Jump to content
The Wifcon Forums and Blogs

C Culham

Members
  • Content count

    772
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by C Culham

  1. SF 1449 Block 29

    Here is another discussion thread that is not completely on point but does discuss quotes versus firm offers. It might help.....
  2. Every time I read this discussion thread relating to tj’s questions I have talked myself out of posting except for this time. These are the facts per the posts by tj. - Order against a GSA OASIS contract (large business). Not a T&M order. Performance Based Work Statement. These are tj’s questions along with my response– Q. Can I ask contractor to bill the government based on actual hours worked? The payment clause of the parent OASIS contract must be considered. Pursuant to the OASIS Contract at Clause 552.232-1 Payments (Deviation) Para. (a) it is stated that a contractor does not have to invoice, but that the Government must pay at the end of a service period. Unless tj changed this requirement in the specific order tj could “ask” the contractor to “bill” tj with the mentioned detail but the contractor does not have to comply. I agree if other terms and conditions in contract ask for the detail on hour usage that it would need to be provided but not necessarily as an invoice/bill. How shall COR monitor this contract? Monitoring should follow the metrics, measures, and/or plan (QASP) dictated in the PWS/SOW . If none are stated I highly suggest that the Government determine what their quality control monitoring will include so that the contractor can fashion their quality control plan to, at a minimum, monitor the same elements of work. Measuring the what of contract performance can be changed at any time. I know some criticize Performance Based Acquisition but its concept is a fact of life as well as its use in any form even if by name only. I suggest tj visit the following website to help on the monitoring aspect especially as discussed at Steps 5 and 7. https://www.acquisition.gov/seven_steps/step5.html Q. If the contractor proposed 10 personnel monthly for certain hours, but they only provide 9 people and less hours than they proposed, Are we (government) still pay the proposed monthly price? A. Other responses have already addressed this and hopefully my above responses help add details for consideration.
  3. With regard to the FAR consider going beyond to your agency supplement to the FAR and even your agency policy as you may have language that you did or should have included in your solicitation requiring such notification. By example for the Agency of International Development at AIDAR 752.204.70 such a requirement exists. Beginner hint - Go to your favorite FAR website that includes all agency supplements and search on "key personnel" you might find what you are looking for and you might not.
  4. Vern and ji – Have you gone too fast? I say this wondering a GSA what – GWAC or a multiple award schedule. If a GWAC order the ability to protest narrows to certain things and as such the letter may want to so state to help educate the contractor. Likewise and while your approach does most likely apply, left unasked is what the value of the need was as I could see the contractor being dazed, confused and upset (yet not in a position to have a protest sustained) if the need was over the micro-purchase threshold yet under the SAT where one has the ability to simply contact 3 contractors to get pricing and from there move to a purchase without issuing an RFQ. Overall, I am just a little concerned that all the facts are not known because requesting a contractors market pricing quote for a GSA buy seems a little strange to me when one can simply look at their pricing by reviewing their schedule contract. Sometimes the simple is more complicated!
  5. IDIQ Decision

    Admittedly I did not read all of the referenced documents in this thread word for word but in a scan one thing it appears not discussed is that many agencies have instituted cut-off dates way before the end of the fiscal year. I too remember the day of hurry up to beat midnight on either June 30 and then Sept 30 but now the hurry up is sooner. One but not the perfect example I found this in my search. Many agencies demand similar dates so that all end of FY obligations occur in early September or even August. The example here suggests the same ideal while not coming out and saying it. Noted, and I may be too cynical, but a SAP that is open market has to be in to acquisition 6 months ahead of the end of a FY? Oh the tangled web that the acquisition community has made for itself! https://www.va.gov/officeofacquisitionoperations/customers/cutoffDates.asp
  6. Joel and ji - I do not disagree about asking the agency about the requirement nor the fact that payrolls in any format are required to be provided. There is much written about SUBMISSION of e-formatted payrolls inclusive of allowance of the Copeland Act of e-signature. But all relates to SUBMISSION not the fact that the Government should have ACCESS remotely to the system which the OP provided clause requires. Whole different matter in my view. And yes SSN is required Joel, the WH-347 which a e-payrolling system is suppose to duplicate in information provided. Last 4 digits of the SSN at least. I won't research if providing partial SSN is PPI but I for one do not go around handing out the last four of my SSN to anyone that asks. I do disagree with a complete brush off ("get a life", "please ask...") as every response in this forum could be "please contact the agency" but as noted in this particular case like many others it appears to me that the OP has posed a question to get thoughts to determine if the correct strategy is to ask the agency or simply comply.
  7. My thoughts may not be as significant as Don's but in reading the clause I found it interesting there was no requirement for IT security issues as they relate to a system that the Government requests access to as well as protections with regard to that access where electronic access includes protected personal information (PPI). Makes me wonder if the "local clause" requirement has be vetted with other entities within the Federal organization that would have an interest in knowing that such a system is being requested and is to allow direct "access" by the government via the internet. Additionally, if I were a contractor I would be asking (maybe even demanding) for the "who" from the Government that will be accessing such information via the internet as the controls for such a system would seem to be important to all parties to the contract (subcontractors included).
  8. A different look….. The question you have raised would possibly relate to the “responsibility” of the contractor to perform the work. Adding in the mention of “small business” suggests the solicitation/contract was seta-side for small business. As such a Certificate of Competency (COC) is thrown in the mix. References - both FAR Part 9.1 regarding responsibility and FAR 19.6 regarding COC. The matter is whether or not the firm has “the necessary organization, experience, accounting and operational controls, and technical skills, or the ability to obtain them” to perform the work. However as your original post suggests a contract has been awarded which constitutes a CO’s affirmative determination of responsibility. Protesting a CO’s affirmative determination of responsibility and having GAO sustain such a protest is rare. Reference GAO protest regulations at 4 CFR 21.5(c) as well as go here and read protest decisions related to FAR 9.1 and FAR 19.6 http://www.wifcon.com/pdbyfar.htm A realistic view is that it is a done deal and move on…..
  9. Waiver of Amounts Due the Government

    Beyond the wisdom stated by Don and the logic of ji I say No (maybe). Reasoning – The NAVSEA clause appears to be a policy rather than a regulation as I could not find a FAR supplement that authorizes it’s use. I will be honest my research was limited. As such if NAVSEA did not seek a deviation from FAR subpart 32.6 for the waiver clause as such it seems in conflict with regulation. Here I note that in another part of the FAR a waiver of an amount due the government (liquidated damages) from a contractor is left to a higher authority and not the CO (FAR 11.501). Interesting to me in my research is that on one hand NAVSEA is waiving the amount but on the other hand complies in the few solicitations I reviewed with FAR 32.6 and includes FAR Clause 52.232-17 in solicitations. Beyond the FAR I could find no other discussion (GAO Redbook) about a CO’s authority of waive contract amounts due the government, but again it was limited research on my part. Confusing wisdom and logic yet innovative application of the FAR in Dec 1995.
  10. Davis Bacon Wage Determination For Non Construction

    I find this statement by the OP to be very interesting so posting for thoughts. The contractor is ultimately responsible for determining whether SCA or DB is applicable to the work. The Government attempts to do its best to classify the work for application of either SCA or DB or both. So my question is - So if the contractor truly asked for the DB determination why debate application as the contractor thinks it applies, has requested so why not give the determination and call it good? Question asked noting that the responding posts do give the OP some valuable information but still..........
  11. Napolik - Sorry for the no response on my part. I am busy during the day and it prevented me from responding. Thanks Don for carrying the torch.
  12. Is there a reason this paragraph of 13 CFR 121.404 was not quoted? 121.404 (a) SBA determines the size status of a concern, including its affiliates, as of the date the concern submits a written self-certification that it is small to the procuring activity as part of its initial offer (or other formal response to a solicitation), which includes price. Determination is not only based on date of initial offer, that includes price, but the fact that the offeror has provided a written self certification as well.
  13. I have no experience so not aware of any issues from a hands on view but I do have some thoughts. I am almost there with regard to it being market research but ......... Is the "free" really free. By my experience free trials with regard to the Cloud in many cases imply some kind of monetary connection. Something like you get $300 in value in using the trial or get $500 in credit if you extend the trial to a full subscription. So is the latter case especially it seems a exchange of a promise that involves value. Does not fit the FAR definition of a contract but still has an uneasy feeling. Add on the Competition in Contracting Act ideals and you may have some effort ahead of you to ensure that you are not giving one firm a leg up over another (offer all you might review or contact in market research an opportunity to let you try their product for free?) if you decide to go to a competition to get your need. If the idea for the trial is to check out an entity before acquiring on a single or sole source basis then that is a different matter. Hope these thoughts help.
  14. I don't know it may too early in the morning (ps - I do not drink coffee) but in reading in this thread I came to the quick conclusion that you do not want a "team" you want a "sub" agreement. No intent to get into a big discussion about the differences, definitions, etc. but for me in the practical view "team" is some how absent from the intent of what you want in this particular arrangement.
  15. So just thinking out loud….. You have not specified if the original contract had one CLIN in a lump sum or multiple CLINS for the different elements of the service. Just noting but I am not sure it matters with regard to how I see this. Also not sure if you are asking as the prime, the sub or the Government, again for me it probably does not matter but for others it might. You ask – Questioning after the fact if you are the prime does not make any sense if the work was already agreed to and added. If you are the Government sure it is okay to question the costs your prime and its sub incurred as to allowable and allocable. You also ask – Not for me. It was simply a renegotiation of the fixed price. It seems your question revolves around the fact of a prime allowing a sub to change its contract pricing during contract performance and the need to have a specific clause to do so. Contract terms and conditions are in a contract to help address unanticipated issues that might occur (need to direct a change in contract, differing site condition, increase in DOL wage rates, etc.) and/or to give direction to a contractor on how to deal with a particular matter (EEO, cooperation with other contractors, using GFP, etc.). However it is my view, that I believe is supported by courts, with regard to any contract arrangement whether between private entities or in the Government that the contract can be changed without the need of a specific term or condition to allow if both parties agree the change is necessary. In Government contracting there are issues of scope etc. that may come into play but not sure scope matters in private industry.
  16. Court Order and the FAR

    (Posted after ji but have a little different spin on something I put together so posted anyways.....) The agency incurs the obligation, unless it wants to ignore the court order. Not sure what you mean by agreement but I envision this…. Court Order issued Agency then finds needed commercial entity or goes to the specific entity the Court Order stipulates Agency then uses the commercial credit card or PO to pay for the services. Single source determination or sole source justification to support as appropriate.
  17. Bob – Joel caught the essence of my thought. At least for the civilian side of things there was this vision captured from a 2007 OFPP memo - “Contracting Officer Technical Representatives (COTRs) perform critical acquisition and technical functions, and Contracting Officers rely on them to ensure that contracts are managed properly to meet mission needs.” that ramped up a supposed emphasis in creating COR’s that would be an “agent of their PM”. By experience in some cases the COR isn’t even from the program area whatsoever just a person that was head hunted because they had the necessary certification. I am not damning the whole as some agencies have associated certification and functional program requirements especially for construction, like the USACE or Forest Service but for others getting someone COR certification is like, well making them get a new system password every 90 days. Just a have to do instead of want to do to make them an agent for successful contract outcome. I see Vern’s suggestion of embedding CO’s with the program area as an alternative to a COR certification program whose intended goal has fallen short.
  18. Vern's idea sounds almost like a full implementation of the current half a** implementation of a system of COR certification. And a sensible full implementation ideal in my view and wish it would happen!
  19. Advice for New Professionals

    As a follow-on to Joel's comments as they relate to WIFCON. Read all the posts in the following Forum subject area as I think you will gain insight on how to utilize the Forum area of WIFCON to its greatest advantage. http://www.wifcon.com/discussion/index.php?/forum/15-before-you-register-before-you-post/
  20. GSA CTAs

    I get GSA's position and the fact of a relationship needing to be with two GSA FSS contractors but it seems that the protest decision depends on specific language in the RFQ, the CBCA case seems to be saying "may" not "shall" (if such a quickly stated view makes sense). When I looked at FAR (subpart 9.6), the GSAR which does not supplement 9.6 and a couple of GSA FSS solicitations, like the OP I cannot find something that specifically supports that the teaming arrangement must the privity implied by the FAQ. FAR 9.603 says this - The Government will recognize the integrity and validity of contractor team arrangements; provided, the arrangements are identified and company relationships are fully disclosed in an offer or, for arrangements entered into after submission of an offer, before the arrangement becomes effective. The Government will not normally require or encourage the dissolution of contractor team arrangements. In the end the OP has to play the game yet I agree GSA policy is not clear and seems to be a position that is not substantiated in contractual terms and conditions. I guess if I was the one "audited" I would ask for a more creditable reference than a FAQ.
  21. GSA CTAs

    This may be the basis for GSA's position......but it seems the that what the actual teaming arrangement says that would dictate in each case. After all FAR subpart 9.6 provides that teaming arrangements can also be a JV or partnership. http://www.cbca.gsa.gov/files/decisions/2007/STERN_04-19-2007_411__KEY_FEDERAL_FINANCE_508.pdf
  22. IAD – You seem to have disappeared. Following is a general response to your question that clarifies my vague question I posed. There are several considerations to make with regard to the situation you have stated but lots of additional details would help. Noting this the following is general thoughts regarding the situation. First, you have stated that your original contract had one shift of 8 hours, it was changed to 2 shifts of 8 hours and now another shift of 8 hours is being requested. If the new shift is just a change in hours to an existing shift is one possibility (still only 2 shifts) or the addition of a completely new shift is another (now three shifts). You have not clarified but either way if the change results in additional costs in performance to your company you may be entitled to an equitable adjustment in contract price. With regard to SCA. It sounds like the CO has questioned the DOL regarding shift rates. Generally speaking shift rates are not contained in SCA wage determinations. So generally speaking when employees work the exact same position during what I will call regular hours or work the night shift the same hourly wage and fringe benefit stipulated in the wage determination for regular hours is paid for the night shift. One exception is if there is a collective bargaining agreement applicable to the contract work, if so a shift rate might be in existence and the wage for a regular hour person might be different than that of a night shift worker. Another exception could be contained in the specific wage determination itself, by example air traffic controllers get shift pay. The overall caution here is that while the CO might advise on what DOL has said, you as the contractor has the ultimate responsibility for compliance with SCA. Noting this if I were in your shoes I would contact the DOL to confirm their view of your specific situation. You should also read the full SCA wage determination or collective bargaining agreement yourself to confirm if it does or does not address shift rates for the type of service you are providing. Should there be a required shift rate that results in additional costs to your performance of the work you may be entitled to an adjustment in contract price if contract clause 52.222-44 is in your contract. This clause covers how you are to request the adjustment if the additional costs in performance are directly related to a required shift rate payment. The change. If there is no required shift rate the change in hours could be “ordered” by the CO but only if a FAR clause in the 52.243-XX “Changes” series is in your contract. In such a case the clause covers how you are to request the equitable adjustment regarding any increase in costs you may have in complying with the change. If your contract is a Commercial Item contract (See FAR Part 12) the allowance to change the contract hours is contained in clause 52.212-4 at the paragraph entitled “Changes”. The FAR boilerplate version of this clause prevents the CO from “ordering” the change but rather requires written agreement of both the CO and the contractor before the change can take place. Be aware the CO could have changed this clause and if so it would be so noted in the contract. In this latter case and if the boilerplate clause and paragraph regarding “Changes” was used is where you would support that the change in hours results in additional costs in performance to which you would seek an equitable adjustment for the change before agreeing to the change. Overall the change in hours and possible increase in costs of performance and your allowance to claim either an “adjustment” or an “equitable adjustment” in contract price hinges both on what the FAR contract clause in your contract regarding SCA states (specifically if FAR Clause 52.222-44 is in your contract) and the change itself whether requested for your agreement (commercial item contract) or demanded (change order for a non-commercial item contract) by the CO results in increase costs of performance.
  23. Just to make sure is there a collective bargining agreement in place?
  24. How about consideration also be given to FAR 19.806 and 19.808 along with the FAR Part 31 references already provided. Even consider FAR 15.4 which 19.806 tells you to consider. Yes I know all do not give a specific answer to your questions per say but think about the principles behind what 19.806 and FAR 15.4 says. Such as - What about cost or pricing data certification? Are you going to request audit assistance? What do you believe is a FAIR MARKET PRICE for the work? In 8(a) it is NOT fair and reasonable price. Do you know what is common for the specific construction industry related to your specific work that would make you want to question the number? By example what did your IGE use? There are so many other questions I will stop here and while I do not necessarily totally disagree with what has been posted so far in this thread the responses do not in my view touch the whole of quality answers to your questions. There is a significant lack of additional questions, responses to those questions and other information that would be of value to your questions. Like already mentioned and more - are you doing price analysis, cost analysis or ? and have you read FAR 15.405? I am probably in trouble now so I will just sign off and let it go at that!
  25. Kickstarter and the GCPC

    FAR - Thank you for the references. Interesting read inclusive of "Other Transactions” (OT) Guide for Prototype Projects, (OASD AT&L, August 2002)" which is stated to be the most current guidance regarding OTs. A complex mix of an "agreement" that is not considered a grant or cooperative agreement and an acquisition that is not a "procurement" subject to the FAR. In a quick read of both the linkedin discussion and the Guide your above quote especially rings true. Noting a question in this thread by Matthew Fleharty it would appear that a Government purchase card could be used but by my read there would be the need for a supporting "agreement". I am of the conclusion that for the example used ins this thread, an expenditure of $3,500 or less, that the effort to comply with the whole of the OT Guide would be very exhausting. Also I would add that if OT would fit most if not all of us would have trouble releasing ourselves from the FAR principles which again would not apply. Heck the Guide even provides mention of some that are terms at least borrowed from the FAR such as market research, competition, advance payments, etc. and I might add FAR you even go back and forth in trying to figure where something like Kickstarter really lands. More shoehorning? Learning and adapting the new ways is a must but trying to separate from the old ways when doing seems to be hang-up! PS - To Joel - Like any transaction to which the Federal government enters into with a commercial source, yeah maybe but it depends on the situation. Dodge of your question I do not think so as sometimes something makes economic and administrative sense and sometimes it does not.
×