotion to a Contracting Officer. All that said, my questions are: 1. Where can I find out if/when this person is applying for a warrant to be entrusted as a contracting officer? 2. Is there some platform where I can provide input (including documented evidence) to the evaluating officials demonstrating that this individual has not acted in the Government’s best interest and cannot be considered as a trustworthy steward of the taxpayer dollars? I apologize that there is such a negative spin to this. I have provided references for individuals seeking licensure and/or certifications in many disciplines/careers over the last several decades. I’m now to the point that I feel it is my DUTY to prevent an individual that has repeatedly demonstrated such moral turpitude and questionable ethics from gaining any credibility to be granted a position in defense of the public trust. How do I go about this?
  6. Hello, hope everyone is well! A customer requested delivery of lumber directly to the vendor. Lumber was on the contract. After delivery the vendor advised customer they over delivered and need to receive the additional 543 pieces back. Customer didn't believe and did some fact finding. Customer found out that they already used the additional lumber pieces. Customer was then trying to seek a modification for additional materials to include that lumber. The modification request was denied because the contract was over and no modifications to be made. This is was when the additional lumber delivered was discovered. The customer used my Contracting Office to make the original purchase. The customer is not in the same command as my Contracting Office. The additional lumber has been determined to be an unauthorized commitment by the customer. My questions to group is should this ratification come through my contracting office or should it go through their contracting office. Note: there was a contract with lumber on it. The qty received was more than the qty on the contract. My Contracting Office didn't know about the additional delivered lumber until the contract had expired. Also it was using FY14 funds. Thanks for any and all help.
  7. In the FAR the term Contracting Officer is defined as "a person with the authority to enter into, administer, and/or terminate contracts and make related determinations and findings. The term includes certain authorized representatives of the contracting officer acting within the limits of their authority as delegated by the contracting officer. “Administrative contracting officer (ACO)’’ refers to a contracting officer who is administering contracts. “Termination contracting officer (TCO)” refers to a contracting officer who is settling terminated contracts." The second sentence of the definition stumps me. Could the 'certain authorized representative' be a Government Purchase Card holder acting within their authority (assuming their appointment letter is on the SF1402)? In instances of limiting competition, typically the FAR makes mention of the Contracting Officer documenting the reasons for the limited competition. In the case of a GPC purchase, if competition is going to be limited for legitimate reasons, who is the Contracting Officer that would give approval? Thank you.
  8. I am a contractor working on a FFP electrical construction project for the Navy in SE Georgia. The contracting office is planning to change the CO and ACO. I know this is fully within their right, but the CO and ACO they are planning are individuals that I have worked with before. They are abusive, don’t act in good-faith, and would basically be considered “high maintenance”. Do I, as the contractor, have any right to object to the change? Had these individuals been identified in these roles from the beginning, my price may have been different or I may not have bid the project in the first place.
  • Create New...