Jump to content
The Wifcon Forums and Blogs

ji20874

Members
  • Content Count

    2,846
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

0 Neutral

1 Follower

About ji20874

  • Rank
    Contributing Member

Contact Methods

  • Website URL
    http://

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Male
  • Location
    Vermont

Recent Profile Visitors

25,972 profile views
  1. Explicitly? No. Nothing in FAR 13.106-1(b)(1)(i) requires any written documentation -- it says "...if the contracting officer determines..." but does not require a written documentation. Implicitly? Maybe Yes. See FAR 13.106(b)(1)(ii). For written solicitations, see also FAR 13.106(b)(3) which points to FAR 5.102(a)(6). But surely, the documentation need not be extensive -- maybe just a brief statement of one or two sentences. When the FAR requires a determination in writing, it says so. For example, see FAR 9.108-4 ("...determines in writing..."), 11.002(h) ("...a writte
  2. I don't see a problem. Shouldn't a T&M hourly rate ALWAYS be higher than a CPFF direct labor rate? Or, inversely, shouldn't a CPFF direct labor rate ALWAYS be lower than a T&M hourly rate? Remember, the CFPP direct labor rates are just not burdened with (increased by) indirect costs, G&A, profit, and so forth. And even if your talking about proposed CPFF labor rates as a combined wrap rate inclusive of indirect costs, G&A, profit, and so forth, they are just proposed rates, and they might serve as the basis for billing rates -- but the Government is on the hook
  3. //deleted// I voted. Let me know when you want me to post my rationale.
  4. Well, the 52.217-7 clause and the Disputes clause provide a way for reasonable parties to do business. If either party corrupts the relationship, the bad is on that party, not on the clauses.
  5. Joel, No one here is suggesting that FAR 52.217-8 allows the Government to obtain services from a contractor without payment. The "substantially the same as" usage of changing "rates" to "rates and prices" could make sense for many contracts but could never justify obtaining services from a contractor without payment.
  6. I hope the contractor filed a timely claim under the Disputes clause of the contract -- that's what the clause is for. Such a contractor could also contact the agency head or a Congressman or the organization's OSDBU. Two claims, really -- the first claim should have been sent the day after the contractor received the option exercise modification with no money. The second claim should have been sent the day after the contracting officer told the contractor that it had to work for free. A government contractor needs to understand the contracts it holds.
  7. The clause at FAR 52.217-8 allows for "substantially the same as" usage in a contract. Wouldn't adding "and prices" fit within "substantially the same as" usage? Anyway, since the original poster has learned from his or her own history that this clause might cause confusion, he or she can insist on including any needed clarifications in the contract text before the next contract is formed.
  8. Oh, my -- talk about a lot of words that don't say anything! Hypothetical scenarios work best when they are based on something actionable. For this thread, we started out with an actionable scenario: Retreadfed already answered the question -- if the option exercise calls for 20 hours of contractor engineering support work, the contractor may reasonably expect the Government to increase the contract price by $3,000 (20 hrs x $150/hr = $3,000). This assumes the option exercise fits under FAR 37.111 as Carl pointed to.
  9. Have you read DFARS 252.227-7017? Go ahead and do it now -- I'll wait... Welcome back! You saw that the clause has spaces where the offeror provides information -- those are called fill-ins. You should provide the information as you want it to appear in the future contract.
  10. Notice to unsuccessful offerors is not required for all procurements. Similarly, post-award synopsis is not required for all procurements. I wonder if you are not getting notice because (1) notice is not required; or (2) your contracting officers do not understand the rules. Maybe your small business office can help you discern which it is?
  11. Fear, I asked what difference does it make, and Don asked what set of rules are you trying to apply. These are both fair questions. The GAO decision at the link below discusses the two, and shows how sometimes a contract is both and sometimes it is neither. https://www.gao.gov/decisions/appro/302358.htm
  12. What difference does it make? What if someone told you that it is neither?
  13. Well, you said it is one CLIN. You could roll over the unearned fee if achieving the completion targets a year later still has value to the Government. But you would be letting your contractor dictate not only when it will do they work, but also the amount you will pay, and when. You might be letting your contractor walk all over you. But even so, you could do it. Ideally, this possibility would have been envisioned when the contract was formed. I think rolling over the undone work and the unused dollars is reasonable, and I think making the contractor forfeit the unearned fee is als
  14. Okay. The parties agreed on an estimated cost and fixed fee for each year's set of completion targets. The contractor failed to meet the completion targets for the first year, and the first year is over. The contractor did not earn the full fee because it did not achieve the completion targets. The unearned fee is forfeited, based on the little I have read here. Now, for the second year -- do the uncompleted targets from the first year (1) roll into the second year? or (2) do they fall off the table, so to speak? If (1), then you might roll over the unused cost dollars. If the
  15. Is this three separate CLINs? or a single CLIN where the option exercises raises the amounts on the single CLIN? Is this for a supply or a service? If services, are the services severable or nonseverable? I'll answer one possibility of answers. If these are three separate CLINs for services that are severable, then NO, you should not roll over the unused cost money from the base period CLIN to the option period CLIN, and NO, you should not roll over the unearned fee from the base period CLIN to the option period CLIN.
×
×
  • Create New...