Jump to content

C Culham

Members
  • Posts

    2,929
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by C Culham

  1. I will buy in but I do wonder, does not like to or does not know how to?
  2. Generally but an important fact is missing. What does the COR delegation letter say?
  3. Assumption? Usually, as experienced by all the blocks I have been involved in, there is a prefunction cut-off, discussion with facility and an anticipated occupancy conclusion and if the percent was reached. By my reality the deed has not been done, but I guess I could see where can be as well. I just wonder if Don's suggestion is anticipartory breach? Are not contract terms and conditions and the associated remedies intended as best efforts to avoid such legal doctirnes? And if my thinking is right why not find a way to avoid such a situation in contract language? Just a thought we could go to great lengths in discussing but as the OP has a solution seems a dragged out discussion would be moot? As an aside I had this thought to bolster my thought of why a "attrition" benchmark as the OP calls it. In this day and age when I make my individual hotel reservation more times than not the best rate I can get is based on "nonrefundable".
  4. Looking from the side of the hotel I would think they might be, again by experience. Staffing plans change for hotels based on their expereinced and anticipated occupancy. As such cost of performance on their part is affected. I know we all experience looking and seeking the best rate possible on an individual basis so while one might think rates are static and consistent many times they are not again by my experience. Maybe it applies in such a service industry and maybe is does not but usually greater quantity generates less cost to a contractor.
  5. A great follow-on article by Mr. Nash and Edwards. My thoughts in reading..... By experience a visit to SAM.gov on any particular day one would see thousands of solicitations. Makes one wonder how many of those solicitations generate the same concerns of format and content? As a reader two questions occurred to me as a read the example. What was the market research prior to the issuance of the solicitation such as an RFI and/or preproposal and site visit), especially when one considers the somewhat far removed location? No doubt there was an incumbant so back to market research, was there really intent to foster competition or jsut settle that the incumbant would be it? I may have missed the answers so I apologize for my quick read if I did.
  6. While you have found an answer I am passing along some thoughts regarding your question. In the end it would seem it is a matter of negotiation. I wonder if the 80% is not provided if the hotel per room rate goes up? Personal experience not related to the government I have found that it is customary for hotels to offer a better rate if the guarantee is provided. Ability to negotiate a great rate and no guarantee is the perfect scenerio. I have accomplished in some cases and not in others. With regard to legally okay it would require some in depth GAO research (Red Book, actual cases, etc.) In a quick search I found this quote in an aged GAO decision - "in absence of valid contractual agreement between Government and hotel" - that I want to point out is not exactly on point but all the same raises something for me. For reference see https://www.gao.gov/assets/b-181266.pdf In todays world of "commercial service" if market research suggests such an agreement on "attritition rate" is customary practice one could wonder - Why not? - considering FAR part 12. I say this noting that the payment paragraph of FAR clause 52.212-4 can not be tailored. Then I think of Don's posted thought and wonder why breach, why not termination for the convenience of the government for the unused rooms below the 80% with a settlement agreement. If the below 80% is solely due to non-government personnel not coming complicates the matter a whole bunch. If the less than 80% is completely at the non-governments failure to book anticipated rooms then why not have them pay for the unused as a condition of coming/not coming to the meeting, conference, or what ever? Or even better two agreements one for the private folks and one for the government folks, who cares if doing so results in different rates for each grouping. All in all the solution of your agency is the best approach but your question did raise my interest and I felt compelled to share.
  7. FAR 42.1502(a). CPARS itself, which I understand, will ping you when an evaluation is required by the system itself based on general rules. Also there is FAR 42.1503(a)(3) where there may be agency procedures on timing as well.
  8. As noted by the FAR and the clauses previously referenced it would seem such nuances would be made for the particular contract(s).
  9. It would seem that the associated payment clauses in the T&M cover your question. For commercial service see 52.212-4 (ALT 1) which states this at (i)(i)(D) - "When requested by the Contracting Officer or the authorized representative, the Contractor shall substantiate invoices (including any subcontractor hours reimbursed at the hourly rate in the schedule) by evidence of actual payment, individual daily job timecards, records that verify the employees meet the qualifications for the labor categories specified in the contract, or other substantiation specified in the contract." (emphasis on the "or") For non-commerical service 52.232-7 at (a)(5) - "Vouchers may be submitted not more than once every two weeks, to the Contracting Officer or authorized representative. A small business concern may receive more frequent payments than every two weeks. The Contractor shall substantiate vouchers (including any subcontractor hours reimbursed at the hourly rate in the schedule) by evidence of actual payment and by- (i) Individual daily job timekeeping records; (ii) Records that verify the employees meet the qualifications for the labor categories specified in the contract; or (iii) Other substantiation approved by the Contracting Officer." (emphasis again on the "or") Conclusion - Timekeeping records are not necessarily required.
  10. Have your "peers" provided reference that substantiates what they are telling you? In light of the wording of FAR 16.601 and the provisions pursuant to FAR 16.601 that are placed in a Time and Material solicitation that address how "hourly rate" is defined for both the prime a subcontractor I suspect what you heard is not correct. Based on the wording I would think that any prime would demand that the subcontractor, no matter who they are, provide a hourly rate that the sub can prove.
  11. Keeping in mind FAR 8.405-2 which may provide for further action beyond just market research depending on the specifics of the acquisition.
  12. Just repeating.....they are different! In a post award scenario I believe that if the agency adhered to the evaluation criteria idenfifed in the RFQ GAO would not sustain the protest.
  13. I am sure this does not answer your question directly but have you seen this tool? It will at least assist in comparing rates that contractors have as their base rate. Might give an idea of what further discounts might make a contractor competitive. https://www.buy.gsa.gov/pricing/qr/mas?query_type=match_all&page=1&page_size=20&histogram=12&experience_range=0,45&price__gte=15&price__lte=500&sort=current_price
  14. Just in case, but I imagine you have, but have you done a deep dive in the "Recommended Reading" topic of this Forum? It might give you some possible ideas.
  15. Random thoughts as more details would be helpful.... By any chance is FAR 52.217-8 in the parent IDI!Q contract? If so I would think one could extend the services of OY 3 for whatever the length that is stated in the -8 clause without having to excercise OY 4. You say IDIQ. If the parent IDIQ is the basis for your question why not exercise OY 4 and just ride it out to the end? I say this as typically the parent IDIQ obligates nothing including the requirement to issue task orders during the option period because generally it is the governments unilateral right to issue a task order. Heck I might even tell the contractor what I am up to for the sake of good communication and fairness. Example - We are exercising OY 4 but our plan is that no task orders will be issued after the first month of the new option. You also say SBIR. Was it a sole source SBIR? If so then then you might even consider just modifying by mutual agreement with the contractor the last optioin period (OY 4) of the contract. Of course things like maintaining the same cost structure, fee adjustment, and a bunch of other stuff comes into play. Remember any contract can be modified by mutual agreement of the parties.
  16. Based on a cost account period that is the entites established fiscal year unless the government agrees to another annual period that is consistent with the contractors practices?
  17. Ah yes but it seems the OP is referring to contracts subject to the FAR (by example references to DCAA, government and supply schedule) but that is just my read.
  18. After all is said does not this reference basically support the discussion in this thread and answer the OP's question - FAR 31.203?
  19. Sequence for "aspect"? Remove "typical"?
  20. @DrewIn an attempt to offer clarity. My view.....and in a different order of your questions because they conflict, in my view, with each other. In. A CPSR is already determined to occur. The CPSR is not contract specific even though in your case it seems the GSA contract is driving the review. FAR 44.302 " Generally, a CPSR is not performed for a specific contract." Your company per your post receives TO's (aka contracts - FAR 2.101) that are not competitively awarded. Some are even T&M. You have not stated they are determined to be for commercial supplies/services or not. Therefore based how the TOs are being awarded I am guessing a conclusion was made by somebody that a CPSR was determined to be necessary. The TO's are not the decision point your subcontracts that support your government prime contracts (aka the TO's) are. FAR 44.303 subcontracts that support a prime contract that are "competitively awarded firm-fixed-price, competitively awarded fixed-price with economic price adjustment, or awarded for commercial supplies and commercial services pursuant to part 12." are excluded from the review. Also supported by https://www.dcma.mil/Portals/31/Documents/CPSR/CPSR_Guidebook_091021.pdf at page 85. Therefore any subcontract (including purchase orders FAR 2.101 as provided by FAR 52.244-2) that is competitively awarded FFP or FFP with EPA or is awarded for commercial supplies and services would not be included. All considered since the CPSR is of your system (P&P) and the CPSR team has some discretion in determining that the P&P is being followed. As such I suggest the team will ask you for a list of all subcontracts awarded. I also suggest they will request the subcontract information something like this - 1) That were specific to support of a Government prime contract (again the TO's), and show the type of contract awarded, and how it was awarded and whether it was a commercial contract. See page 4 of the Guide. Based on this list they will then stipulate what they want to look at. At the CPSR entrance briefing further clarification on "what" can be and should be clarified. All considered the basis for my earlier suggestion that most especially the CPSR team will guide you on what they want to see. PS - Working on this when @Neil Roberts replied and sending anyway.
  21. Thanks. The OP did not, I did, should have clarified my post. A further read notes it is an exception only available to DOD, NASA and Coast Guard as further clarity on my part. I will attempt better clarity in the future.
  22. Details out of context? Your assertion is only applicable if over the SAT by my read. FAR 13.106(a)(2)(iv)((A)(1). Has not under SAT been stipulated for this thread?
  23. A firm fixed price contract. Basis for my reasoning.... Vern Edwards April 1, 2011 "Fixed" simply means no change except by specific and express agreement on a case-by-case basis. "Price" is a stipulated amount of payment in exchange for supplies delivered and accepted or services rendered and accepted. See, e.g., FAR 52.232-1. "Rate," in the context of this discussion, is an amount of dollars per unit. By unofficial convention, the term "rate" is used in the acquisition of services when the number of units of service to be bought (usually minutes, hours, etc.) cannot be fixed in advance and the parties agree to delivery on demand and payment for units delivered. (In government contracting, the actual number that the contractor is obligated to deliver and that the government is obligated to pay for is usually capped, so as to avoid violations of the anti-deficiency act. Such caps are sometimes referred to as a "ceiling" or "ceiling price.") While a "unit price" is in fact a "rate," the terms generally are not used synonymously. "Unit price" is most commonly used in supply and construction contracts, while "rate" is generally used in service contracts. 1. If a contract provides for payment of a fixed dollar amount per unit of a fixed quantity of a unit of supply, or a unit of service, or for completion of a construction project, then we ordinarily would say that it is a "fixed-price" contract (i.e., firm-fixed-price), because both the unit price and the number of units are fixed at the outset. 2. If a contract provides for payment of a fixed dollar amount per unit of a variable quantity of a unit of supply or unit construction work (e.g., cubic yards of excavation), we ordinarily would say it is a "fixed unit price" contract. 3. If a contract provides for payment of a fixed dollar amount per unit of a variable quantity of a service, we might call it a "fixed rate" or "fixed hourly rate" (or a "time-and-materials" or "labor hour") contract. All three arrangements are loosely called "fixed price, but only No. 1 is really so. Reference -
×
×
  • Create New...