Jump to content
The Wifcon Forums and Blogs


  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

0 Neutral


About ji20874

  • Rank
    Contributing Member

Contact Methods

  • Website URL

Profile Information

  • Gender
  • Location

Recent Profile Visitors

25,105 profile views
  1. Desparado, Are you in pre-award negotiations? Or post-award? FP? CR? T&M? Commercial or non-commercial?
  2. I agree. As I recall, the GAO has told us that the FAR doesn't apply to no-cost contracts, but CICA might. Since the FAR doesn't apply, you need not use FAR-prescribed forms or clauses, and you can use any numbering scheme you want to. The contract can be signed in accordance with agency regulations, even by a non-SF1402 contracting officer.
  3. By all means, if the protester (or anyone else) knows a better way to evaluate risk for a lunar mission, they should share their thoughts with NASA -- it's their duty as patriotic citizens.
  4. Be careful -- first, ascertain how easily replaceable your firm is as a subcontractor -- you will have less or more negotiation leverage depending on how easily you can be replaced.
  5. Be careful -- you don't want to put your job or your company's subcontract at risk. Maybe a subcontractor's employees can promptly inform their subcontract program manager when they get a tasking from the prime contractor's program manager?
  6. The contracting officer may issue a unilateral change order under the contract clause at FAR 52.243-2 without allotting any additional funds at that moment. The contractor starts work on the change order upon its receipt of the change order. The contractor must assert its right to an equitable adjustment in the estimated cost, amount of fixed fee, and so forth within 30 days from its receipt of the change order. If the parties agree to an equitable adjustment that increases the estimated cost, amount of fixed fee, and so forth, after a change order concurrence, or if the parties agree to implement the change bilaterally, the parties may memorialize that agreement by bilateral modification without the Government allotting additional funds at that moment. The Limitation of Funds clause at FAR 52.232-22 still applies. You must separate the two different matters. On the one hand, the parties need to negotiate new estimated cost and fixed fee amounts for the new work of the change order. On the other hand, the Government needs to think about allotting additional funds to the contract. These two may be done separately.
  7. I think it would be perfectly reasonable to apply the contract terms as they were agreed to. If you want to stay within the contract terms, you will have to be willing to honor your agreements under the FAR 52.246-21 and 52.236-7 clauses, and you'll honor the equitable adjustments you have already agreed to/signed. I think the contract clauses we're talking about are perfectly on point and fully cover your situation. ===== If you are dealing with an inexperienced contracting officer, you might get all the money or other relief you are seeking for your errors (not understanding the contract clauses) or failures (agreeing to/signing equitable adjustments for change orders, and agreeing to release statements, and then seeking even more later, as you come to understand the contract that you bargained for). But if you are dealing with an experienced contracting officer, you might not get the same result -- an experienced contracting officer might want to honor and respect the contract and treat you with fairness (fairness means honorably and respectfully administering the contract that both parties bargained for). Best wishes in your negotiation.
  8. No. The Warranty of Construction (FAR 52.246-21) lasts for one year after final acceptance for the entire work; or for any part of the work, one year after the Government takes possession of that part. The contract completion date is irrelevant. No. The Warranty of Construction (FAR 52.246-21) starts with final acceptance of the entire work, or Government possession of a portion of the work. The substantial completion date is irrelevant.
  9. The Warranty of Construction (FAR 52.246-21) lasts for one year after final acceptance for the entire work; or for any part of the work, one year after the Government takes possession of that part. You might consider requiring the Government to accept any portion of the work that can be accepted separately. This will start your warranty clock sooner rather than later for that portion of the work. See the last paragraph of FAR 52.246-12. Or, in your negotiation of equitable adjustments for change orders, you might consider insisting on a statement addressing your warranty liability. Change orders don't give time extensions (see para. (a) of FAR 52.243-5) -- the contractor doesn't get a time extension unless it asks for one (see para. (c) of that clause). When you voluntarily bargained for the period of performance end date from DEC 2017 to JAN 2020, you willingly accepted any additional liability associated with the Warranty of Construction. Your equitable adjustment proposal should have addressed this matter, and it should have been part of the negotiations. Of course, your equitable adjustment proposal and agreement fully compensated you for this liability, so all is well, right? After all, you wouldn't have agreed to it unless it provided everything you needed. I don't think you will find many ASBCA cases in your favor.
  10. Really, the GAO made the only decision it could under the circumstances. I’m satisfied with it.
  11. Not really -- we are pointed to 6.3 only for the format of the sole source justification (not J&A) -- the authority for sole source under FAR part 13 (including subpart 13.5) is FAR 13.106-1(b), not anything in 6.3, and the SSJ is written in the J&A format modified to show simplified acquisition authority.
  12. If the notice/solicitation requires the offering contractor to have a DCAA audited accounting system, an approved purchasing system, and relevant past performance, then that’s what Subsidiary 1 has to have — Subsidiary 1 is the holder of the multiple-award IDIQ contract.
  13. For a specialty application, a Mil Spec hammer might be entirely appropriate.
  14. As I said, I have no doubt there is sloppy language out there. That is sloppy language. Can you tell if that is an agency’s standard clause, or home-made and cut-and-paste? That language is sloppy because it goes beyond indicating what the Government will pay — in other words, it goes beyond the contract — a single contract should not attempt to dictate to a contractor’s internal accounting practices. Instead of “stating that no G&A will be allocated to the contract because of travel costs,” it would probably be better if it said something like, “Direct Reimbursable Travel. For Government-directed contractor employee travel, the Government will reimburse the contractor for its actual incurred costs for lodging, air fare, and per diem, not to exceed the limits of the Federal Travel Regulation. The Government will not make separate payment to the contractor under this contract for any indirect costs associated with travel.”
  • Create New...