Jump to content

joel hoffman

Members
  • Posts

    7,041
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by joel hoffman

  1. Synonyms of negotiate arrange. conclude. discuss. bargain. concert. deal. haggle. settle (on or upon) https://www.merriam-webster.com/thesaurus/negotiate
  2. I thought that the earlier thread was pretty clear. Per the explanations and conditions in the earlier thread, If you want to negotiate commercial terms or prices with one or more quoters that are reasonably competitive, you can do that. Remember, a “quote”, is not an “offer”. The government can negotiate with one or more quoters and can make an “offer” or an offer to award to a quoter. Why call it “discussions” if you don’t have to? And yes, document the file.
  3. I believe that 37.204 requires the agency to determine if qualified personnel are available at reasonable costs from other agencies through an Interagency agreement to evaluate proposals before contracting for advisory and assistance services…
  4. ji, my post above was only in response to Don’s last question. The contractor asked for an adjustment and they both agreed to it. As for a new contract for the same conditions, the contractor can easily handle it in new proposed hourly rates in agreement with its labor force. He doesn’t have to identify any travel reimbursement taxes in the new rates. They would just be higher.
  5. If government changed the location and working conditions, it is a change. If it affected the labor availability or willingness to travel without a raise to cover increased employees’ expenses, I could then consider that the government change impacted the contractors cost due to the changed working conditions. If the contractor was just being a nice guy, then maybe no impact. In my opinion, an after the fact profit adjustment couldn’t really be justified as “higher risk “, if the risk didn’t occur and it was contractor voluntarily reimbursing employees for taxes paid to be a “good guy”. But if the parties agreed that the unburdened amount of the employees aditional requests for relief would suffice as an impact settlement, that could work.
  6. Actually, the cost might well be allowable if the contractor proposed higher wages/salary for the follow on contract. But if the situation can be handled by simply adjusting profit, ok. A percentage of travel reimbursement costs may not be huge. If travel is by commercial carriers, hopefully the contractor will directly pay for tickets. (Going deer hunting. Enjoy your day)
  7. My last post only addressed the initial contract, as if the contractor is seeking reimbursement… The initial post didn’t differentiate, between the first contract and the follow on contract. The initial responses questioned adjustments to the existing contract price. To repeat- my post this morning only refers to the initial contract, if the contractor is seeking reimbursement. Neither side anticipated that the employees would have to go on extended TDY when the contract price was negotiated and permanent relocation or replacement of existing personnel wasn’t practical. I previously said that, if the initial contract anticipated or required extended TDY then there would be no grounds for an adjustment.
  8. Assuming that Neurotic is government employee: I would consider the extended TDY to be a change of scope. If it was originally known at the time of negotiating the contract, the contractor could have increased the wage/salary rates “to attract or retain employees” who didn’t know they would be working on extended TDY. The contractor might be willing to simply accept an adjustment w/o all the markups…
  9. After thinking about it, that may be less expensive than increasing the labor costs to cover taxes on the travel reimbursement.
  10. I don’t see a problem with paying higher wages to attract and retain employees, assuming that the extended TDY is the predominant scope of the T&M efforts.
  11. Apparently, upon some research of the tax code references, if the Contractor would directly pay vendors for long term lodging, the employee would still be taxed. If so, my suggestion would still be for the contractor to determine what wages or salaries would be necessary to attract and retain long term TDY employees. Example: Many years ago (circa 1981), my Corps of Engineers District Office negotiated a FFP construction contract for a new recreation area on the then under construction Tennessee-Tombigbee Waterway in Alabama with an 8(a) firm from the St Louis area. The firm proposed using its own, home based construction trade labor at much higher than the prevailing local, rural Alabama wage rates, which I remember considered daily lodging and per diem expenses for its permanent trade labor. The agency agreed with that approach. I was then working in a Tenn-Tom Resident Construction Office that administered the contract. We reviewed the weekly payrolls to verify that all those employees were indeed TDY from the St. Louis area. To my amazement, they were! ————————————————- As an aside, that St Louis based contractor is still in business to date and was recently hired for a major, several mile long, forced main sewer line replacement project in Mobile Alabama for the Mobile Area Water and Sewer System (MAWSS).
  12. Yes it is likely a matter between the employees and employer. If the scope of the project anticipated or required long term TDY, the employer should have been aware of the taxation and planned for it, if they thought there would be a problem with retention or dissatisfaction by the workforce. It appears that the original poster hasn’t been back since posting Friday at noon*. So, without further details, readers are left to ask for further clarifications and to speculate. Several questions by us were asked on Friday and on Saturday afternoon. *Edit: Still evident at 0915 CST on Monday morning. **Edit. Add: Upon rereading the initial post, it’s not clear to me now (Sunday morning) whether initial contract negotiations are ongoing or the contract has been negotiated and awarded. If still under negotiation, the contractor could adjust the proposed wages or salaries to attract or retain employees that would be TDY. If awarded, I see no contractual basis for an adjustment (assuming that the location and length of assignments should have been known or otherwise anticipated.
  13. If the travel requirements were known at the time the sole source contract was negotiated, the contractor could have increased salaries or wages of travelers to cover the taxes on travel costs in order to attract and retain labor. *Edit: That is a risk the contractor assumed.
  14. Was the location of the work, whether extended TDY or otherwise, known at the time of the negotiation of the sole source contract? *Edit: If so, on what basis would the contractor be entitled to a price adjustment?
  15. Thanks for your clarification. I wanted to mention that there may be distinctions between different types of contracts. 🤠
  16. I didn’t mention above in my earlier post but agree with the additional Nash and Edwards critiques in their Postscript III article. I also agree with the two above quotes that the government in general does not like to and many don’t know how to acquire commercial services. Although not applicable to Vern’s example here, I will add that, when requesting quotes, the government has the opportunity to negotiate not only the price but the terms and conditions with those firms. That would be a practice often used in the commercial world by professional buyers. As a former city engineer many years ago, I remember that our purchasing agent often negotiated with supply and service vendors. I learned in a business law course many years ago and in reading books on effectively negotiating that almost anything is negotiable in the commercial contracting acquisition world, including posted or advertised prices and terms. However, in my experience with the Federal government and the WIFCON Forum, I’ve observed that many Federal Government acquisition personnel don’t seem to effectively and/or want to negotiate with vendors or offerors/proposers.** However, these days there are more and more “no haggle” vehicle and other prices being advertised. This trend seems to fit well with today’s population… **Equally applicable to services, supplies, construction, design-build, A-E acquisitions and modifications, REAs, claims, etc. This was specifically in response to the last two posts, partially quoted above. Sorry to stray from the specific example in the Nash and Edwards Postscript III article and whether the current acquisition system is badly designed. My remarks did address some general personal observations concerning whether the system is poorly executed. The government can have the best designed business processes but if acquisition personnel don’t act like professional buyers, it will not be highly successful.
  17. Bob, I believe that this is the wrong topic area for this question. Perhaps Contract Award Process topic area for purposes of future references to the subject?
  18. For the cited example, it is obvious to mention that the time allowed to digest, plan and respond to that RFP at a remote, Alaskan site seems to be unrealistic to anyone but, perhaps , the incumbent contractor and maybe not even to that firm.
  19. Carl, I don’t necessarily disagree. It may depend upon the season, circumstances, location, etc. I’m advocating negotiating the terms of any proposed penalty for under attendance . I’d shoot for having the hotel show that they were, in fact impacted by the under attendance. Lately, it’s been very difficult to find room availability in certain areas but not always. i don’t have a fundamental problem with the concept of an pre-agreed term or restitution for a breach, as Don suggests. Just add some condition to establish impact damages. It is likely that no shows are very likely to impact a hotel’s ability to fill those rooms on the first night but they might be able to adjust and accommodate other travelers during a multiple day conference. I don’t think that a partial termination for convenience after the fact here is possible or practical. The dirty deed would already have be done.
  20. I would agree with that assessment. This is of overall importance. The person(s) making Hotel conference arrangements should negotiate the details of such “attrition” terms, regardless of whether or not competition is involved. For instance, if the hotel occupancy rate isn’t affected by a certain under attendance (e.g., they are able to rent those unused reservations), then it wouldn’t suffer any loss and shouldn’t assess a penalty, in my opinion.
  21. Is it for services? EDIT: The reason that I ask is that, for construction contracts, the periods might vary, depending upon Agency policy/regs. For instance, US Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) Regulation ER 715-1-17 (dated 2012) requires an interim Contractor Performance Evaluation (CPE) at the midpoint of a contract or task order with a performance period of 24 months or longer. The Contracting Officer (KO) may require additional interim CPE(s). For a contract with multiple on-going task orders, there are various alternatives. Examples are, contract level interim CPE or individual task order level CPE’s, depending upon the type of work, single or multiple locations of the work, effects on project performance by design subcontractor firms on a design-build task order, performance by key subs, such as trade subs, etc. The USACE regs require that the contract admin office (CAO) discuss the topic of interim and final CPE’s with the Contractor during the post award and/or pre-construction conference The agency regs also discuss how to reflect design firm and/or key subcontractor(s) performance in the interim and/or final CPE. There are no separate CPE’s prepared for design firm(s) or other key subs.
  22. The question concerning a “rule” for assuming an estimated cost to “execut[e] a modification” may have originated from the above, totally ridiculous, 1990 estimate of administrative cost to the government to both issue and administer each contract. However, those are separate scenarios, no matter what “executing a modification” refers to. “Issuing and administering each contract [of more than some nominal amount] awarded under a solicitation” generally entails much more direct and indirect labor costs and efforts alone let alone other direct and indirect costs than “executing” each modification under that contract. As such, it is an “Apples to Oranges” comparison with little correlation.
  23. @S. Nimrod, I’m still curious about what what you specifically mean by the term “executing a modification”. It’s an ambiguous term, without further clarification. How do you expect an answer if you don’t define what you are asking about? Thanks.
  24. Please explain what act or actions you are specifically referring to when you say “executing” a modification [on an] SF 30. Thank you.
×
×
  • Create New...