Source: http://www.wifcon.com/discussion/index.php?/profile/1555-ji20874/content/
Timestamp: 2018-08-21 16:37:35
Document Index: 79718631

Matched Legal Cases: ['art 17', 'art 17', 'art 17', 'art 17', 'art 17', 'art 17', 'art 13', 'art 8', 'art 16']

ji20874's Content - The Wifcon Forums and Blogs
Everything posted by ji20874
Pricing for Type of Contract
ji20874 replied to eagertoshare's topic in Contract Pricing Including CAS & Allowable Costs
SCA is irrelevant. I can contract for a contractor to provide a physician (non-SCA) to staff a clinic 8 hours a day, every Monday-Friday (excluding federal holidays). It doesn't have to be the same physician person every day -- but when the customarily-assigned physician is absent for any reason, the contractor must provide a substitute. We should write each contract to get us what we need.
ji20874 replied to ContractingPeoplesHatred's topic in For Beginners Only
RightSaidFed, Thanks for pointing to FAR 8.405-5(d) -- I wasn't previously aware of that. Professional discussion is good. Original Poster (I cannot use the screen name), In light of the above, I'll adjust my advice-- Step 1. Ask each of the four for a discount. See FAR 8.405-4. Not "revised pricing," but discount. This might solve your problem. If not, go to Step 2. Step 2. Consider FAR 8.405-5(d). This might solve your problem. If not, go to Step 3. Step 3. Re-read (and really read!) https://www.gao.gov/decisions/bidpro/402519.htm. This definitely will solve your problem.
After getting discounts, if you still have a two-, three-, or four-way tie, see https://www.gao.gov/decisions/bidpro/402519.htm.
Ask each of the four for a discount. See FAR 8.405-4.
ji20874 replied to Corduroy Frog's topic in For Beginners Only
Use of 52.217-9 to extend IDIQ Ordering Period
ji20874 replied to MAY-D-FAR-B-WIT-U's topic in For Beginners Only
Or maybe, the DFARS supplementation adds to the FAR text for DOD personnel by addressing a matter which the FAR does not address -- they could have put their rule in 216.505 with the same effect of directing DOD personnel to limit a contract's ordering period to five years. But wherever they put it, the FAR text's meaning is unchanged by an agency's supplementation.
Yes. FAR Subpart 17.2 was written long before the FAR envisioned task and delivery order contracts. The DFARS supplementation proves nothing about the text of the FAR.
DFARS 217.204(e) limits the ordering period for an IDIQ contract to 5 years. But the FAR does not, and if MAD-D's agency is outside the reach of the DFARS, well, let's just say that the DFARS limitation will not apply. Everything in FAR Subpart 17.2 is written for options that purchase supplies or services. Nothing in FAR Subpart 17.2 is written for options extending the ordering period of task and delivery order contracts. In my mind, if the option exercise that is being considered is for the purchase of supplies or services, then FAR Subpart 17.2 applies. If the option exercise being considered is for the extension of the ordering period of task and delivery order contracts, then FAR Subpart 17.2 cannot be blindly or rigidly applied because FAR Subpart 17.2 was not written for options extending the ordering period of task and delivery order contracts.
But you probably wouldn't, right? I wouldn't write a contract for a guard or fire watchman in your examples where the contractor employee gets to decide if and when to show up at the worksite, with an understanding that we'll pay only for those hours where the contractor employee actually performs. For other possibilities (not the guard or fire watchman), I'm okay with a FFP LOE with a +/- 5% for sake of administrative efficiency, but I wouldn't want to set up that CLIN with HR as the unit -- I would rather do it on a LOT or JOB basis (or maybe MONTH) with the specified level of effort in the text -- and I wouldn't want to make payments to the contractor based on the hour, but would prefer to make payment based on the LOT or JOB, or with milestone payments. But sometimes, don't we see evidence in our work and read postings here on WIFCON of putative firm-fixed-price contracts (based on CLINs and clauses) where the manner of administration has effectively turned those contracts into T&M/LH contracts? Yes, others have seen poorly-written contracts. I suppose most of us have seen evidence of putative firm-fixed-price contracts (based on CLINs and clauses) where the manner of administration has effectively turned those contracts into T&M/LH contracts.
And, both of these can be firm-fixed-price.
FAR 13 vs. FAR 8 BPAs - orders extending past BPA expiration
ji20874 replied to TGLJ's topic in Schedules, GWACS, MACs, IDIQs
FAR 13.303-2( c )( 3 ) authorizes BPAs with schedule contractors. As Joel mentioned, FAR 8.404( a ) points to 13.303-2 ( c )( 3 ). FAR 13.303-5( b )( 1 ) mentions a general limitation on purchases against BPAs and provides an exception for BPAs with schedule contractors. But yes, while Part 13 provides the general background for all BPAs, the particular procedures for BPAs with schedule contractors are in FAR Subpart 8.4.
If you'll read FAR 13.303 carefully, you will see that it does indeed cover BPAs issued under schedule contracts.
What happens if actual work orders are never tied to the overarching blanket purchase agreement?
ji20874 replied to NenaLenz's topic in Contract Award Process
NenaLenz, A GSA schedule contract is not "just an agreement to agree." A GSA schedule contract is a contract, under which orders are issued -- but the parent schedule contract itself is a contract. For FAR coverage on agreements, see FAR Subpart 16.7. But remember, your arrangement is not covered by the FAR, for two reasons: first, the FAR doesn't cover USPS; and second, the FAR doesn't cover concession contracts. No one here has read your national contract, so we can't definitively answer your question. I can't tell that the USPS has a problem -- your company is working and sending money to USPS, so maybe USPS is happy? If so, there may be no need for USPS to take any action. It seems your company has a problem (your company wants to "assert a claim for equitable adjustment"), so if anything needs to be done, it seems your company needs to do it. As an aside, the applicability of the Contract Disputes Act to concession contracts is unsettled law. In some cases, judicial tribunals have said yes, based on the individual facts of the individual cases -- but these cases seem to be the exception to the general rule that concession contracts are not covered by the CDA. Thus, if you do intend to file a claim, you might have to find an authority other than the CDA. I'm wondering, is your arrangement covered by USPS Handbook EL-602, Food Service Operations? If yes, as a commercial contractor or under the Randolph-Sheppard Act?
NenaLenz, Is there any problem? A claim? A failure? If the concessions contract did not involve an expenditure of appropriated funds, then the FAR does not apply. If the concessions contractor has been making payments, and there is no dispute about the amount, maybe all is well. I assume your agency has the right to accept payment to augment local facilities funds, rather than payments going to the Treasury, but this is not a contracting concern.
ji20874 replied to CS's topic in Proposed Law & Regulations; Legal Decisions
It's not a fairy tale, Vern -- really and truly, it is common practice across agencies to award IDIQ contracts without funds citations in the contracts to cover the contract minimums. Please show me the regulatory citation where an IDIQ contract must contain a funds citation to cover the contract minimum. Show us what you know. Sad.
Oh, you weren't telling me to teach the IT pukes to design compliant systems? You can take my word for it that it is common practice in multiple agencies to award IDIQ contracts without funds citations. Indeed, I just called a contracting officer in a different agency -- he said (with no prompting from me) that no, there is no funds citation in the IDIQ contract -- the recording for the minimum is not done contractually, it is done administratively. I'm not defending the practice of not including the funds citation, just explaining it to you as common and current practice. Anyway, a current practicing contracting officer tells you that it is common practice that an IDIQ contract does not contain a funds citation for the contract minimum, and you refuse to believe it? I'm not a liar. Why don't you cite me proof that an IDIQ contract must include a funds citation for the minimum? If you can cite that proof, I can share that with others and maybe we can start accommodating you.
Really, Vern? Do you really think a single contracting officer can require that his or her agency comply with your expectations of data processing system functionality? In today's practice in several agencies, it is common to issue IDIQ contracts without funds citations for the contract minimum. If those agencies record the minimum as an obligation on their books, they do so administratively -- or manually, if you prefer. The recording doesn't occur automatically, but is done by humans in the comptroller community.
Suggestions on a better licensing approach?
ji20874 replied to savingslovingmolly's topic in Schedules, GWACS, MACs, IDIQs
How about making license management a fundamental responsibility of the LMS contractor, and making the license management approach an important factor in your evaluation process?
In all of the agencies I have worked in, including DoD a long time ago, an IDIQ contract generally does not contain a funds citation. Sure, there are sufficient funds within the agency to cover the contract minimum, and that obligation is administratively (or manually) recorded. Funds citations appear on the orders.
The recording process described above doesn't work for IDIQ contracts, because generally an IDIQ contract does not cite the account from which the funds are to be taken -- it doesn't provide a "fund citation" to the comptroller. In such a case, the normal obligation recording process doesn't work for IDIQ contracts. That's correct. But when the process isn't completed automatically through an agency's contract writing system, the recording is done administratively or manually. I agree. The current spat began when REA'n Maker objected to my statement: "To meet the recording requirement, an agency (1) can issue an order; or (2) administratively record the obligation on its internal books." Hopefully, he understands the process now and no longer finds my statement objectionable. Yes, it is fine if he understands administratively to mean manually.
Good point, Vern. The GAO does use the adverb in some of its reports, so there is precedent for its use -- and the adverb is well understood in the comptroller communities. There is a good reason for this: in many agencies, the awarding of a contract will include a funds citation, and the recording happens automatically through electronic systems -- a purchase is made and the obligation is recorded. However, for an IDIQ contract, there usually is not a funds citation, and no purchase has been made, and yet a recording still has to be done -- that recording has to be done manually, so to speak, and then has to be erased as funded orders are issued and purchases are made.
I commend you for trying to hire a contractor to manage all the licensing for a big project -- there are companies that do this very well. I recommend you find some through market research, and then through further one-on-ones, let them help you craft your work statement, CLIN structure, and so forth.
ji20874 commented on Vern Edwards's blog entry in Vern Edwards' Blog
I entirely reject any notion that the fill-in for para. (d) of the clause at FAR 52.216-22 establishes the scope of the contract.
For a "normal" contract, the contract creates the obligation and makes the purchase at the same time. After the contract is awarded by the contracting officer, the agency comptroller records the obligation on the books of the agency. Creating the obligation and recording the obligation on the books of the agency are two different matters and two different processes (although some agencies have automated systems that seem to effectively combine these into a single automated transaction). In the old days, there could be several days or weeks between the creating of the obligation and the recording of the obligation. But an IDIQ contract is different -- the IDIQ contract creates an obligation (for the contract minimum) but does not purchase anything -- it is an obligation without a purchase. Purchases will occur later, when orders are issued. Because an IDIQ contract creates an obligation without a purchase and without a citation of funds, the agency comptroller will administratively record the obligation on the books of the agency -- this is intended to be a temporary recording, which will be erased later when orders are issued. You seem to be offended by use of the word "administrative" and "administratively" -- but these are the words the GAO uses to refer to this sort of recording. I did not initiate this usage. It has a very real practical relevance. Some agencies (the simple-minded agencies, in my opinion) decide to satisfy the recording statute by mandating that the award of an IDIQ contract must be accompanied simultaneously with the issuance of an order purchasing an amount to satisfy the contract minimum. Other agencies (the more mature agencies, in my opinion) satisfy the recording statute by administratively recording the minimum when an IDIQ contract is awarded, and then erase these entries as orders are issued satisfying the minimum. A contracting officer who cannot tell the difference will likely be fine as long as he or she never leaves his or her current agency -- but a contracting officer who moves to a different agency must respect the approach of his or her new agency. And any contracting officer who wants to move up into management echelons should understand the interplay between creating and recording obligations.
Non-COs obligate funds all the time, every day of the week, in every federal agency. An obligation of funds is a legal liability to disburse funds immediately or at a later date as a result of a series of actions. The world is much, much bigger than us and our contracts. COs routinely obligate funds, true, but contracted dollars are only a small portion of federal obligations. Non-COs obligate all the rest. For the CO-created obligations: After a contracting officer creates an obligation, the agency comptroller records the obligation on the books of the agency. These are two separate processes, with separate bases in law. In some agencies, this is done electronically, and in these cases, sometimes one electronic action satisfies both processes. The only place in this thread where "administrative obligation" appears is in your own post.