Jump to content
The Wifcon Forums and Blogs

ji20874

Members
  • Content Count

    2,758
  • 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

25,757 profile views
  1. Maybe WIFCON is using a Huawei product somewhere in its chain?
  2. Yes. If your contract includes the clause at FAR 52.216-10, Incentive Fee, see para. (c)(1) and (2) of that clause.
  3. Good idea! As I understand, the FAR requires a release of claims for cost-reimbursement contracts, time-and-material contracts, and fixed-price construction and A-E contracts -- and even then, the release of claims is due before final payment, not in association with contract file closeout. FAR 4.804, Closeout of Contract Files, does not require a release of claims as part of the Government's process for closing out contract files. Unless text in a contract requires a release of claims, the contractor is under no obligation to provide one.
  4. No. But if his answer is unobjectionable, well, it's unobjectionable.
  5. Maybe you should push back on your SBA office first. A COC is all or nothing -- either the contractor IS or IS NOT (SBA selects one) responsible for that particular contract. Is the partial an attempt at a blanket COC, valid for any COC submissions within that range? That might be unacceptable to me as a contracting officer. If I submit a COC to SBA, I will want an unambiguous and unqualified statement of responsibility of that prospective contractor for that contract. But that's me.
  6. Right. The LOC clause provides for the solution, at the Government's discretion, to modify the contract to raise the estimated cost. The clause is silent on fee because fee is not part of that solution.
  7. Retreadfed, Do you disagree with the "FAR wins" answer?
  8. Don makes a good point. The word "overrun" is not defined in the FAR, and will be used differently by different people. If Dana's contract is term form, I would think of an overrun only as meaning the contractor is costing more than it anticipated for the promised level of effort -- in such a case, I might agree to increase the estimated cost but I would not agree to additional fee. I would only agree to additional fee as part of an agreement for additional effort beyond the promised level of effort, and I probably wouldn't call that an overrun -- I would call that a new agreement with its
  9. I include the overall evaluated cost or price (including unit prices) and technical rating, if applicable, of the successful offeror, just like the FAR says -- if there is more than one non-price factor, I include all of the ratings -- not the rationale behind the ratings, but just the ratings.
  10. Do you want to ask your supplier to find the FAR clause that says fee is payable? In an overrun, if the Government chooses to cover the overrun, it does so by changing the contract's estimated cost. This is explained in the clause at FAR 52.232-20, Limitation of Cost, and 52.232-22, Limitation of Funds. One of these is probably in your contract. Neither clause provides for an adjustment in fee for an overrun.
  11. I don't know much about military construction. But generally, the purpose of an IGCE is to select clauses/provisions and determine approval thresholds, right? If so, there is no need to revise it after proposals are received. Once you have proposals, you are no longer in the realm of estimates as you have real offers and real numbers, especially if you have adequate price competition.
  12. Good point. In such a case, I hope the contracting officer will not rely on past performance as THE reason for non-selection.
  13. I used a clause substantially the same as the clause at FAR 52.217-9 to match my intentions. A contracting officer uses the clause at FAR 52.217-9 (or something substantially the same as...) whenever any one of the three circumstances exist. The clause, as written, covers all three, and even then, the clause can be modified (substantially the same as...). Or, when a contracting officer uses just one or two, he or she modifies the clause accordingly (substantially the same as...). As examples, the parties could agree that-- the Government will not be required to provide a prelim
  14. Something else for the contracting officer to consider: adverse past performance information to which an offeror has not had an opportunity to respond generally cannot be used in a tradeoff evaluation or selection process -- see FAR 15.306(a)(2), 15.306(b)(4), and 15.306(d)(3).
×
×
  • Create New...