Jump to content
The Wifcon Forums and Blogs

C Culham

Members
  • Content Count

    1,318
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

0 Neutral

1 Follower

About C Culham

  • Rank
    Contributing Member

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Not Telling

Recent Profile Visitors

13,603 profile views
  1. Think CICA and not FASA. CICA is not applicable to procurements under the SAT.
  2. Joel thank you for the correction and as you note a prime can request payment for sub bonding costs, and if so paid must pay the sub the full bonding costs. The prime and the government can not "retain" any amount from payment . Here is my correction to my post - Subcontractor submits an invoice to the prime for subcontracting bonding costs. Prime sends contractor invoice to government seeking reimbursement of all bonding costs including that of the sub. Government does not retain money from the payment. Government pays prime, prime pays subcontractor.
  3. Exactly (discusses sub to sub as well). Actually 52.232-27 Actually I believe the read is this because your thinking assumes privity of contract issues. The following does not... Subcontractor submits an invoice to the prime that includes their subcontracting bonding costs. Prime sends invoice to government seeking reimbursement of all bonding costs. Government pays prime, prime pays subcontractor. Government does not retain money from the payment but the prime can, should their contract with the sub so state retain money from the sub. The sub can further retain from lower tier sub contractors if such contracts so state. Most of all either my interpretation which no doubt you will have conflict, or yours, supports 100% that a subcontractor may have bonds with the prime as the oblige and the government acknowledges same with regard to payments wherein a prime who gets paid for subcontractor bonds can take a retainage. Consider further that we are talking FFP contracts, either negotiated or bid, and in the case of the latter the government has no inkling as to how the prime priced the contract. Further support the government arranges the application of PPA in the prime contract to not interfere with a prime who decides to put ALL bonding in a certain place and request reimbursement for ALL upfront. All as well leads to the conclusion that we are talking payment processes and not your concocted rules that a prime must include sub pricing in a certain manner and therefore their request for payment processes in some certain fashion when the solicitation and resulting contract are absolutely silent on the matter of sub bonds.
  4. No sir....wanted to make sure I understood your comment completely. I understand the application of FAR Part 31 and feel a distinction between commercial, noncommercial is not present and application of cost analysis principles are not necessarily relegated to the end contract type. I too appreciate h2h's view.
  5. So if you wont make payment one could conclude that you did not allow indirect on the direct reimbursable travel because you insisted by contract (negotiated or otherwise) that indirect would not be allowed therefore you are in direct contradiction to a position that you are only looking at overall price otherwise how the heck would you know there was indirect on the travel. This said I am with Frog to the extent that there is nothing that prevents indirect on travel except the whime and negotiating position of an agency. Likewise it is false, how should I say, economics to think that for fully reimbursable travel that a contractor doesnot have 1 cent worth of indirect to accomplish the travel. Time ( to arrange the travel) is money!
  6. I guess the Prompt Payment Act is "dumb" for addressing the matter of sub bonds as they relate to payment to a prime?
  7. Fair to say then concentrating (or however one might want to state it) on the overall price and not individual elements of the costs that go into the price?
  8. What law prevents a contractor from being able to place the cost of subcontractor bonds in firm fixed construction contract pricing? None! What law prevents a contractor from being able to seek payment for such bonds when submitting a request for invoice payment on a firm fixed construction contract? None. What law prevents the government from reimbursing the contractor for such bonds in the first payment under a firm fixed construction contract? None. Circular only because you want to imply that such laws do exist. Such laws do not exist and therefore it is not an argument about laws it is an argument about the plain language of a contract clause. The contract clause does not define bond therefore any bond for which the contractor can provide full evidence of payment to the surety.
  9. I agree. I made a recommendation based on my experience of what works best based on 15 years with the SBA as a contracting officer for the 8(a) program that is it. Your idea is better if you embrace it. To the point of ji's comment in the statutorily allowed world of a sole source 8(a) I too would not worry about FAR Part 15, 10 etc. I might be oversimplifying but essentially there is not limitation to what is possible with regard to determining the best of the 8(a) firms using a specific strategy because if it is not prohibited in FAR subpart 19.8 as a method of independent review of firms the strategy is a permissible exercise of authority.
  10. The contract! Not true. "Must" depends on the contract terms. And as such your statement that "the contractor can’t request reimbursement for subcontractor bond costs under paragraph 5(g)." is also not true unless the contract so says. You did not and do not know what the contract says. GSBCA with regard to bond costs that included both prime and subcontractor bond costs has unequivocally stated that "In the absence of a bidding schedule for a fixed-price contract that contains specific language requiring bidders to include actual bond costs in their bids, [Foot # 3 ] the Payments clause included in appellant's fixed-price contracts does not limit the contractor's right to receive the entire contract price, even if its actual bond premiums incurred after contract award are less than those estimated during the bidding process. "
  11. You can reject the firm the SBA offers you. Appeal of such a rejection is an agency head to SBA administrator matter. I suspect these days such an appeal by SBA would be rare especially based on sound reasoning. Reference FAR 19.810.
  12. I would agree that an "Industry Day" is not prohibited. I do have some thoughts to consider. Why an industry day? Why not just reach out to the contractors on an individual basis to learn of the capabilities. This independent review is allowed (and I might add encouraged) (REF. 19.804(1)(e). Remember 8(a) works like this. An agency offers the project to the 8(a) program and can, but does not have to offer in the name of a particular firm. Once accepted as an 8(a) project by SBA they do not have to provide the project to the suggested firm. While most of the time they will, if for some reason the match can not be made as suggested by the agency, SBA can select another firm for the project. In noting the process, limiting yourself might leave out some firms that will demand your independent effort beyond the industry day at some point. To this point I would be asking the SBA office something like this now - If you can not match my project with my selected firm (or the firms you know about) who will be in the mix otherwise? Doing this outreach is encouraged by Departmental 8(a) Partnership Agreements where in it is stated that - "...where appropriate, identify in conjunction with the appropriate SBA servicing office, 8(a) Participants capable of performing these requirements..." Many times if the local district does not have capable firms (remember capable from SBA's view is that they are compliant with program rules, have their appropriate competitive mix accomplished and so on) they will extend the search and match with firms in adjacent districts. All in all what I am promoting is doing independent review of firms as opposed to industry day. I know it takes more work but my personal view is the one on one with firms will allow for a more productive review where a review done in a more public eye firms might be reserved, and the government as well, in asking some very searching questions.
×
×
  • Create New...