ji20874

Members
  • Content count

    1,229
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

0 Neutral

About ji20874

  • Rank
    Platinum Member

Contact Methods

  • Website URL
    http://

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Male
  • Location
    Vermont

Recent Profile Visitors

20,376 profile views
  1. Did the VA employee who called the Union do it in his or her official capacity as a VA employee? If not, and if the call was made during duty hours, with official equipment, and/or invoking the employee's status as a VA employee, then some misconduct may have occurred. But how does one prove these things? Probably, the union representative did nothing wrong, if neither the agency nor the contractor have any rules prohibiting the public from the work site. A contract administrator is not an investigator. An agency employee suspecting wrongdoing by another agency employee may make a report in established channels. To me, this is not a contract administration matter.
  2. Both the agency and the contractor can take steps to limit public access to the work site -- not for union-avoidance reasons, but for valid safety and security reasons.
  3. Did you (as the contract administrator) or the contractor allow the visitor access to the work site?
  4. DFARS 242.7502( a ) only requires an accounting system, not an acceptable accounting system. The contract clause that comes from this (DFARS 252.242-7006) has separate definitions for "accounting system" and "acceptable accounting system." Your contractors have no accounting system at all? None? A possible solution is to do a tear-down-and-quote approach. Negotiate a firm-fixed-price for the contractor to ( i ) determine the problem and ( ii )provide a firm-fixed-price quotation for the actual repair. If you like the quoted repair price, you issue a firm-fixed-price work authorization of some sort -- if you don't like the price, you either negotiate it to your liking or you direct the contractor to return the item to you. Imagine a CLIN for the tear-down-and-quote and a CLIN for the repair work. The tear-down-and-quote CLIN has an estimated quantity representing your best guess of occurrences for the period of performance. The repair CLIN is a draw-down CLIN showing your best estimate of repair costs. It is all FFP, not IDIQ (you may have estimated quantities without IDIQ). . UNIT ITEM DESCRIPTION QTY UNIT PRICE AMOUNT -------------------------------------------------------- 001 Tear-Down-and-Quote 50 EA $75 $3,750 . (est) . 002 Repair 1 LS $50,000 $50,000 . as authorized by . work orders
  5. A "M" portion of a T&M contract is to obtain materials for the contractor's use in performing the contract, not for delivery to the Government. FAR Subpart 51.1 allows contractors to obtain supplies or services from Government supply sources for the contractor's use in performing the contract, not for delivery to the Government. CONTRACT FOR OTHER THAN COMMERCIAL ITEMS: The prohibition on profit applicable to the "M" portion of a T&M contract (see FAR 52.232-7( b )( 7 )) applies to materials that the contractor uses or consumes. However, you may include indirect costs on these materials on your invoices/vouchers (see FAR 52.232-7( b )( 5 )). Your contracts person errs in saying you are not allowed to put any mark-up on hardware, so long as mark-up as you are using the term fits within the definition of indirect costs in FAR 52.232-7( b )( 5 ). CONTRACT FOR COMMERCIAL ITEMS: The only mark-ups allowed are those contemplated by para. ( i )( 1 )( ii )( D )( 1 ) and ( 2 ) of Alt I to the clause at FAR 52.212-4. ODCs are allowed only if they are mentioned in ( 1 ), and indirect charges are only allowed as a fixed price agreed to by the parties at the formation of the contract and shown in ( 2 ). Your contracts person might be right in saying you are not allowed to put any mark-up on hardware, if the fill-in for ( 2 ) is already set. Since you're under a schedule contract, this is what applies to you. For FAR Subpart 51.1 purchases, the contractor passes through the purchase price of items procured with no fee or markup (see page 10 of the document Desparado linked, item 14) -- the contractor does not pass through the actual items; rather, the items are supposed to be used or consumed by the contractor during performance of the contract.
  6. Don, I wrote, "In my opinion, allowing for an e-mailed quotation isn't covered by this exception -- but others may have differing opinions." If you believe an e-mail counts for the exception, please make your case for the benefit of the original poster and other readers. I allowed for differing opinions, didn't I? You might convince me (not likely, but possible).
  7. If the solicitation allows you to price the -8 option, and the solicitation does not require that options be offered at prices no higher than those for the base requirement (see FAR 17.203( g )), and you're not subject to the escalation restraint of para. ( b ) of the clauses at FAR 52.222-43 or -44, then you can price it however you wish, right? There is no FAR reference to say you can price it however you wish. But there are FAR references that say you can't in certain circumstances, and I addressed them as far as I know them -- there may be others. Similarly, there is no law that affirmatively allows you to cross the street. There might be laws banning or limiting your crossing of the street, but there is no law affirmatively allowing you to cross the street.
  8. Right. Look at the FAR clauses FAR 52.247-29 through -44. There are all sorts of FOB arrangements.
  9. If you can price it, then go ahead and escalate it -- unless, of course, the contract will include the clause at FAR 52.222-43 or -44 -- if so, then you cannot escalate for Service Contract Act wages (para. ( b ) of each clause) but you can escalate for other reasons.
  10. It sounds like the solicitation does not allow you to propose a price for the -8 option. Is that right? If you cannot propose a price for the -8 option, then you cannot include an escalation.,
  11. Your coworkers are right. Ask yourself what F.O.B. stands for.
  12. As long as you're still within the 8(a) guidelines, a J&A is not needed -- see FAR 6.302-5( c )( 2 )( iii ).
  13. If the firm is actually doing contract work, as opposed to whispering in the prime contractor's ear, then the arrangement is a subcontract. There is no third ambiguous consultant category -- the firm is either a subcontractor or it isn't. Let me ask you: Is the purpose of the effort "to furnish supplies or services for performance of a prime contract?" YES NO The answer to that question will solve your problem.
  14. Don, i have no intention of engaging your stupid conversation.
  15. If you do not meet part ( iii ) of the exception in FAR 5.202( a )( 13 ), then you cannot use the exception -- you must have (i), (ii), and (iii) -- that's the reason for the "and" and the very end of ( ii ), rather than an "or." Maybe the FAR text is needed -- if an agency has an electronic system that doesn't reach out to FBO, then it cannot use the exception -- but if it modifies its system to reach out to FBO, then it can use the exception -- the FAR text is intended, I believe, to encourage agencies to make their electronic systems reach out to FBO.