Jump to content


  • Posts

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  1. Hi, It's widely understood having no Past Performance will give you a neutral rating. What happens when we sent out the questionnaires and they try to suppress their past performance by not submitting anything in order to get a neutral rating?
  2. Just putting out an LPTA RFQ. I don't see how you can go back and adjust pricing after the quotes come in. How you can pick one vendor out of all the quotes you got and encourage them to lower their price to make sure they're lower than the lowest price that came in? I'd understand if they quoted their scheduled prices but knowing there's competition the should put their best price forward. We could give out estimated quantities in the RFQ I guess to improve the volume discounting.
  3. I know you can ask for discounted pricing from GSA Scheduled contractors but can you actually negotiate with them? Let's say we put out an RFQ and we get quotes in, can we then start negotiating with one of the vedors? How does one "negotiate" better pricing with GSA vendors?
  4. Sorry, proposed SBA rule implementing 15 U.S.C. 657q. Must we still act even though this SBA rule isn't final?
  5. If there's an amendment to an act, does an agency have to comply immediately or can it wait for a FAR change or final rule? In particular, the new changes at 15 USC 657q in regard to consolidation of contract requirements. Non DoD.
  6. Vern, I'm concerned with adjusting the TC prospectively since the TC is tied to fee through the incentive and share ratio. If TC is underestimated the contractor will receive an increased fee, if it's overestimated they'll receive a reduced incentive fee. The CBA WD should not have any influence on fee at all. The contractor should receive the same fee at the end of the year no matter if there was a CBA change or not. Or, am I missing something?
  7. Retreadfed, limitation of cost/funds would not apply unless running out of value or funding in which case the estimated cost might have to be increased. Target cost as defined in FAR 52.216-10. I interpret 52.216-10(d) to allow for equitable adjustments as needed. Let me try to shed more light on the situation. CBA WD incorporated when option exercised. The WD has no affect on LOE, contractor efficiencies, nor fee. Let's say no WD went into effect and the contractor underan the contract by $1M with a 60/40 split share ratio, 60% to the government, 40% to the contractor. Contractor made an additional $400K in fee for his efficiencies and underrunning the contract. Let's say the CBA WD goes into effect and an REA submitted within the first 30 days. You are only able to make a best guess estimate on target cost so early in the beginning of the option year. In this scenario, let's say the contractor underrun the contract by A) $1.5M $1M or C)$500K. Which amount would be most fair in this situation? If you select A, what did the CBA do that was so spectacular to underrun the contract by so much more? How could it have? That means they were given more credit for their underrun because the LOE was worth a lot more at the higher rate. If you select C, that means the contractor gets screwed because they're punished even more for each hour they spend on the contract. The only fair answer is B, at the same 60/40 split giving the contractor an addition $400K in fee. The equitable adjustment should neither put the contractor in a worse nor better position than before. It's only to make the contractor "whole" again. That is why it should not be considered until after the actual costs come in so you can calculate your adjusted final fee. From month 1-12 the contractor isn't out anything and does not experience any "harm" because actual costs are being paid. Month 13 is a different story when AFF is being calculated. With the increased rates from the CBA, it could look like the contractor overran the contract and thus suffers on final fee. That is why the target cost is adjusted after the REA is submitted.
  8. The contractor can make allowances for expected increases but not for SCA WDs or CBA WDs. Those are hard to predict. However, when a new WD comes out it should not be tied to fee. They should just be compensated for the increased wages. They should not be in a worse or better position than before the wage increase. The REA for CBA rate increases should be tied to actual costs performing the change IAW DFARS 252.243-7002 Requests for Equitable Adjustment. You cannot compensate the contractor for higher rates due to a new CBA for performance never accomplished.
  9. I'm thinking I dont want to overcompensate the contractor for performance not incurred. I don't want hours not used to be calculated at the higher rate. An REA is to make the contractor whole again, not to put them in a better position than they were. The contractor does not suffer until the end of the year because their target cost should be adjusted to actual costs incurred due to the rate increase. During the year they're covered because they're paid allowable cost. What I was thinking of doing was raising the estimated cost based on the increased wages and estimated performance and have the contractor submit an REA at the end of the year to adjust target cost to account for actual hours affected by the CBA WD. That seems most fair.
  10. Hi, Wondering how to process a wage escalation REA for a CPIF contract before actual costs have incurred. When issuing the option we incorporated a new CBA WD. We were going to wait to process the REA to adjust Target Cost based on actuals but management wanted us to adjust the cost based on estimated cost. As long as the new CBA rates result in an allowable cost, why would we base an REA on estimated cost vs. actual cost when adjusting the Target Cost?
  11. OK, just to be straight, non-competitive environment, where you're relying on cost and pricing data a cost analysis is required and also adequate to determine cost realism. Cost Realism Analysis is used in a competitive environment for cost contracts and is used to develop the probable cost of performance. Correct?
  12. Would you perform a cost realism analysis on a non-competitive proposal or modification to a cost contract? The far language on cost realism at FAR 15.404-1 lends itself to a competitive acquisition with terminology like "best value" and "The probable cost is determined by adjusting each offeror’s proposed cost". The DoD guide also states "When evaluating competitive offers" Just wondering if cost realism analysis is required in a non-competitive environment such as a modification to a cost contract (increased effort).
  13. Turns out a final review was issued. It gives the CO an opportunity to establish additional goals as a percentage of total contract dollars. So you would have two comparisons, one in terms of the total dollars subcontracted and as a percentage of total subcontract dollars and the other goal as a percentage of total contract dollars. When you do a mod >$650K with subcontracting opportunites, you'll adjust your subcontracting plan. When you do a mod of any amount, it will affect your total contract dollars goals. The two will need to be maintained separately. eSRS however, allows you to make both comparissons when a contractor submits their ISR.
  • Create New...