Jump to content
The Wifcon Forums and Blogs

ji20874

Members
  • Content Count

    1,988
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

0 Neutral

About ji20874

  • Rank
    Contributing Member

Contact Methods

  • Website URL
    http://

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Male
  • Location
    Vermont

Recent Profile Visitors

24,888 profile views
  1. You need to read the clause that Don cited, if you are going to rely on that clause for your answer. Under that clause, the contractor cannot deliver a Canadian product (qualifying country product) unless it so specified in its offer. Did it do so?
  2. The FAR subpart 15.3 text on exchanges with offerors after receipt of proposals (clarifications, communications, and discussions) is wholly inapplicable to the A-E selection process. Ignore everything you read in 15.3 and instead follow the procedures in 36.6.
  3. The contract is not the final authority. As I understand, the DOL can decide that a contract (order) is covered by the SCA even if the contracting officer disagrees and even if the contract (or order) does not contain the usual clauses or a wage determination. See FAR 22.2015.
  4. Then you need to make the notification contemplated by para. (f) of the -43 clause (if that is the clause which entitles you to an adjustment).
  5. If I contract for a locksmith to come into a Government office and install or repair a lock on a Government-owned door, or on several doors, or a copier repairman to repair a Government-owned copier, or several copiers, with the contractor responsible for providing all labor and materials, I’m not going to classify all the doors or the copier as GFP. Others here might — different strokes for different folks.
  6. Maybe it is okay to suppose, as a general matter, that the program manager/requirements official has done the analysis, however informally, before he or she prepares a purchase request for a purchase? After all, FAR subpart 7.4 doesn't require that the analysis be documented in writing.
  7. Re: No. 3 — do you accept the Government’s unilateral modification as proper and within the bounds of the contract? Regardless, you seem to have a problem of conflicting texts within the contract. The -41 clause (and the -43 clause) give you an entitlement to a contract price adjustment based on the new wage determination, and the other homemade clauses seem to deny that entitlement. Do you want the price adjustment for the wage determination? If so, you should follow the instructions in the clause to assert your right to an adjustment — if I recall correctly, your assertion is due 30 days after your receipt of the new wage determination. If you’re still within the 30 days, you should submit your assertion according to the clause — then, the ball will be in the Government’s court either to grant the adjustment or deny it, based on its understanding of the law and the intent of the parties at the time of contract formation. If you don’t like the Government's decision, you may file a claim under the contract’s Disputes clause. But Step No. 1 is for you to make your assertion of entitlement according to the text of the -41 or -43 clause.
  8. Not true. DFARS 245.107 says to include the clause at FAR 52.245-1 "...in all purchase orders for repair, maintenance, overhaul, or modification of Government property..." Now, please read the definition of Government-furnished property (GFP) in para. (a) of that clause. Perhaps this is your error: You may be conflating Government-furnished property and Government property? These are different. Both of these are defined in para. (a) of the clause. In the original posting, the aircraft wing IS Government property, but it IS NOT Government-furnished property (or probably is not, as the property likely remains on the Government's property records and never transfers to the contractor's property records). This is a very common error -- but please, look for yourself -- look in para. (a) of the clause and see for yourself that Government-furnished property has one definition and Government property has another definition.
  9. Still trying to understand... 1. So, you are saying that the -41 clause was included in the initial contract (along with the two blurbs you quoted) and that the -43 clause was added later by contract modification? 2. Did you accept the initial contract? 3. Did you accept the modification? 4. Was a wage determination included in the initial contract? 5. From whom and in what manner did you "receive" the updated wage determination?
  10. If the property remains in the Government's possession and remains in the Government's property records ("repair of an aircraft wing to take place on a Government site"), then it isn't GFP because it is never "furnished to the Contractor." Read the definition of Government-furnished property in para. (a) of the clause at FAR 52.245-1, Government Property.
  11. Are you talking about CTAs under FAR subpart 9.6, or CTAs under GSA federal supply schedule contracts? For workload thresholds, are you talking about the agreement in para. (d) of the contract clause at FAR 52.219-27, Notice of Service-Disabled Veteran-Owned Small Business Set-Aside [or para. (e) of the clause with Class Deviation 2019-O0003]?
  12. Is the "Chief Biomedical Engineer" is a Government employee? YES NO Is he or she "assigned" as an appointed-- contracting officer? YES NO contracting officer's representative? YES NO Does "added Clauses and negotiated" mean that the clauses are already and formally included in the awarded contract? YES NO Is "the Contract" a federal prime contract under the Federal Acquisition Regulation? YES NO
  13. Are you talking about a federal contract under the Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR)?
  14. I believe you can have a FFP contract with a firm fixed price for a June 1 delivery, one for a July 1 delivery, and one for an August 1 delivery. Don’t call it FPIF, and don’t use the word “fee” as you show in your original posting.
×
×
  • Create New...