Jump to content
The Wifcon Forums and Blogs

joel hoffman

Members
  • Content Count

    5,116
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

0 Neutral

About joel hoffman

  • Rank
    Senior Member

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Male
  • Interests
    Following God, Family, Sailing, Motorcycling, Hunting, Volleyball; Acquisition, Negotiating, Source Selections, Contract Administration, Construction, Design-Build Construction, mods, claims, TFD, TFC, project controls,

Recent Profile Visitors

The recent visitors block is disabled and is not being shown to other users.

  1. Agree, Carl. We don’t know whether or not -8 applies or is applicable to a specific incidence. The original post was a hypothetical and, as several of us have mentioned, doesn’t appear to be something that would be covered. We don’t know what the OP’s specific contracts or subcontracts were for. And adding the wording “...and prices” might or might not be “substantially the same as” the FAR wording (and the purpose of the clause as you quoted in your first post - thanks by the way!), depending upon the circumstances - e.g., the CLIN structure, type of services, etc. - and particularly th
  2. As a second corollary, I would recommend that a potential sub advise a prime that it reasonably interprets such revised wording to mean that it would be paid for any additional services ordered pursuant to the -8 clause. You may rightfully feel that I am unnecessarily rambling on here. However, I dealt with contract claims, Disputes, REA’s, solicitation, contract administration and contract interpretation issues, including contractor sponsored subcontractor issues for many years with the Corps of Engineers and prior to that, some with the Air Force. I also wrote and/or reviewed
  3. As a corollary, if the government clarifies that it doesn’t intend to pay for any unilaterally ordered services under the altered -8 clause, if it would require a line item and/or total contract price increase, the proposer can choose not to submit a bid, proposal, quote, etc. It might then alternately protest the terms of the altered -8 clause as not being “substantially the same as” the FAR wording and FAR stated intent of the -8 clause, because that would be an unreasonable expectation. I don’t know if that would be upheld but it may worth a try if the proposer really wants to contin
  4. So, without any prior government clarification, all here appear to agree that it would be a reasonable interpretation by a proposer to assume that it would be paid for any additional services provided during an extension. No one here suggested otherwise. All here appear to agree that it would be an unreasonable interpretation by the government to assume that it could unilaterally require continued services at no additional increase in applicable line item price(s) and/or the total contract price, if such are exceeded during the extension. Thus - if adding the words “or prices” has s
  5. Were they working for free or being paid for quantities of unit priced items or rates within a total line item or contract price limit (unused quantities)? That’s why one must ask for a clarification . If it is the former (no pay), then that isn’t “substantially the same as” the FAR language or the specifically stated intent of the clause. See Carl’s post.
  6. Good luck! By the way, did the government or the prime contractor add the extra words “and prices”? If you ever encounter this option clause with the added wording in the future in a govt or contractor solicitation, I would advise you to contact the solicitor prior to the closing date and advise them that the words “and prices” are not in the FAR option clause and ask for an explanation of what they mean by adding those two words.
  7. Also, what is the general magnitude of cost and was there a time limit on the period of validity of your quote or proposal? Would you expect to have to commit to your proposed price and performance for six months? It is generally beneficial for someone competitively offering goods or services to be able to know the outcome. For one thing sellers can learn what something can be bought or sold for under the circumstances of the action. Edit: There really isn’t enough information about the nature of the transaction to categorically determine that a notice of award is required or necessa
  8. After re-reading this scenario, I’d say that it isnt a very good “hypothetical example”. A task order for 100 hours over twelve months is an average of 8.33 hours per month of total effort. Is it even worth all your worry for a probable additional 25 manhours? Yes, you’ll get paid for additional efforts. If you want to know how much effort, ask your contracting officer. You may have to negotiate. The hypo scenario doesn’t make sense for such a small task and your subsequent explanation makes application of the clause to the task or to a time extension as described even more questionable.
  9. It appears to be an extension of the existing level of effort for three more months. Just “fill ‘em and “bill ‘em”. Better yet - ASK them for clarification or confirmation of your understanding. Surely you have a relationship and communications with your government customer don’t you?
  10. No. It means that the government is extending the task order requirement for an additional three month period for the existing services to be paid for at the current “rates” for the existing services.
  11. Don’t know. It depends upon the terms of your contract with the prime and your contract with the employment agency.
  12. My answer to you would be that you will have to obtain financing if necessary to pay your workers then get reimbursed by your prime, unless the prime is willing to provide this financing for you.
×
×
  • Create New...