Jump to content
The Wifcon Forums and Blogs

Retreadfed

Members
  • Posts

    2,637
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by Retreadfed

  1. Batman, have you read FAR 52.216-7(d)(4)-(6)? That might be helpful to you.
  2. Yes, and neither the old 52.222-17 nor the current 52,222-41 requires the predecessor contractor to identify which employees are in danger of losing their jobs because of the loss of the contract. All that the old contractor was required to do was to provide a list of employees ranked by seniority. That is still the case under 52.222-41. This is something the FAR Councils will need to address when they develop a clause to implement the XO.
  3. That doesn't say that the predecessor contractor must identify which employees will lose their jobs because of the change in contractors. The right of first refusal only applied to those employees.
  4. This was a flaw in the similar requirement that Pres. Obama imposed. While the successor contractor was required to give a hiring preference to qualified employees of the predecessor contractor who would lose their jobs because of the lost contract, I could find nothing that required the predecessor to provide a list of such names.
  5. Is there a clause in your contract that requires you to hire incumbent contractor employees?
  6. I assume that the alleged fraud resulting in the rates being higher than they would have been had no fraud occurred. If that is the case, you can be held criminally and/or civilly liable for any over payments the government made. This may not entail reopening your rates, but you will not be relieved of potential criminal and/or civil liability if the rates are not reopened and adjusted.
  7. LeighHar, how do you submit your request for payment of labor? Do you bill at an hourly rate, a daily rate or something else? How often do you submit your vouchers?
  8. Joel, DFARS 252.243-7000 is reserved. I don't see any reference to the cost principles in 252.243-7002. However, 252.243-7001 does seem to incorporate FAR 31.1.
  9. Wifwaf, you told us what is required. Do you know that the requirement was followed?
  10. Yes. If it is not a part of the contract, how is it binding on the contractor?
  11. To provide a little bit of nuance to what ji wrote, an of boss of mine used to say it is who is hit by the tax that counts, not who is hurt by the tax. By this he meant that if a sales tax is levied on the buyer which the seller collects, it generally could not be imposed on sales to the government because of the government's sovereign immunity unless congress consented to the tax. Conversely, if the sales tax is imposed on the seller, there is no prohibition against the seller including that tax in its price to the government.
  12. Vern, don't forget the VA's regs concerning contracting with VOSB's and SDVOSB's and the interaction between those regs and the SBA concerning eligibility to participate in the program.
  13. The President issues an XO that states "In order to increase wealth among socially and economically disadvantaged businesses, all contracts issued after the date of this XO shall be awarded to such businesses as defined in regulations issued by the SBA." Do you salute smartly and move out or stand fast?
  14. How does the government intend on extending the contract, exercise an option, if so under what clause, change order, etc.?
  15. I should have also asked, is this a solicitation provision, or is it a proposed contract clause?
  16. Is this the complete language for this requirement or only an extract? If an extract, can you provide the full text?
  17. ji, under general accounting principles, the actual cost of an item includes all costs, both direct and indirect. I don't interpret Alt I as prohibiting pricing material in this way. However, if the contractor did price material in this way, I would have a problem adding an additional kicker to it as a part of the lump sum for material handling.
  18. HUD is requiring the clause to be included in all contracts exceeding the SAT. How it is to be applied at the is to be applied at the contractor level is not clear and confusing.
  19. I would rephrase this to state that some contracting officers do not understand G&A. I know of some who do not believe it is a real cost, but is a hidden form of profit. Others do not realize that G&A is a period cost. I once had to negotiate with a contracting officer who thought he should pay G&A on only the first year of a multi-year contract not realizing the contractor incurred G&A expenses every year. For others, it simply is a matter of cost. They use G&A on travel as a way to squeeze a contractor on cost.
  20. ji, the Guidance currently states "Covered contractor employees must be fully vaccinated no later than December 8, 2021. After that date, all covered contractor employees must be fully vaccinated by the first day of the period of performance on a newly awarded covered contract, and by the first day of the period of performance on an exercised option or extended or renewed contract when the clause has been incorporated into the covered contract." Do you see a problem for both the government and contractor in the scenario I posed? Also, can the government exercise the option without including the clause in the contract?
  21. Vern, I think you have discovered another drafting error in the FAR. On Aug. 11, 2021, a final rule was published in the FR. This rule dealt primarily with the changes to the LOS made by Congress in 2013. In explaining the changes made by the rule, the Councils said "The final rule also contains revisions that were not in the proposed rule due to changes made in FAC 2020-05. For example, prior to March 30, 2020, the FAR did not include coverage of the limitations on subcontracting and nonmanufacturer rule in subparts 19.8, 19.13, 19.14, and 19.15; FAC 2020-05 added coverage tailored for each of those subparts. Due to the standardization of the limitations on subcontracting and nonmanufacturer rule, this final rule removes the coverage from those subparts and consolidates the coverage in subpart 19.5." It looks like the Councils overlooked 19.809-2 when they issued the final rule.
×
×
  • Create New...