Retreadfed

Justice, your fact situation is not clear. You say you had an unexpected overrun on one order. This was based on DCAA audit adjustments. However, you have not said that you agree with those adjustments. Further, you have not stated whether you are entitled to recover the alleged overrun costs. In regard to the order on which you had an "under-spend", this indicates that you did not incur costs on that order so that you owe the government money. If you did not overbill the government, what is there for the contracting officer to set off on each order?

Mezut, your post is confusing. Can we try to clear it up a little. You say the contract is an IDIQ contract. Did it have a minimum value representing the government's obligation to issue orders against the contract? Has the government met its obligation to place orders for the minimum amount? What was the ordering period specified in the contract? Was it five years or one year coinciding with the option periods? Was the $5M the maximum amount of services the government could order? Was the $5M obligated if so, was it obligated against the contract or under an order? Is the contract subject to the SCA? If so, are revised wage determinations requested each time an option is exercised? Have any options been exercised?

JAG, from what you have written why would you consider filing a status protest with GAO? What status are you talking about and why does GAO have jurisdiction to hear such a protest? Also, file a size protest with the SBA? You didn't say anything about the contractor not meeting any size standard.

Deaner, what is the exception?

MikeBP, did whoever told you this cite a regulation or law to support the statement? It is good to be leary of statements like this if they are not backed up with some authority to support the statement.

tgun, if the contract is a cost reimbursement contract, look at the standards for cost allowability in FAR 31.201-2 then ask yourself if the cost in question meets these tests. Remember also, if the government wants to disallow the cost because it is unallowable, the government will have to prove that it is unallowable. On the other hand, if the disallowance is because the cost is unreasonable using the criteria in 31.201-3, the contractor has to demonstrate that the cost is reasonable.

tj, instead of worrying how you are going to monitor the contractor's performance, I would be more concerned with whether you have someone who is capable of monitoring that performance.

RL, how old is this contract? FAR 52.232-21 Limitation of Cost (Facilities) was removed from the FAR in 2007.

What you posted states that the contracting officer has discretion to take action from a list of at least two possible courses of action. You only listed one. This indicates you did not state the entire paragraph.

What does paragraph (g) of the Level of Effort clause say?

More importantly, RL, what does your contract say about fee adjustments if the supposed LOE is not provided?

ji is essentially correct. However, a contracting officer who does not answer a question seeking clarification of a solicitation runs the risk of having a successful constructive change claim asserted by the contractor.

I think you have misinterpreted 52.245-1(e)(3). Vendor as used there refers to the entity that sold the property to the contractor. It does not refer to the contractor. Thus, when the contractor receives the vehicles from the dealer, title will pass to the government if the cost of the vehicles is chargeable as a direct cost of the contract.

NenaLynz, I'm a little confused about what the facts are. You say the SIN's on the GSA schedule contract are all for services. You also say that the affiliate without the GSA schedule contract is listed as a "participating dealer." That seems to indicate that supplies are being provided. Is the non-schedule holder providing supplies to the schedule holder? If yes, are the supplies a deliverable under the specific orders?

ji, I don't know what you are disagreeing with. While bodily injury and personal property damage insurance can relieve the insured from liability to third parties, its primary purpose is to protect third parties from being financially harmed due to the negligence of the insured. The theory behind such insurance is to protect the public from injuries arising from the operation of a dangerous instrument.