Jump to content
The Wifcon Forums and Blogs

C Culham

  • Content count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Posts posted by C Culham

  1. Let’s start here.   Have you read FAR part 32?    To add context take a look at the DFARS supplement part 232that drills down further to incrementally funded contracts.  Does your agency have a FAR supplement that does the same?   Finally read the terms and conditions of the specific GSA FSS contract that the order will be placed against and if not addressed do you believe you can add further terms and conditions to the order to allow for the incremental funding.   If this effort does not answer your questions, if not why not?

  2. Maybe PhilBail has this but another source document is the DCMA Guidebook for CPSR found here....http://www.dcma.mil/Portals/31/Documents/CPSR/CPSR_Guidebook_011817.pdf

    Appendix 12 of this document may be of help.

    To the latest question raised by PhilBail the pertinent question that needs to be supported as to whether the seeking of pricing in the example is a  "competition" is whether the distributors provided pricing by "competing independently".   

  3. Well dang it I thought this new provision provided an opportunity with regard to this discussion (referenced below)  and then I read closely and lo and behold not yet!   Why?   Well to my amazement  the provision has added a new definition to commercial item acquisition that  appears to have left Kickstarter by the wayside.   And really "Commercial Product" now means a COTS item that is not a service?  Too bad Kickstarter not yet and come on bill writers try using familiar and already defined words and quit inventing new ones!   


    COMMERCIAL PRODUCT.The term ‘‘com-

    8 mercial product’’ means a commercially available off-

    9 the-shelf item, as defined in section 104 of title 41,

    10 United States Code, except the term does not in-

    11 clude services.


  4. 17 hours ago, ContractingPeoplesHatred said:

    Is their a FAR or DFARS requirement that invoicing must be tracked in this manner?

    There is not a FAR/DFAR requirement as noted by others in the thread but the FAR does provide the following guidance (see below).   Noting the FAR wording it is not a requirement but again guidance.   Within the same subsection of the FAR the guidance provides that there can be cross reference in the “Contracting Office contract file”  to documents filed elsewhere.   As noted in this thread the move to electronic payment tools and databases has probably replaced the need for your office (aka the Contracting Office) to follow "just how we have always done it” and to make a simple cross reference to where the detail on payments is now stored (“contract paying office”) which would meet the guidance intention.  I say this noting that it would be hoped that your agency’s payment system documentation requires retention of the payment information consistent with the retention of contract records after completion and final payment is made for a contract.   See FAR 4.805 for the guidance on retention. 

    Armed with this basic information and a little more detail research effort on your part in researching your agency FAR supplements and policy on contract records you might consider proposing an alternative to the spreadsheet which appears to be duplicative effort.  

    4.803 -- Contents of Contract Files.

    The following are examples of the records normally contained, if applicable, in contract files:……

     (c)Paying office contract file.

    (1) Copy of the contract and any modifications.

    (2) Bills, invoices, vouchers, and supporting documents.

    (3) Record of payments or receipts.

    (4) Other pertinent documents”

  5. 17 hours ago, Sabrina Barnes said:

    Can two entities be at the same address and use the same CAGE CODE?

    Found the below....looks like a conversation with the company will help sort out what is going on, recommend you call them.

    PGI 204.1870-2  Maintenance of the CAGE file.

    The following information and procedures are provided to assist contracting officers.

          (a)  Assignment of CAGE codes for entities located in the United States or its outlying areas.

                  (1)  CAGE codes are assigned per legal entity at individual physical addresses (i.e., the same entity at the same physical address will not be assigned two or more CAGE codes). The only exception to this rule is when an entity has a registration in the SAM with multiple EFT addresses identified by multiple DUNS+4 numbers. In this case, each DUNS+4 number record is assigned a separate CAGE code to assist in correct processing of payments.


  6. This suggests that you would check with regard to some specific contract actions......

    FAR 9.405-1  Continuation of current contracts.

    (a) Notwithstanding the debarment, suspension, or proposed debarment of a contractor, agencies may continue contracts or subcontracts in existence at the time the contractor was debarred, suspended, or proposed for debarment unless the agency head directs otherwise. A decision as to the type of termination action, if any, to be taken should be made only after review by agency contracting and technical personnel and by counsel to ensure the propriety of the proposed action.

    (b) For contractors debarred, suspended, or proposed for debarment, unless the agency head makes a written determination of the compelling reasons for doing so, ordering activities shall not—

    (1) Place orders exceeding the guaranteed minimum under indefinite quantity contracts;

    (2) Place orders under Federal Supply Schedule contracts, blanket purchase agreements, or basic ordering agreements; or

    (3) Add new work, exercise options, or otherwise extend the duration of current contracts or orders.


  7. So, Sal I suggest that you call the CO and ask…….

    Are you not paying my invoice because you (the CO) have not completed the paperwork and process to obligate the money in “the system” that would allow payment and that you (the CO) will pay my invoice when you (the CO) have completed that process or is there another reason you (the CO) are not paying? 

    Like Vern says if there is not another reason then don’t sweat it, if there is another reason then you will know what to do.


    On ‎10‎/‎30‎/‎2017 at 6:52 AM, lotus said:

    After award of the IDIQ, how would the SCA rules apply if the Gov't wants to buy labor in Manhattan?

    Remember a contractor is responsible for compliance with SCA.  Absent a national wage determination (as noted in this thread), and/or a wage determination for a specific location where work will be performed a contractor should ask for a wage determination for the area where the work is being requested and then verify it is the appropriate one.  

  9. With regard to the logic mention in a couple of posts - It would seem to me that the 15 CFR 700.8 should be considered......

    "Person. Any individual, corporation, partnership, association, or any other organized group of persons, or legal successor or representative thereof; or any authorized State or local government or agency thereof; and for purposes of administration of this part, includes the United States Government and any authorized foreign government or international organization or agency thereof, delegated authority as provided in this part."

    And then the logic is this read if 15 CFR 700.13.....

    The Government placed an order with a person (prime), who accepted the order and in turn placed a order with a  supplier (person), the supplier accepted the order and delivered (partially?), now the person (prime) placing the order with the supplier is unwilling  to meet regularly established terms of payment and therefore delays the delivery of further items.  The person (supplier) informs the customer (prime) of the interruption and informs the prime that the new delivery date will be when the supplier receives payment in accord with established terms of payment in the supplier contract.



  10. Fara – No expert by any means .......

    15 CFR 700.13 (c)(1)provides for optional reasons for a supplier to reject or otherwise not comply with an order  - including payment matters.  In your scenario the order has been accepted but delivery compliance is now potentially delayed.  Is the delay due to regularly established terms of  payment?  If so does not 15 CFR 700.13 (d)(3) provide direction on what the next step is?    

    This approach seems to be supported by the Q and A found on page 37 of this document discussing compliance with order.  https://www.bis.doc.gov/index.php/documents/other-areas/strategic-industries-and-economic-security/1615-dpas-training-slides/file

  11. 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? 

    1. 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.


    1. How shall COR monitor this contract? 


    1. 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.  

  12. 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.

  13. 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!

  14. 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!



  15. 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.


    15 hours ago, mccmark said:

    You've given me some good statutory authority to push back if we decide to.

    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.

  16. 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). 

  17. 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…..

  18. 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.

  19. 19 hours ago, thecontractingguy said:

    I have a vendor asking for the Davis Bacon wage rates

    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..........