Jump to content
The Wifcon Forums and Blogs

All Activity

  1. Today
  2. @Contract, time, I was assuming from what was stated above, that there was a written contract released by the contracting officer for the first course, and after it's issuance as a contract, the course became full, a substitute was offered by the contractor, and an employee attended the substitute course. Can you confirm?
  3. Great idea! Float the balloon, and see what happens. In addition to FAR 37.106(b), see also FAR 32.703-3(b). I wish EVERY severable services contract would get off the 9/30 end date.
  4. Yesterday
  5. Agree that no contract exists. I remember a couple decisions from years ago saying contractors bear the burden of ensuring the government employee they are dealing with has full authority. But as far as the employee rights and obligations, this is a HR matter for a labor relations or employee relations specialist to address. Any advice from most of us here along these lines is about the same as our medical advice.
  6. @Contract time, I can think of a situation where the government was billed and as a "business decision" it was decided to pay the supplier for various reasons, yet not ratify the employee action and request re-payment from the employee. We do not know the facts or rationale for the agency letter. You have indicated you searched in FAR for an answer without success. I am not surprised. I don't imagine this agency letter is the kind of thing you would find to be controlled in FAR as specifically permitted or prohibited. Rather it may be a permissible business judgement per FAR 1.102. The letter
  7. Was the letter issued in regard to a suitability or clearance action or a standards of conduct issue? The possibility exists that the agency is treating this as a failure of the employee to pay his/her just debts.
  8. If the agency denies (says NO to) the ratification request, then no payment will be made to the vendor and there is nothing to collect from the agency employee. If the agency grants (says YES to) the ratification request, then the payment should be made from agency funds -- collecting money from an employee to pass to the contractor to satisfy the agency's ratification decision would be an appropriations augmentation, right? Collecting from the agency employee is nowhere discussed in the excellent resource Carl shared (at least, I didn't see it).
  9. They're intending the POP to be from date of award to 9/30/2021 for the base, then 12 months for each period after.
  10. Here is a reference that may be helpful. See Pages 3-12 and 13. https://tjaglcspublic.army.mil/publications?p_p_id=110_INSTANCE_Jnxja3uDhXvh&p_p_lifecycle=0&p_p_state=normal&p_p_mode=view&p_p_col_id=column-1&p_p_col_pos=2&p_p_col_count=4&_110_INSTANCE_Jnxja3uDhXvh_struts_action=%2Fdocument_library_display%2Fview_file_entry&_110_INSTANCE_Jnxja3uDhXvh_fileEntryId=584951
  11. If the above responses do not clarify your situation, could you please give more details such as: 1. Is there a contract between two or more parties? Who are they, a contractor and the government, or ??? 2. What type contract is it i.e., fixed price, cost type, etc? 3. Who initially provided the materials? 4. What is the description of the material? 5. What does "reuse" mean? Does it mean it is used material now or still the same new material that was initially provided? 6. Why is it "leftover?" 7. Who are the contract parties involved with the new constructi
  12. Some agencies appear to have their own detailed processes for ratification. For example, DOD administrative instruction states as follows: If the ratification is not approved by the Director, prepare a statement describing the appropriate disposition action (e.g., referring action for disposition to the Government Accountability Office for resolution under its claim procedures or as authorized by Subpart 50.1 of the FAR), I did see other agency policies that indicate the personal liability should be paid to the government. Another one stated that it is up to the contractor. Th
  13. SBA’s Office of Inspector General (OIG) recently inspected SBA’s 2019-2020 corrective actions to determine whether they had effectively reduced the risks previously found in SBA’s 8(a) Program eligibility determinations. Apparently, the OIG liked what it saw. The SBA’s September 15, 2020, OIG Report explains that the OIG first identified the 8(a) Program’s administration as a “top management challenge” for the SBA in 2003. The OIG’s most recent audits identified two significant internal control weaknesses that allowed improper 8(a) Program certification and continued participation of
  14. Good point, that might be so -- in such a case, I am not aware of a general FAR prohibition, as long as it meets specification, Buy American, new-and-unused, and so forth. Just check the contract itself to be sure.
  15. It appears that the threshold for reporting might have changed with the migration. I used to have to report on all DOD contracts. Maybe this is why they are not showing up? Does anyone know if we are obligated to follow up with the CO to get these into FPDS to show up if they meet the threshold? That would be quite an undertaking.
  16. I didn’t consider all of the ramifications of the government using government owned materials it paid for under one appropriation for a project funded under another appropriation. It “might be” considered augmentation. if this is the situation, the government should probably consult counsel if there is a significant amount of left over materials. I'm guessing here though, that this is a situation where a contractor wants to use materials left over from another job. The OP might be government or might be the contractor.
  17. Generally, there should not be left-over construction materials. Ideally, the Government should enforce the clause at FAR 52.236-12, Cleaning Up, at the end of every construction contract. And ideally, for contractor inventory ("any property acquired by and in the possession of a Contractor or subcontractor under a contract for which title is vested in the Government and which exceeds the amounts needed to complete full performance under the entire contract"), the Government should use the contractor inventory disposal process of the clause at FAR 52.245-1, Government Pro
  18. H-2-H: Is this it. I think it is worth reading. I haven't done a thorough reading of the decision but it appears that the COFC backed down because of a "novel" ruling by the CAFC.
  19. No. The agency may decide to ratify, or not. See FAR 1.602-3. If the agency decides not to ratify (says NO to the ratification request), the agency is finished with the payment matter (it said NO, remember?). If the vendor still wants payment, it can pursue other options, which may include suing the government employee in his or her private capacity in civil court -- but this is a matter for the vendor to decide -- the Government is finished with the payment matter (it said NO, remember?).
  20. How is the PMO intending to get to 2025?
  21. It is not clear to me what the facts are. Who are the parties to the contract? Who said or wrote what to whom? Is it permissible for a supplier to discuss or enter into a contract with an employee that is not a contracting officer? Was the supplier aware of this, if it is applicable. Did the employee represent that the course would be paid for by the government? Who was billed?
  22. The language used really seems to imply that the Judge dismissed the protest with the greatest of reluctance.
  23. If the requiring activity strongly feels and can justify why past performance is an important discriminator, then the contracting office and the lawyers should do their job and find a way to support it. It isn’t impossible to evaluate past performance as a discriminator.
  24. I can not find a reference provides an outright yes or no. But how about "compelled". An unauthorized commitment that is not ratified falls into issues of potential civil, criminal and admirative violations. Anyone of these arenas could compel the employee to make the payment and their failure to do so could lead to something much worse like being fired, or????
  25. I think the original concept is still valid and the agency has put themselves into the rigid and structured process for no good reason. The FAR guiding principles allow it and an agency's failure to allow the guiding principles in their RFP process is....well not good business in my view. The FAR says this at 15.305(a)(2)(ii) (emphasis added) - (ii)The solicitation shall describe the approach for evaluating past performance, including evaluating offerors with no relevant performance history, and shall provide offerors an opportunity to identify past or current contracts (including Fe
  1. Load more activity
  • Create New...