Jump to content

joel hoffman

Members
  • Posts

    7,041
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by joel hoffman

  1. Edit: just realized that FAR 52.246-4 is Inspection of Services clause, not a warranty clause. ———————————————— Well the warranty of Services clause is fairly limp and is mainly intended to make sure the services were performed, which you ought to be able to tell simply by iinspecting each step of all repairs before the next step, e.g. sanding, grinding or sandblasting all marked locations (whichever is applicable), priming all surfaces, painting all surfaces. Arrange for inspections by phase/step of the repairs. The warranty clause that I referenced is applicable to service contracts but had a little more meat. You would define what the system is in the specs. I don’t understand what the purpose or usefulness is of a 60 day warranty if the boat won’t come out of the water for one or two years. Why can’t you ask for a longer warranty if you want it to last for 2-2.5 years? Perform market research on what is available… Better yet, ask the Navy. They should routinely be contracting for repairs, probably including hull painting.
  2. No, I don’t. You are going to bilaterally agree on the contract requirements including the terms or the warranty. 60 days is a pretty simple warranty to meet. Does the boat come out of the water regularly within that time frame? My Catalina 36 sailboat bottom jobs or spot repairs are warranted longer than that . I only pull the boat at most once per year to check the bottom. Edit: my fiberglass sailboat boat bottom paint is good for 2-3 years in Gulf Coast salt water with an annual haul out and power wash. I may have to make some small paint touch up paint repairs.
  3. I am assuming that the areas to be painted will be distinguishable from the unpainted surfaces and/or one can take pictures and measurements before and after the repairs/painting to document and locate the repairs. Is that correct? i am assuming that this is a service contract. Is that correct? You can define what the warranty will specifically cover very easily in the specifications. See FAR 36.7 (particularly 46.706).. Question: Do you want a warranty that the repairs will last for some specific period (e.g. one year?) or just that the repairs were performed in accordance with the specifications? I’m guessing that you want a warranty of repairs for some reasonable period of time. If so, you can use clause 52.246-19, “Warranty of Systems and Equipment under Performance Specifications or Design Criteria” as prescribed under 46.710 (c).with fill-ins as appropriate. If this will be a construction contract, 46.710 (e)(1) allows the use of the “Warranty of Construction” clause at 52.2416-21, again with fill-in edits, as appropriate. Any Agency supplements or procedures would also apply… I would thank that you’re not re-inventing the wheel here and that these type of paint repairs have been done before… You should be able to devise the specs for the repairs and determine what you want warranted and for how long… The “system” to be contracted for and warranted should be defined as the protective coating repairs and painting that are to be performed.
  4. Bob, should this thread be under another topic area (e.g., Contract Award Process or Schedules, GWACS, MACs, ID/IQs)? It doesn’t concern Contracting Workforce personnel questions.
  5. Yes, I agree. Plus, one can purchase batteries for handheld radios “everywhere”, cheaply. This is probably not a good “let’s say” example of a quandary.
  6. The last time @old51C signed in to visit was when they posted the question. So, how many radios are we talking about 1 or ?? Radios? Upon Checking on the Internet for prices of handheld radios batteries, they aren’t very expensive. Say $23-$43, for example… Prices on GSA advantage are also relatively reasonable.
  7. An SF44 was the only mechanism available back in the early 1980’s then for small, local purchases by field offices. The lab needed the markers that day in order to identify fresh concrete cylinders for later testing . The KO’s at the District Office didn’t know what Marie required of the lab boys that day. The field office in Mississippi was about 280 miles from the Mobile, AL District Office. Needless to say, the KO’s had more important duties… I was never required to get three quotes for small supplies or materials from local lumber yards for small projects in my other offices.
  8. Gosh, how hard can it be to buy extra batteries for specific brand of handheld radio(s) off the GSA schedule even if you have to initiate another purchase? Reminds me of the time that my Corps of Engineers remote Resident Office secretary (Marie) required our concrete testing lab boys to drive to the local town in a government pickup truck (we were located outside a small city in Mississippi) and get three quotes for three magic markers to mark concrete test cylinders. They drove back to our office with three quotes and reported that the lowest price was $.59 each at the local Walmart. Marie called Walmart and got a nickel each, discount. Then, she sent the guys back to Walmart with a Standard Form SF44 to purchase them. The average internal cost of each SF 44 transaction to the government was something like $30-$70 in labor costs at the time (1983). That was in addition to the time and cost of the two trips to town and back and postage. We had to overnight mail the paperwork to our District office for processing.and payment. The District Office mailed a check to Walmart for payment… I still remember how ridiculous that was. There are more Marie purchasing stories… 🙃
  9. I only mentioned cost analysts with respect to estimating indirect rates. If the action will be cost reimbursement and the proposed indirect rates aren’t binding, their office may be interested in estimating an expected realistic rate. If the rates are binding FFP, their office can use price analysis, comparing rates among the competitors.
  10. If this is a competitive action and you have indirect rates to compare, then you may be able to determine if the proposed rate is reasonable. But is this rate binding after award? I don’t know what type of pricing is involved.
  11. Fishpaw, just curious- do you have any cost analysts who are familiar with Part 31 cost principles, that could perform a desk review of the basis for the proposed, “estimated” indirect cost rate(s)? It really doesn’t take that long to do such a review, if you ask the proposer for the necessary information to perform the review.
  12. If you are referring to DCAA, will they actually establish indirect rates with or for the proposer? Or do they only review the proposed rates and audit (sample examination mostly) the basis for proposed rates? I occasionally reviewed the indirect pool info provided by small construction contractors and the “cost of sales” info to perform desk audits of sorts during contract negotiations. It probably wasn’t 100% accurate but was likely reasonably accurate for our purposes on smaller contracts (~under $3 million back then). It was very difficult to get the DCAA to perform audits for Military Construction contracts, let alone Civil Works contracts (we had to pay DCAA for CW audits). . They concentrated on big Defense contractors/contracts and had little time for construction or civil works construction. ——————————— DCAA audits for construction contracts were usually disappointing. DCAA usually either didn’t understand or overlooked the quirks of FAR 31.105, including special treatment of construction direct and indirect costs for ownership, operating, maintenance and repair costs for contractor owned construction equipment. The treatment of those costs could significantly affect G&A and overhead rates as well as result in duplicated direct costs. I resorted to attaching primer instructions with every DCAA audit request from our District.
  13. I already indicated yes, if. The answers have been general in nature because there is no more context than that it concerns “option extension” and because they are very satisfied with the contractor’s performance. A flat “yes” to the extremely general initial post, with essentially no context, is very misleading. From the information provided in this thread, she can decide what is necessary in order to award the options, sequentially or simultaneously. How about letting the sleeping dog lie? Janette appears to have left the thread after her initial one sentence post last Monday morning.
  14. I’m not saying that FAR 17.207 requires award of options sequentially. The OP would have to comply with the requirements of those paragraphs that I identified before exercising the options. Complying with some of them may present a challenge to her proposal under the existing contract. There might be an industry challenge if they simultaneously award all of the contract extension options at once. However, the OP apparently isn’t interested in providing any more information regarding the nature of the contract or a reason other than them being very satisfied with the contractor to date. She should now have enough information to decide what to do before awarding all the options at once.
  15. Ah but the requirements of FAR 17.207 (b), (c) (1), (2), and (3), (d) (1), (2) and (3) and (e) would also be applicable for sequentially awarding options for contract extensions. The funding requirement wouldn’t be applicable to an ID/IQ extension unless there would be minimum order obligations during the extension periods. Hopefully not.
  16. I’m betting that if this task order contract exceeds $100 million, Tim H. wouldn't be soliciting advice on a website. 🤠
  17. One can include a CR or other specially crafted CLIN for incidental type work or efforts that aren’t possible to reasonably estimate in a FFP contract. When a utility or railroad must perform some incidental work in a contract but refuses to be bound to a fixed price or fixed unit price for any extended period or otherwise can’t provide a final estimate/and or binding up front price, we would put our best estimate or the RR’s or Utility’s ROM in a plugged CLIN for every offeror to use. In this thread, the government has control over purposes of, numbers of, destinations and lengths of each trip. The contractor doesn’t have that same control.
  18. Yes, indeed. At any rate, Bob’s rule 16 says to avoid abbreviations (especially if they are incorrectly spelled). 🤗
  19. I understand - I’ve often seen a CLIN for travel or some other part of the works, like extensions of utilities by the utility companies or railroad crossings performed by the railroad for the contractor with a FFP plugged number for inclusion in a total obligated contract maximum price based upon an preliminary estimated amount . It can effectively serve as an NTE limitation. Then the government would place conditions upon payment, such as paying the actual costs up to the plugged number. But the scope or work and necessary amount of travel was generally defined and/or controllable. If more travel was necessary, the government would modify the line item amount. I guess that it is the same as or similar to a Cost reimbursement line item.
  20. Sorry, Jamaal. She asked if the government (assuming it meant “our organization” , as the government) can exercise all the options for extensions if (meaning as the reason and justification for) the government has found that it is “very satisfied with the [performance to date] of the contractor”. No explanation of the type or purpose of the contract provided. The answer is not an unequivocal yes. The context and other factors are necessary to consider before such action can be taken. Ok - so - No, if asking because the extension is based only upon current “very satisfied”, feel good impression of a contractor’s performance. The answer is No - if the KO can’t satisfy all other required conditions and constraints. A yes answer to exercise any extension option, let alone all extension options simultaneously requires further knowledge of the context of the extensions and consideration of any other constraints or requirements before exercising the option(s).
  21. Thanks for your clarification, Tim. Two more clarification questions. Are you negotiating 1. travel costs (or pricing) at the contract level or at the task order level? I’m guessing at the task order level and, if so: 2. Will task order level pricing be actual, allowable costs, not to exceed a capped limit? Looked that way per your original post. Or will it be strictly FFP? My suggestion is still valid and I agree with Vogager, directly above. You are entitled to full understanding of the government’s intent and concerns and both parties should be able to come to a mutually agreeable and acceptable approach. The government should consider your concerns about lack of clear scope and risk due to undefined travel times, frequency, length or destinations. Remind the KO that the government appears to have sole control over ordering and authorizing any travel. A FFP line item amount, then drawing from that amount based upon actual, allowable costs, with NTE ceiling costs, not subject to adjustment for an indeterminable travel nature and frequency, seems to an untenable risk - unless you add adequate risk to the negotiated price. Risk that is priced as a contingency is generally unallowable for the contractor to include in a FFP line item. Likewise, putting a non-adjustable cap (NTE) on unknown amount of government controlled and directed travel is equally unacceptable. My suggestion is a line item with an estimated amount of costs for authorized travel to draw from, that is adjustable, if conditions necessitate. The government has reasonable control over the line item. This is a sole source contract, so concerns over competition scope and conditions aren’t evident. Negotiate with the purpose of a “Win - Win or No Deal” outcome (per Stephen R. Covey’s “Seven Habits of Highly Successful People”). I always tried to do that. Good luck.
  22. I thought that it might be the plural of “JFOC - Joint Future Operational Capability”. Please excuse my ignorance. 🤠 I would never had guessed JFOCS means the plural (“s”) for (“J”) justification (“F”) for (“O”) other than free and open (“C”) competition. 🤪
  23. Not, necessarily.There is little detail discernible from the original question other than being “very satisfied” with the contractor’s performance to date. That can’t be the sole basis to allow awarding future options. If it is a C type service contract with yearly extensions, for instance. If such extensions depend upon future one year funding, then funds must be available prior to award of future options. In addition, for C Type service contracts with yearly extensions*: Unless the original competition allowed for award of future options initially or simultaneously at a later time, before exercising each option simultaneously, the KO must also consider, for each option , FAR 17.207 (b), (c) (1), (2), and (3), (d) (1), (2) and (3) and (e). That would also be necessary for sequentially awarding options for contract extensions. It might not be possible to determine or estimate market conditions and what available market pricing may be available for the future out-years at this point in time. There are valid reasons for the conditions imposed by 15.207, many of which concern competition and future market conditions. I don’t think one can simply take a snapshot view of all options based upon current conditions for an expedited, simultaneous award of the future options for services. The original contract competition was structured for and probably anticipated an orderly award of options over an extended period, with continued satisfactory performance and contractor status (consistent with 17.207 (c) (5),(6) and (7) and the other required considerations for subsequent extensions. Thus, the effect upon FAR Part (6) competition might be a consideration or be impacted by early exercise of out-year options for services and possibly for supplies. The government can’t simply restructure the original basis of the competition or simultaneously award future options, while circumventing the other conditions for awarding each option, based upon one reason - for the purpose(s) of convenience and/or for rewarding the contractor for “very satisfying” early performance (in reference to the asterisked scenario above).
  24. If the task order hasn’t been issued, suggest contacting the applicable ordering agency… Same thing if it has already been issued.
×
×
  • Create New...