Jump to content
The Wifcon Forums and Blogs


  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

0 Neutral

About Retreadfed

  • Rank
    Contributing Member

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Not Telling

Recent Profile Visitors

19,597 profile views
  1. Non-compliant with what? The FAR does not govern contracting between a prime and sub. Subcontracts are primarily commercial arrangements between the prime and sub and are subject to state law. As for the government, primes only have to award subcontracts in accordance with the terms of the prime contract that address subcontracting. Further, Federal fiscal law, such as the Anti-Deficiency Act and Recording statute do not apply to contractors.
  2. You did not say why the position was vacant for so long. Getting people for a help desk contract shouldn't be that hard. By chance, was the delay in filling the position due in whole or in part to government action? Also, does the contract say anything about how long a position can be vacant without running afoul of contract requirements? Finally, is this an FP-LOE contract?
  3. It is not a standard practice in my experience. However, that does not make it wrong. Prime contractors do not have to apply FAR concepts when entering into subcontracts unless those concepts, such as the requirement to submit obtain certified cost or pricing data, are required by the prime contract. Instead, they can generally develop their own business practices that work best for them.
  4. You did not tell us how the contract is funded, e.g., cost reimbursement, FFP, etc. Also under what clause are you seeking an adjustment? Finally, you said that the contract incorporates the CBA. Is this in the form of a WD issued by DoL? If not, how is the CBA incorporated in the contract?
  5. Also, if it is $2M or more, congress needs to be notified regardless of the color of money used.
  6. Not necessarily, but we know that it happens generally inadvertently through a lack of knowledge or not knowing all the facts of a procurement. As the contracting officer, Kristin needs to make sure that all requirements of law and regulation have been met before signing off on the mod. Thus, it would be good to know the rules in this regard and to be on the alert for potential repeats of the Ft. Lee airfield. I know this was covered in several courses I took while working for DoD.
  7. FAR 15.208(e) says "Proposals may be withdrawn by written notice at any time before award." Thus, the question is when is the contract awarded? Does the contract require signatures by both parties, or is signing by the government sufficient to constitute an award?
  8. Thanks. can you answer the second part of my question? In this regard, have you been told of the infamous airfield constructed at Ft. Lee, VA using O&M funds?
  9. Yes, it could be a lot of things that we can speculate about. However, since this is a beginner forum, it would be a learning experience for Kristin to be able to answer that question.
  10. buonomma, why are you concerned with 52.232-5(g)? That deals with progress payments not pricing a contract. Further, nothing in that clause implicates the cost principles from FAR Part 31.
  11. Are you dealing with a construction contract? If so, why are you using O&M funds?
  12. You should be looking at the Uniform Guidance in 2 CFR 200 and the AID grants rule at 2 CFR 700. The FAR and AIDAR do not apply to grants and cooperative agreements.
  13. That seems to be his/her position. However, we have not been provided with a rationale as to why the general rule on schedule extensions for excusable delays should not be followed or what other standard would be used to determine the length of the extension instead.
  14. A lot of this discussion is ignoring the original question. The facts as represented are that the contractor has experienced some excusable delays in regard to performance of a cost reimbursement contract. As a consequence, the contractor has asked for a schedule extension supposedly with no additional funds being added to the contract (although the Limitation of Cost clause would still be applicable to the contract so that there is a possibility that additional funds may be requested later). This situation implicates FAR 52.249-14 which states in part "If the Contracting Officer determines that any failure to perform results from one or more of the causes above, the delivery schedule shall be revised." This schedule revision can be done by mutual agreement or unilaterally by the contracting officer through the issuance of a final decision under the Disputes clause which would entitle the contractor to appeal that decision. In any event, the clear meaning is that the schedule revision is to be reflected in a mod to the contract. The original question was whether there was a limit on the length of the schedule extension. I believe the general consensus is that there is no limit but that the agency should not grant the contractor whatever extension the contractor wants, but that the contractor should be required to demonstrate what impact the excusable delays had on the contractor's ability to complete the contract within the original performance period.
  15. This guidance is in the DoD Financial Management Regulation.
  • Create New...