Jump to content
The Wifcon Forums and Blogs

Hope7

Members
  • Content Count

    16
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

0 Neutral

About Hope7

  • Rank
    New

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Female

Recent Profile Visitors

3,516 profile views
  1. 1. Background: Government issues ID/IQ MAC contract for fixed price COTS equipment. The government specifies by performance criteria the types, quantities of equipment, and incidental support services, if any. Equipment descriptions are in terms of performance based specifications, brand name or equal, or brand name only requirements. The contract does not contain an OCI clause. · Deal Registration. Based on an Industry practice called “deal registration,” awardees on this ID/IQ MAC can "lock in" lowest pricing with a vendor before RFQ release as/if they gain knowledge of the requi
  2. Much thanks for the responses. At the very least, I wanted to confirm that I wasn't overlooking anything that may have spoken directly to this; by the responses, I think I have confirmed this is not addressed specifically or clearly in the FAR. The response from the GP experts to date is lacking the supporting rationale (specifically, FAR or similar reference) that I need to convince me of a path forward. I have attempted to research this issue for anything that could be viewed as precedent/precedence and have come up with nothing so far. Vern - to your question: The landlord is okay wit
  3. Not being a GP expert, I have attempted to go through the property related clauses in the FAR and so far, references to plant or facility appear to be related to that owned by the contractor; there is little to nothing stated about leased facility. I'm not sure how relevant would be the distinction in this except that in this case, there is an expiration date to exit the facility; if this were a contractor owned facilty, there would not be a time constraint and therefore more time to work with the plant clearance officer if/as needed. (The lease stipulates the modifications if pre-approved
  4. Thank you . However, my question was related to FAR Part 45 vice allowability of costs; specifically, what action is requried of the contractor with "asphalt," for example? I am told that it falls into the category fo Government equipment. FAR 45.101: “Material” means property that may be consumed or expended during the performance of a contract, component parts of a higher assembly, or items that lose their individual identity through incorporation into an end-item. Material does not include equipment, special tooling, special test equipment or real property. “Equipment” means a tangible
  5. Question: In the context of FAR Part 45 and proper disposition of government property upon task completion, how should the contractor account for and dispose of the remnants of incidental construction "modifications" (fencing, etc.) to a leased space/facilty? Background: Contractor has been tasked to provide services on a cost reimbursable contract for which a facility lease is required (deemed incidental to the services). The costs for lease, maintenance, and "modifications" to the facility were proposed and direct charged to the task. In order to render the facility suitable for the
  6. Thank you Vern. The example that I have posed is when there is incidental UCOT, not necessarily continuous to where it is excessive, and in the case of the clause in my post, the contract(s) do bind the contractor to those hours; your comments are noted that this is not always the case. Can't thank you enough for providing your insights. Having researched this topic pretty extensively, the information you have provided helps me greatly.
  7. Vern, as always, thank you for the substantive response. I agree that the CO for the contract(s) would be the ones to speak to the particular situation, but was curious to hear your insights from a broader perspective. On the ethical concerns raised by Congress, I would submit to that writer that earning profit on UCOT is not unfair in that there are other ways to compensate employees, through various benefits and bonuses for example. How each employer decides to motivate its workforce to satisfy its employees' needs as well as the customers' is indeed the challenge on private industry,
  8. Not sure I understand the question, so please bear with me. In my humble opinion, the contractor did not agree to never work UCOT in execution; proposing UCOT would mean that the contractor is making a commitment upfront to deliver the proposed UCOT hours at a diluted rate. I'm having a difficult time understanding why the Government would care whether the contractor executes a task with or without UCOT if that contractor did not make a firm commitment by proposing it upfront (provided performance does not suffer)? As in my first post, if the salaried employee chooses to work 50 hours
  9. In this scenario, the contractor's accounting system accounts for UCOT so that the Government would pay 40 hrs' pay for 50 hours delivered. The issue taken with the clause is that as written, it does not allow the contractor to count the extra 10 hours of work, which potentially affecting their ability to earn fee. This not only penalizes the contractor, but rather infringes on private industy on how the contractor chooses to manage its workforce to get the job done.
  10. Please respond to this question under the "Contract Administration" topic area. This question was inadvertently posted under Subcontracts & Subcoontracts Management, so I have re-posted it under the appropriate topic of "Contract Adminsitration." I apologize for any inconvenience.
  11. Background: Below is a clause that we are finding in various CPFF (LOE) solicitations. "Of the total staff-hours of direct labor set forth above, it is estimated that __ staff-hours are competitive time (uncompensated overtime). Competitive time (uncompensated overtime) is defined as hours provided by personnel in excess of 40 hours per week without additional compensation for such excess work. All other effort is defined as compensated effort. If no amount is indicated in the first sentence of this paragraph, competitive time (uncompensated overtime) effort performed by the contractor shall
  12. Background: Below is a clause that we are finding in various CPFF (LOE) solicitations. "Of the total staff-hours of direct labor set forth above, it is estimated that __ staff-hours are competitive time (uncompensated overtime). Competitive time (uncompensated overtime) is defined as hours provided by personnel in excess of 40 hours per week without additional compensation for such excess work. All other effort is defined as compensated effort. If no amount is indicated in the first sentence of this paragraph, competitive time (uncompensated overtime) effort performed by the contractor sha
  13. Thank you Re: Q#1: The prime contract did not contain either FAR 52.215-12 or 52.215-13 at the time of basic contract award. (Sub was part of original team. Upon basic contract award, Sub was issued a Sub Agreement.) The KO just incorporated FAR 52.215-12 and 52.215-13. The task order in question would be an award under an existing Sub Agreement. Re: Q#2: Due to the proprietary nature of such data, a subcontractor would not provide C/P data to another contractor; if required, such data would only be provided to an independent auditor mutually agreed to by both parties, or directly to D
×
×
  • Create New...