Postaward

ConMan411 Cost and FFP items should each be on there own ACRNs. If your invoicing and shipping, the liquidation is a moving target. Progress Payments usually apply contract wide to all FFP ACRNs (unless otherwise specified). If a CLIN has cost and FFP elements you can get overpaid. ACO should know that. Don't want to mix those items up under same ACRN. FFP under one ACRN, cost under another; will make life a lot simpler.

Deaner, I would go with brian’s logic. Whom ever issued the grant (Grants Officer, aka GO) would be the one to administer the grant unless delegated to an Administrative Grants Officer. Contracts shouldn’t be doing administrating (decisions and approval up to the warranted grants officers). Deaner “The grant was awarded and funded. what am i suppose to do with the grant funding.... no idea. The VA employee (grantee) would submit documentation supporting the SF270 Request for Advance or Reimbursement to the GO for approval. Possibly following the budget proposal submitted in the grant proposal. The GO would approve payment (very simplified).

Yes, I read into the post. My take from the post is what leo1102 has stated "If the sum of all tolls are billed on a single invoice and if that invoice is recurring on a monthly basis, then this is a recurring procurement and should not be paid using a GPC." My take from jimschank post; each amount is a monthly bill. The GPC holder is getting one bill " One person in an offsite office has an ez pass account to pay the toll charges for the staff in that office.". So, It is not a on demand service where each toll is paid immediately. I wasn't as clear as leo1102.

As a previous billing official on the GPC program, I say violation. You can’t keep making purchases over and over (knowingly) if they end up exceeding SAP. Look up split disbursement (doesn’t matter that individual purchases are under, you also need to evaluate recurring purchases too). You have history from the previous year to indicate that the SAP will be exceeded. A better instrument (contract, BPA) should be established.

Not concerning the approval process (and that is what was asked), addressing the idea of the CLIN structure ---for DoD see https://dfas4dod.dfas.mil/cps/contractingofficers/: OSD AT&L DPAP Policy Memo "USA001601-11-DPAP - Contract Line Item Pricing Integrity", which prohibits the use of "dollars" or "lump sum" as a unit of measure on a contract line item. Just a FYI which may change the approval process.

I would notify the government. FAR mentions submission of payment for contract and CCR not matching. FAR 42.12 This subpart prescribes policies and procedures for -- (a) Recognition of a successor in interest to Government contracts when contractor assets are transferred; ( Recognition of a change in a contractor’s name; and © Execution of novation agreements and change-of-name agreements by the responsible contracting officer. See FAR 4.1102 ( c )(1) (i) If a contractor has legally changed its business name, "doing business as" name, or division name (whichever is shown on the contract), or has transferred the assets used in performing the contract, but has not completed the necessary requirements regarding novation and change-of-name agreements in Subpart 42.12, the contractor shall provide the responsible contracting officer a minimum of one business day's written notification of its intention to change the name in the CCR database; comply with the requirements of Subpart 42.12; and agree in writing to the timeline and procedures specified by the responsible contracting officer. The contractor must provide with the notification sufficient documentation to support the legally changed name. (ii) If the contractor fails to comply with the requirements of paragraph (g)(1)(i) of the clause at 52.204-7, Central Contractor Registration, or fails to perform the agreement at 52.204-7(g)(1)(i)©, and, in the absence of a properly executed novation or change-of-name agreement, the CCR information that shows the contractor to be other than the contractor indicated in the contract will be considered to be incorrect information within the meaning of the "Suspension of Payment" paragraph of the EFT clause of the contract. FAR 52.407 (g)(1) Central Contractor Registration (i) If a Contractor has legally changed its business name, "doing business as" name, or division name (whichever is shown on the contract), or has transferred the assets used in performing the contract, but has not completed the necessary requirements regarding novation and change-of-name agreements in Subpart 42.12, the Contractor shall provide the responsible Contracting Officer a minimum of one business day's written notification of its intention to: (A) Change the name in the CCR database; ( Comply with the requirements of Subpart 42.12 of the FAR; © Agree in writing to the timeline and procedures specified by the responsible Contracting Officer. The Contractor must provide with the notification sufficient documentation to support the legally changed name. (ii) If the Contractor fails to comply with the requirements of paragraph (g)(1)(i) of this clause, or fails to perform the agreement at paragraph (g)(1)(i)© of this clause, and, in the absence of a properly executed novation or change-of-name agreement, the CCR information that shows the Contractor to be other than the Contractor indicated in the contract will be considered to be incorrect information within the meaning of the "Suspension of Payment" paragraph of the electronic funds transfer (EFT) clause of this contract.

tguns A Proper invoice has to be totally correct. No errors, why would the clock start 3 July when is hasn't been reviewed to ensure it is accurate? A submission does not mean it is correct; the billing office (my assumption is where it was fax to) would be the best date to start in your example.

H2H and Retread have it right. The invoice may still be wrong, I see issues like this weekly. Wrong ACRNs, CLINs, etc; the payment office will determine if the invoice is proper and when the time counter starts. CORs, QARs sign forms all the time that are not correct (not putting them down, there is a lot to verify). DFAS will pay interest if late.

Question, being very general on the issue; trying to see if the $500 can be justified. The contractor’s offer was not correct but it was accepted by the government. Now the government has to correct the offer through a contract modification (more work) to make it correct. Isn’t the government just asking for consideration for its acceptance (cost of the modification)? Asking to learn.

DCMA instructions: ....2.3.2.4. Excess and Remaining Funds. Generally fixed price contracts have an unliquidated (ULO) balance equal to $0.00 when the contract becomes physically complete. However, there are instances where the contract allows for variances in quantity shipped, the contractor has rounded on the invoice, or performance on a specific CLIN was not necessary (e.g., fixed funds provided for maintenance or service on computer hardware). (ND) The functional specialist shall complete a review of funds to determine the reason why the ULO balance does not equal $0.00. The review is conducted to determine if the funds are ?excess? or ?remaining? to contract requirements. Upon completion of the review, the circumstances that caused the funds balance will dictate whether funds can be deobligated via modification or removed automatically in MOCAS via the Q-Final process (see paragraph 2.3.2.4.2. for additional information about the Q-Final process). 2.3.2.4.1. Excess funds are funds relating to a specific line item or deliverable that was not performed on a contract. (ND) The functional specialist shall deobligate all excess funds by contract modification. For contracts administered in the MOCAS system, the modification shall be fully processed before proceeding with the MCC eTool Final Pay NLA procedure. 2.3.2.4.2. Remaining funds are funds left on a contract due to quantity variances or price rounding and where all contract performance as required by the contract has been completed and paid in full. (ND) For contracts administered in the MOCAS system, the functional specialist shall annotate the ACO Notebook with a remark stating, ?$XX.xx (amount of remaining funds) funds are remaining funds. When the Final Pay NLA is processed using the MCC eTool, this annotation enables MOCAS to use the Q-Final process and automatically clear the remaining funds and proceed with closing the contract. Prior to a contract moving to Section 5, when there is a ULO balance, MOCAS automatically generates a Q-Final transaction to reduce the ULO to zero. .... May or may not be helpful.

Thank you both very much for your insight.

I just picked up administration on a contract and would like to get a very anxious contractor paid. But there are issues. The payment office is saying the invoices do not match the contract price. Which they (the invoices) do not, because the buying command issued a modification. The question is where should the modification be applied? IDIQ supply contact. Quantities (min and max) and unit prices are set on basic. Delivery Order 0001 was issued and completed (not relevant, but DO 0001 had 4 mods: 01-04) DO 0002 was issued (say 04/11) following the basic?s pricing scheme. (DO 0002 has one mod already: 01) There are no other active orders. The buying command issued P00006 (say 06/11) against the basic. It changes the prices (which is what the contractor is billing to) and several other bits of information. The previous administrator said the buying command stated that the prices flow down. Here is where I disagree. My view is the price changes or the entire modification should be with DO 0002 so that the proper billing can take place. Not on the basic. I should have a X87888 11 D 8788 0002 02 vs. X87888 11 D 8788 P00006. Since the order was previously issued, prices would not flow down would they with P00006? Or is the buying command correct because orders on an IDIQ are not contracts by themselves? Hopefully I put in all the relevant information. Just FYI trying to get the payment office to just pay what the contractor is billing for ( it is a lessor amount and they can do an additional billing later if needed, but the argument is about matching the contract)

Can a payment be made after the delivery date (performance date) ends? Yes, lot of supplies are shipped on the final delivery date and the government then gets billed after that date. Cost type contracts may be billed years after the final delivery date. Does the FAR require the contracting officer to modify the contract to extend the delivery dates? if so what part? 43.103 -- Types of Contract Modifications. Contract modifications are of the following types: (a) Bilateral. A bilateral modification (supplemental agreement) is a contract modification that is signed by the contractor and the contracting officer. Bilateral modifications are used to -- (1) Make negotiated equitable adjustments resulting from the issuance of a change order; (2) Definitize letter contracts; and (3) Reflect other agreements of the parties modifying the terms of contracts. Changing the delivery dates would be change in the terms of the agreement, if past the orginal date and no provision for early delivery. There should also be consideration given.

PBP Performance Based Payment = If all milestone(s) are not completed for a task, no payment is approved. What more incentive would you need.

DFAS has a long acronym guide http://www.dfas.mil/dfas/contractorsvendors.html Then acronym guide (49 pages worth).

The BBB has some info.

DD1149 Requisition and Invoice /Shipping Document. Mainly used on the postaward side of the contract.

From an article: CON 090: Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) Fundamentals ? an infamous Defense Acquisition University course that seems to have an unfortunate reputation due to its four week in class requirement. The course is aimed at new hires and provides a total immersion into the Federal Acquisition Regulation (Parts 1-53) and the Defense Federal Acquisition Regulation Supplement (DFARS). The course is designed to prepare the 21st century acquisition workforce to operate success-fully in a web enabled environment. CON 090 is a limited lecture, re-search-intensive, exercised-based curriculum. Participants will analyze contracting business scenarios developed through research of the FAR and its supplements. I had applied for and was as-signed a reservation for the course when the determination had been made that October 1, 2010 would mark the start date for the new CON090 requirement. The new guidance directed that the course must be completed for new hires hired on or after 1 October 2010 to the Contracting Career Field within the first 24 months of employment. Being that I had been Level 1 certified and on board prior to October, I was part of the exemption. At first I thought I should perhaps with-draw from the course since I?m sure someone else could have used my slot, but then I gave it a 2nd thought. My series, 1102, and my career path, Contract Administration/Specialist, had a foundation based upon what the FAR dictates. Therefore, wouldn?t it be in my best interest to attend? Regardless of when you achieved your Level 1 status, this course provides a wealth of information that anyone in the Contract Administration/Specialist field will benefit from. I attended CON 90 in August of 2010, in Kettering, Ohio. The class was a fairly standard size, with three instructors taking part in the instruction, and four weeks to learn the FAR. Our instructors were very well educated, and provided knowledge and insight; not just based on the text, but rather their real life experiences. Every day, they pro-vided us with homework for that evening and a quiz to prepare for the next day. Each and every Friday morning we had a test, sectioned off in two parts, open and closed book. The course material was challenging, and there was a fair amount of work. Being that there are 52 parts to the FAR, the pres-sure of memorizing them all be-came apparent as we were increasingly asked to know more and more for quizzes as the days went by. The instructors did, however, provide us the opportunity to complete the FAR CHALLENGE: memorize all 52 parts, and if we could, in one sitting, provide all parts in their entirety, we never had to complete the FAR portion of the quizzes or tests for the rest of the course. There were several students (I being one?it?s ok to be jealous) who took advantage of this, and were able to complete the task successfully. In all honesty, it was well worth the repetitiveness of review-ing flash cards until you were dreaming about FAR parts and mumbling them under your breath in public ? the points accounted for by the FAR portion of quizzes and tests were a given as you had already completed the FAR CHALLENGE. Having disciplined myself to memorize them also made it a lot easier when it came to participating in class, looking things up for tests, and completing our daily homework assignments. Reflecting back on the four weeks, I am grateful for having taken the course. I have noticed a difference in how I look information up in the FAR and how I relate to certain sections. It has even aided me in classes I have had to complete after graduating from CON 090. If my opinion is much to any, it is to take advantage of the course. Two thumbs up from this Contract Administration/Specialist Keystone! FAR Fundamentals is a 4 week, resident, foundational course for that provides a total immersion into the FAR (Parts 1-53) and the DFARS. By Kathy Novak DCMA Keynote Volume VI Issue I Feb 2011

From the front page of WIFCON Court of Federal Claims Blanket Purchase Agreements. See Crewzers Fire Crew Transport, Incorporated v. U. S., No. 10-819C, March 18, 2011. (March 22, 2011) http://www.wifcon.com/pd13_303.htm#cofc Not arguing anything, just adding something if people missed.

COFC Awards Attorneys' Fees; Air Force Unreasonably Interpreted Small Business Act The U.S. Court of Federal Claims Feb. 15 awarded a contractor $37,227 in attorneys' fees and costs under the Equal Access to Justice Act (EAJA) in connection with the Air Force's violation of the Small Business Act (DGR Associates Inc. v. United States, Fed. Cl., No. 10-396C, 2/15/11). Judge Thomas C. Wheeler found that the Air Force's position was not substantially justified in the underlying litigation, holding that DGR Associates Inc. did not waive its right to bring suit and rejecting the argument that the Air Force was not required to give priority to Historically Underutilized Small Business Zone (HUBZone) small business concerns. DGR prevailed in its bid protest against the Air Force's award of housing maintenance, inspection, and repair services at Eielson Air Force Base, Alaska. The court's injunction required the Air Force to terminate the contract award and apply the statutory HUBZone preference in a new or revised solicitation (94 FCR 206, 8/24/10). DGR then applied for attorneys' fees under the EAJA. The court said DGR satisfied the EAJA's timeliness and net worth and size requirements for receiving an award. It also held that DGR was a prevailing party under the EAJA because it succeeded on all of its arguments concerning the Air Force's failure to apply the statutory preference for HUBZone small business concerns. The court then said the Air Force's litigation position was not substantially justified. Waiver Argument Was ?Patently Unreasonable.' The Air Force argued that DGR had waived its right to bring suit by not filing its action prior to the closing date for receipt of proposals. The court held, however, that because DGR followed applicable protest procedures, diligently pursued its challenge, and prevailed at the Government Accountability Office, it would be unjust to dismiss DGR's protest. ?By any measure, Defendant's waiver argument was patently unreasonable and not substantially justified,? the court held. Small Business Act Requirement is Unambiguous The Air Force also argued that the interpretation of the Small Business Act and its implementing regulations was a novel issue, and therefore its position was substantially justified. However, the court found the statute's wording and existing case law precedent to be unambiguous. When DGR filed suit in June 2010, multiple courts and the GAO uniformly had held the Small Business Act unambiguously required the HUBZone program to receive preference over other small business programs. In addition, the court explained that had the Air Force simply chose to follow GAO's decision, DGR's lawsuit would have been unnecessary. The Air Force was unreasonable in putting DGR to additional effort and expense given the clear statutory language, the court said. Finally, the court said the government's position was unreasonable due to the lack of any legislative history contrary to the statute's plain language. As a result, the court awarded DGR attorneys' fees and costs. http://op.bna.com/fcr.nsf/r?Open=dsen-8e7pjh. The AF tried.

Is the grant just the way the funding or the instrument of the award. The FAR wouldn't apply if it is award document, correct?

Just refreshing -- to keep topic active.

My understanding is as your account managers have stated. When "product" has to be shipped; the government post a notice of how, what, when, where the product has to go. Tenders that are qualified, all place bids on the cost of the move. The government has to start from the top of the qualified list which is rank by bid price and will ask each vendor if they will move the product. The government will move down the list until they get a vendor to accept the terms. No master contract, each move is separate. The acceptance of the how, what, when, where would be the "Bill of Lading" or contract. Very rough explanation.

1 Oct - California Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger ® Thursday signed into law a bill that decriminalizes the possession of up to one ounce of marijuana. The bill reduces simple possession from a misdemeanor to an infraction. What are your opinions on federal drug free work place enforcement? Should it make oversight and enforcement of a drug free workplace more improtant?

http://ebird.osd.mil/ebfiles/e20100918776375.html GAO Dismisses Claims Against Air Force The Government Accountability Office has dismissed claims, filed in the Air Force's aerial tanker competition, that the Air Force intentionally misbehaved in eliminating a proposal. In August, less than a month after bids were due, dark-horse competitor U.S. Aerospace, a Los Angeles-based contractor, filed a protest with the GAO because the Air Force had rejected its submission for being late. In its proposal, the company said the components would be built by Ukrainian firm Antonov but the planes would be assembled in the United States. U.S. Aerospace alleged in its protest that the Air Force had deliberately left its delivery person waiting just long enough to miss the deadline. In a ruling issued Sept. 16, the GAO dismissed the claim, finding "insufficient support" for the allegations. The ruling rejects the claim that the Air Force conspired to prevent the firm from submitting the proposal on time, noting that it was U.S. Aerospace's decision to show up less than an hour before proposals were due and to fail to confirm the exact location where proposals were accepted. However, the GAO will consider other claims, including whether the proposal was in fact received on time. The agency is set to make its final ruling by Oct. 6. In a statement, U.S. Aerospace said that it was pleased by the ruling and by the GAO's decision to continue to consider other parts of the protest. The $35 billion tanker deal remains one of the largest and most hotly contested Defense Department acquisition programs. The Air Force planned to lease tankers from Boeing in 2003, but the deal ended the next year because of a procurement scandal that sent a Boeing executive and a Pentagon official to jail. In 2008, the Air Force awarded the contract to Northrop Grumman, which had partnered with European Aeronautic Defense and Space's Airbus, but the decision was overturned after the GAO upheld a protest filed by Boeing. The Pentagon relaunched the program last fall, but Northrop opted not to bid and EADS announced that it would compete on its own. Both Boeing and EADS submitted proposals in the new competition. --Marjorie Censer, Capital Business