Jump to content
The Wifcon Forums and Blogs

joel hoffman

Members
  • Content Count

    4,896
  • 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, 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. Well, that looks to be excessive for the purpose. The company could buy twice as many masks without a logo for several dollars less than the mask with the logo.The company could buy twice as many masks without a logo for several dollars less than the mask with the logo. The workers could write their names on the masks with a magic marker.
  2. Another possibility, which may or may not be a “best course of action”, is to explain to the firm that you aren’t authorized to make advance payment and for the firm to consider what price it is willing to accept, if it has to finance the furniture sale. You can negotiate...
  3. There is no “awarded purchase order” or “awarded contract” yet. You have a modified quote that doesn’t meet at least two of the conditions for authorization for you to make advance payment. And it is higher than the original quote. You are, in effect, negotiating the quote. There is no valid contract to modify - There was no meeting of the minds. If the firm won’t accept the purchase order without advance payment, your best course of action may be to look at the other quotes.
  4. To elaborate on what ji says concerning 32.2, see two of the conditions for authorization of making advance payment for a commercial item in 32.202-1 (b): “...(2) The contract price exceeds the simplified acquisition threshold;” and ”...(6) Prior to any performance of work under the contract, the aggregate of commercial advance payments shall not exceed 15 percent of the contract price;”
  5. For establishing the definitization schedule , remember the OR , which also needs to be considered: “(2) The date on which the amount of funds obligated under the contract action is equal to more than 50 percent of the not-to-exceed price.”
  6. Thanks, Carl. The unpaid invoice is for $294. I’ve asked maka what the DIBBS office previously told him prior to the letter he shared. Don’t understand why payment would be related to that action but I don’t know much about DIBBS.
  7. You said “A claim is a good approach”. You also said “We don't know any facts yet.” Which is Correct and is why it is improper to suggest that a claim is a good approach at this point. You weren’t reminding maka of his right to file a claim. “You have the right to file a claim” is a reminder. By the way, from the info that maka provided, it appears that the unpaid amount is less than $300. It would cost more than that to prepare a claim and a whole lot more than that to address the claim. And if the government is delinquent in payment, would the payment be subject to interest under prompt payment provisions? So, we disagree.
  8. maka, the letter from the DIBBS Team lead began with: maka, what were you previously told by DLA regarding your DIBBS account? I don't understand how you apparently responded to a Request for a Proposal or for a quote or for a bid in DIBBS; then you were issued an order; then you provided the item or items; then you were locked out of the system before you were paid. The letter ends with this: I'm not familiar with this system. However, it would seem very strange to be locked out of a system after filling an order and then DLA delays payment for the completed order until well after you provide all sorts of information to them. maka, did the DIBBS team identify problems with your existing DIBBS account that would delay or prevent payment for an existing, completed order? maka are you in the process of providing the requested information?
  9. This goes beyond reminding a contractor of their right to submit a claim. When a current federal employee advises that “a claim is a good approach”, that is encouraging a contractor to submit a claim.
  10. Reminding them of their right to file a claim is ok. Telling them “to file a claim” - without even knowing the facts of the problem - is improper for a federal employee.
  11. Concern understood. He is asking for information concerning the letter from DIBBS. In addition he is having trouble communicating with the KO and the “clerk”. I would have had no qualms about facilitating communications between the parties, not acting as an advocate or representative for their contractor. The USACE was a pioneer in developing and facilitating Partnering processes between stakeholders and our contractors. In fact, it is USACE policy that we are to offer to partner with every contractor. By the way, ji, I was taught that it is improper for a government employee to urge or to coach a contractor to submit a claim against the US Government, especially for matters that the employee is unfamiliar with. We are trying to determine the facts of this situation. Right now all we know is that maka supplied something to somebody and invoiced for it. Possibly through a DIBBS bidding process. There are no rules preventing a former civil service employee from representing a contractor before other federal agencies with no direct relationship to their former job. There are numerous friends of mine, as well as several former government employees here on the WIFCON Forum, who are paid advisors and advise and/or represent contractors before federal agencies.
  12. maka, please clarify : 1) are you presently registered in Dibbs? 2) did you bid on some supplies in response to a quote or request for proposal in Dibbs? 3) did you win the bid to supply the item or items? Did the government order the item from you through Dibbs? Thanks.
  13. OK, maybe someone here can enlighten us!
  14. Goodness! Okay, fellow Wifconers! Can anyone provide some insight into the matters discussed in the letter? It is unsigned and undated. It asks for much detailed company information! Could it be someone trying to gain improper access to maka’s company information?
×
×
  • Create New...