I thank everyone for the answers, and I have my answer. As I suspected, this is clearly not a follow-up contract. HPM reduced CSC staff for the follow-up contract On July 10, HPM announced that the IT sector Clem and Spencer were working for would be reduced to 50% for the new contract. If we REALLY want to confuse everyone – maybe we`ll start calling it an inseparable completion contract. of course, THIS use of the term is inseparable from that associated with financing. A tracking contract is a contract awarded to the same contractor or subcontractor for the same item or service as a previous contract. The COFC rejected the protest of an interested participant that the solo prize was illegal and that the follow-up work should be put in competition. The COFC argued that the agency acted within its discretion under FAR 8.405-6(a)(1)(i)(C): follow-up contracting is a very old concept. See Roberts and Dyer, The Role of Follow-on Contracts in Government-Sponsored Research and Development (MIT, July 1967) dspace.mit.edu/bitstream/handle/1721.1/48973/roleoffollowonco00robe.pdf?sequence=1.
However, you can never be quite sure what a person means when you use the term “follow-up contract” or “logical tracking,” so it`s always a good idea to ask for clarification. Okay, in addition to j_dude77 specific request. According to the definition of a follow-up contract, “a follow-up contract is a new separate contract in which the price is not negotiated competitively with the incumbent contractor.” (www.gao.gov/a…/150/144237.pdf) Maybe that`s a stupid question. But what is the appropriate term to meet a recurring requirement (e.B. Services) that are being requested, negotiated, etc. in competition? “The new treaty?” I have seen some CS use the term followed in the context of a competing action that was not granted to the incumbent contractor. Many federal agencies use the GSA calendar to obtain services to support IT modernization projects, such as. B as the migration of a legacy enterprise application suite to a cloud environment.
It is not uncommon for such projects to experience legitimate delays and require more time beyond the execution period provided for in a GSA calendar task assignment. Subsection 8.4 of the FAR provides a single-source, single-source authority that allows a client to maintain the continuity of the contractor and the institutional knowledge and experience of an established high-performing company with greater flexibility than sole-source authorities under Part 6 of the FAR. These findings were based on the expertise of the organization`s IT staff (including the CIO) as well as market research described below. The Court agrees with the GAO that the Agency`s decision reflects a reasonable exercise of its broad discretion under FAR 8.405-6(a)(1)(i)(C) to award a sole-source follow-up contract in the interest of economy and efficiency. It therefore addresses Harmonia`s challenges to the process by which this decision was made, including the relevance of the agency`s market research. A recent protest decision highlights a little-known single-source authority that is unique to sourcing the GSA calendar and could benefit federal contractors and their agency clients working on complex IT projects. I swear the problem with many of these things is what they are called. At first glance, the term “follow-up” simply means “what we do next.” With a large weapon system, the final phase of life is usually maintenance and would fall under the dictionary definition of tracking, but is usually not the kind of work to be done as a follow-up to a “shrinking world”.
A better term might be an “Intregral Completion” contract. Good resource. It is therefore not an established contractor. Vern, the way you explain it is the way I interpret it in FAR 6.320-1 (a) (2) (ii) & (iii). I think I`m going to have to break it down for them in simple terms. The way I see it; How can you have a tracking contract for a device that is ten years old, and something like this has never been done before? In this case, the agency concluded that it was in the “interest of economy and efficiency” that [the incumbent contractor] receive a “logical monitoring contract” for the completion of the IT modernization project. FAR 8.405–6(a)(1)(i)(C). As explained in detail above, it did so in light of the Agency`s tight timeline for quickly updating outdated applications and because it was essential for the Agency to meet the timeline to fulfill its mission and strategic plan. In one in 12.
Released in November 2019 (available here), the Federal Court of Claims found that a federal agency (the Department of Commerce`s International Trade Administration) was authorized to grant a sole-source task to an established contractor to pursue and complete a task of modernizing the agency`s IT systems, including moving legacy applications to a cloud environment and updating extremely complex and robust. adapted applications that are specific to the agency. If the work was not completed after the initial five-year performance period of the competitively awarded Annex GSA employment contract, the Agency assigned the incumbent contractor a single-source work order under the “logical monitoring authority” of FAR 8.405-6(a)(1)(i)(C). `follow-on contract` means a new non-competitive contract awarded to a historical contractor, either by a new separate contract or by a supplementary agreement to continue or supplement a particular military programme where such mediation was required by previous procurement decisions. One example is the award of a contract for the production of a large weapons system to the contractor who developed the system, if awarding it to another source would entail a significant double cost to the government, which should not be covered by competition. I do not think it is a follow-up contract. You just explained why you need to use the OEM to get the job done. We don`t know what kind of crane it is (e.B. Bridge crane, crawler crane, mobile crane, etc.), I was wondering how you discovered that only the manufacturer and not a dealer can overtake the crane. It would not be a follow-up. Why use a justification that makes you look stupid at best? I think you justified the only source in your response to my post.
.