Jump to content


  • Posts

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by Regor

  1. I feel the most overlooked FAR reference is the very next line which is: (d) The period may extend beyond the contract completion date for service contracts. This is necessary for situations when exercise of option would result in the obligation of funds that are not available in the fiscal year in which the contract would otherwise be completed. That not really contradicts but defeats the intent of (c) but is required with fiscal year service contracts. So many exercise options contingent on availability of funds which to me is an invalid exercise. How can you unequivocally exercise an option that is based on a future event (the availability of funds).
  2. That is the PoP of Option 2 and does not relate to the exercise of the option. It all depends on what the fill in for the -9 says. If just numbers are entered, i.e. 30 for first fill-in and 60 for second, and as long as the required preliminary notice is given, the option exercise should be valid. The courts have ruled that "within" means prior to (don't have the case off top of my head to site it) when ruling on option exercises under -9 clause. What I don't know is if the intended result which is to access the ceiling provided by Option 2 is effective at exercise or aligns with the PoP. I haven't done CR type contracts in over 15 years and lots has changed since then but I don't see a problem with exercising it up to a year early provided the notices are timely per the -9.
  3. That experience will not get you a GS-12 in current AF. I don't think if it will even get GS-11. SAT warrant, Level I. There is a reason they dangle that Level II at you to re-enlist. I think at best you would need to find someone willing to do a 7-9-11 Developmental.
  4. i would add that pieces could be built off site and if later assembled into real property it defiitely is all considered "construction" and subject to FAR 36. But in my case it is personal property and not real property so it is not relevant in this particular instance.
  5. Thank you Vern. That is a well thought out and complete breakdown of real property.
  6. This is what we came up with as well. To answer the questions people had, in no particular order, we are DoD and treat it like Joel said, personal property. The modular building is used as a supply wharehouse. it is treated by civil engineering as personal property and they won't touch it, (even though it is assigned a builiding number). To the person who replied that I should read his post, I did, and this work is not a repair of real property or public facility; it is classified as personal property as I said. The modular trailer was bought about 12 years ago under GSA contract. Guess it was a way to beat the system by obtaining warehouse space w/o real property. In retrospect it probably wasn't proper at the time but someone probably won an award for it or at least was a bullet on their performance report. Turns out the IGE was way off and not that much labor was really involved. Had to run new refrigerant lines but electrical was already there and sheet metal was really not needed as they just needed to hook up to exisiting ducts. Was done as supply w/installation. Local HVAC firms, same ones that would work on your home systems, were the potential sources. Since it's now below $25K, we're just getting local SBs to provide lump sum quote to provide and install. Thanks for the responses. My main concern was the construction aspect and D-B applicability. Even though the engineers classified as personal property, I wasn't convinnced that it still wasn't construction as the engineers are quick to make any determination that reduces their involvment or amount of effort on their part. The IGE was based on someone in engineering using RS Means but wasn't really appropriate for the actual requirements based on configuration. So, it is not awarded yet, but the way ahead is very simple.
  7. Why would Daviss Bacon apply if it is not considered construction?
  8. Split A/C system where there is a blower (air handler) and a condensing unit, much like in a residential home. The work requires 75' of freon lines, 240V electric, and connection to ductwork.
  9. Not on property records. Not maintained by CE. No foundation. Think mobile home but bigger. CE won't touch as they say it's an equipment item.
  10. Here is on of my favorites. Really gives good insight. Tell me/us about a time you made a decision and it turned out that it was the wrong decision. I like the insight and want to see the thought process that went into making that decision. I see too many people that are afraid to make decisions and its something we do constantly. You can see if they have sound decision making skills or if they make snap decisions without enough facts or wait for someone else to make the decision for them.
  11. Just looking for how others are handling. There is a storage facility that apparently was bought as equipment and was not a construction. Haven't seen it but it must be pretty decent size. A/C went out. There are 3 each 5 -ton systems with separate air handlers and condensing units. Same type of units in your average home. However, since the engineers don't have it on their real property books, they won't touch it. Gov't estimate comes is aroung $30K with price of 3 units abot $15K and the rest labor. Labor requires fiitting to existing ductwork, electrical disconnects, approximately 75' of refrigerant lines. Because the HVAC units are not going in real property, are you buying this as a commodity with incidental installation even if it require trademan such as plumbers, electrician and HVAC techs to do the install?
  12. Good questions. First off, I despise BPAs. That said, they are just agreements and not contracts. You do not need to advertise for establishment which you noted. I guess they jsut want you to do that to increase number of responses so you'll have more to choose from? Seems like its getting away from the intent of the BPA in the first place but that's my opinion. When it comes time to make purchases of items that BPA holders would provide, that's when you need to determine what you have to comply with as far as competition and advertising. Just because you advertised your desire to establish BPAs does not mean you do not have to advertise a purchase of $40K. The BPA is just another form of making the purchase. Are you sure the BPA is the best instrument? Can only guess as to rotating. We used BPA's for office supplies back before GPC. Allowed for many purchases and just receive one bill a month. All were small dollar and rotating spread the business out amoung qualified local sources. Kept them interested and made everyone happy. Of course most purchaes were just a couple hundered $$ and that was eons ago. WIth the GPC I really don't see need for them stateside. Without knowing what you're buying and how much spending, frequency, it's hard to offer an opion and even if I could, the only one that matters is the CO signing the award. FAR is flexible and many ways to skin the cat. Is the BPA the best for your instance?
  13. Yep, got numbers reversed in second paragraph. Point still stands in first paragraph.
  14. I thought it was about invoicing as the OP said it was TO against MACC. I figured that MACC would be competitive so bonds were included in total price. But I'm not working in construction and haven't in a while but when I did, we never asked for nor received a detailed breakout. Our award decision was based on current performance and price so we never saw the bonds, just in payments. When they invoiced for bonds, we took total price, subtracted bonds to establish progreess payment percentage base. I guess I just didn't see a reason to evaluate bond costs separately on a MACC TO. My mistake.
  15. I say no to adding G&A and/or profit to bonds cost. It's based on para g of 52.232-5, Payments under Fixed-Price Construction Contracts (Sept 2002) which says, Gov't shall reimburse the amount of premiums paid. (g) Reimbursement for bond premiums. In making these progress payments, the Government shall, upon request, reimburse the Contractor for the amount of premiums paid for performance and payment bonds (including coinsurance and reinsurance agreements, when applicable) after the Contractor has furnished evidence of full payment to the surety. The retainage provisions in paragraph (e) of this clause shall not apply to that portion of progress payments attributable to bond premiums. I don't currently do construction contracts but when I did, we told them how to submit their invoices. We paid for bonds separately and subtracted that from total contract amount to determine base for percent of completion progress payments.
  16. In order for options to be exercised unilaterally, the one with the authority to exercise, must do so with strict compliance of the terms spelled out in the contract. Your option CLINS will have a period of performance associated with tehm, do they not? How do you change that PoP to a reduced amount after exercising the -8 option? Also, you have filled in both clauses saying that you will exercise 30 days prior to contract expiration. How can you meet the 30 days prior to contract expiration requirement for both (unless your "contract expiration" is deemed to include the options I guess you could make that argument)? I've done a lot of research on options over the years as they have always bugged me but this is one scenario I have never come accross or even considered. We in AF are instructed to not use -9 unless it is the result of protest or delay in awarding follow-on. Someone posted a case where courts ruled that not to be the precedent, but it is what our HQ has instructed for us to follow so we do.
  17. The clause 52.217-9, Option to Extend the Term of the Contract at paragraph c should only reflect options under that clause, not under Option to Extend Services. How is it that you have 52.217-9 with a fill in of 6 months but no option CLINs? How were the options evaluated at the time of award? Sounds to me like there was an error in the fill-in. Some people include the 6 month extension under 52.217-8 in the fill-in for 217-9 even though in 52.217-9 it clearly says "The total duration of this contract, including the exercise of any options under this clause. Sounds like you may not even have any option available.
  18. Good catch Vern. I'm not the CO nor the buyer, just a Policy guy. I was combining a few issues. The flight surgeon was something else (ethics related). These positions are indeed SCA positions vs. medical professional. @TAP, no we are not encouragning them to submit proposals that are in excess of SCA WD. The base rate is used to evaluate their capability to fill the position. Current market analysis shows that they should be able to fill at the SCA rate. The reason it is there is that in the past, they have had issues where current market rate was much greater than prevailing WD rate. If the contractor doesn't do their own research and just proposes w/o even checking local rates, they could be severely under-proposing and not have a realistic chance at filling the position at proposed rates. Roger
  19. The contractors propose both a base rate and fully burdened rate so we can see the base rate escalate for the option years. They propose both so that we can evaluate the liklihood they have to fill the position. For instance, if the SCA states $17+ fringes and ktr proposes $17+ fringes but your market research shows going rate of $25+ fringes in your local area, the lower rate is not likely to get the position filled. The ktr also has a fill rate % based on their historical fill rate under the contract. Since these are brand new contracts, there is no historical fill or past performance. Since all multiple award contract holders are even under the new contract, the only discerning factor right now is price. Regarding asking for revised proposals, I just got clarification from buyer and it's not that we can't ask for revised, it's time based. As usual, the hospital didn't forecast for the retirement of their flight surgeon and we can't operate without one so any slip here will negatively impact base mission.
  20. Medical commodity council contracts. We are placing TO's for various SCA contract positions in hospital. Of course, 52.222-43 requires contractors to no price in any contingency for wage or fringe increases that would be covered by 52.222-43. Specifically, para b of 52.222-43 says, " The Contractor warrants that the prices in this contract do not include any allowance for any contingency to cover increased costs for which adjustment is provided under this clause." The contractors all propose a base rate and fully burdeoned rate. The fully burdoned rate is multiplied by NTE hours for each CLIN. This gives you an evaluated price for each year. Well, because the have to propose a base rate (which is used in conjunction with your market research to assess lieklihood of filling position at proposed rate?) in addition to the fully burednod hourly rate, we can see that they included an increase which violates 52.222-43. There is no provision for the ordering CO to request or allow the vendor to modify their proposal. Normally you would think that if they escallated and no one else did, it would sort itself out because the evaluated price would potentially be higher based on inclusion of escallation where others don't. However, this is not the case. So the question is, if a contractor includes escallation for a SCA covered position, how is the proposal handled? Is it responsive if they clearly violate 52.222-43( which is included in the basic contract? Or would you evaluate it as submitted but deny any EA as a result of increases in option years if the WD increases on the basis of they already included contingencies for it in their proposal? Remember, we cannot ask the contractor to revise their proposal. I've searched and cannot find anything.
  • Create New...