Jump to content

ji20874

Members
  • Posts

    3,737
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by ji20874

  1. If it doesn't fit anywhere else, put it in Section H. Is that sufficiently concise?
  2. Did your search include FAR 19.102(b)? How about 13 CFR § 121.402, para. (b) and para. (c)?
  3. I have never understood why so many people seem to think that benefits offered by the Government, as an employer, to its employees should also be provided to people who are not its employees, such as contractor employees.
  4. There is a general requirement for pre-award synopsis for procurements over $25K -- there are exceptions, but sole-source under SAT isn't one of them. See FAR Subpart 5.2. If you think the sole source SAT action is unwarranted, you may file a protest. The GAO will review an agency’s decision to limit competition for reasonableness. If you think the agency awarded to a large business without regard to the automatic set-aside requirement of SAT, you may also file a protest. Right -- Part 13 does not say that.
  5. Well, for a cost-reimbursement contract (you said it is CPAF), shouldn't you bill actual incurred costs (actually paid to the employee) as the direct labor charge? And other overhead or G&A costs as indirects? Under your cost-reimbursement subcontract, maybe you are not entitled to $102.31 per hour for on-call work, especially if the on-call work doesn't materialize, and if/when it does, your actual direct labor incurred cost is not $102.31 per hour. Do you mean that (A) you have an IDIQ subcontract and 5 task orders from the prime contractor; or (B) the prime contractor has an IDIQ contract and 5 task orders with the government? If (B), what is your subcontract arrangement with the prime? Is it CPAF or something else? The prime's arrangement with the government is irrelevant to you -- what matters is your arrangement with the prime. Is it the rate (C) you bill the prime contractor, or (D) the prime contractor bills the government? The only thing that matters is (C), right?
  6. Even if you bill it as labor, the prime can bill it as ODC when it invoices the government, right? Is that a loaded or billing rate (such as would be used for T&M)? Or, is that the rate actually earned by and paid to the employee?
  7. There is your answer. Think about it. We're talking about classified information. The government decides the security requirements -- the contractor simply complies or faces penalties (including jail) -- there is no negotiation and no contractor input -- there is simply no need for a contractor signature. Similarly, the contractor doesn't sign the wage determination -- it simply complies.
  8. Do you understand the purpose of the form? Have you looked at the form? Which block would the contractor use for its signature?
  9. I have never used these labels in my exchanges with offerors. I regret that some DHS contracting officers think they must. I'll go even further -- it is not necessary to use these labels even in the internal technical evaluation report. I have led evaluations where we scrupulously avoided using those labels.
  10. Voyager, Have you recently read the definition of "change order" in FAR 2.101, and looked at the Changes clause in your contract? To quote from the movie, "You Keep Using That Word, I Do Not Think It Means What You Think It Means."
  11. Voyager, look at the Changes clause in your contract. Does that clause authorize the government to issue a [unilateral] change order to extend the delivery date for the purpose you described? This is a YES or NO question. If YES, please tell us the citation for the changes clause and the actual text of the clause that authorizes the change order you describe. We have not seen your contract or its contents.
  12. If it is forbearance, the original poster errs in calling it a change order.
  13. The proposed "relief" does not sound like a change order to me. Is this "relief" really a forbearance?
  14. This is simple. You (the contractor) have no obligation to perform above the ceiling price, and the Government will not pay above the ceiling price. That is your bargain. Read para. (d) of the clause at FAR 52.232-7, if that clause is included in your contract. If not, read para. (i)(2) and (3) of the clause at FAR 52.212-4 Alt I. Maybe you failed to uphold your end of the bargain contained in these paragraphs by keeping your overrun silent and not providing the required notice? Really, this is simple -- just do what the contract says -- give the notice that you are required to give. Or, if you choose to keep quiet, you eat the costs. Right?
  15. Forget about contractor staffing and government onboarding. Instead, look at the nature of the work. Do you want the contractor to actually accomplish something (deliver a product or complete a service) for a fixed-price? Or do you want the contractor to try to do something within a ceiling price? Do you want to pay for a completed job, or for billable hours? Do you want a result, or an employee?
  16. NewbieAF, If the contract includes an SCA wage determination, then why doesn't the contract include the clause at FAR 52.222-41?
  17. No. You are neither reading it correctly, nor quoting it correctly. FAR 15.506(a)(1) says that if an offeror makes a request within three days after receiving the 15.503 notice, the offeror "shall be debriefed." It absolutely does not say that a 15.503 notice is a debriefing.
  18. In a Part 15 procurement, the contracting officer does the FAR 15.503 notice first, and the FAR 15.506 debriefing occurs later. The "shall be debriefed" text in 15.506 refers to the debriefing, not the notice. If a Part 15 offeror makes a request within three days of receiving the notice, the agency "shall" provide a debriefing. The 15.503 notice and the 15.506 debriefing remain entirely and wholly separate.
  19. If you have done your research but still have residual questions, I recommend asking your contracting officer.
  20. And rightly so, as Carl is correct. The "brief explanation" contemplated by FAR Part 13 is not a debriefing -- it is a brief explanation. FAR 13.106-3(d) sends the reader to 15.503(b)(2) -- it does not send the reader to anything in 15.505 or 15.506 -- so, Guardian, you are looking beyond the mark -- look only to 15.503(b)(2) and do not look to 15.505 or 15.506. The post-award notice requirement of FAR 15.503 is entirely and wholly separate from the debriefing requirement of FAR 15.505 and 15.506. In a Part 15 procurement, both are applicable. In a Part 13 procurement, only the first is applicable and then only if requested by a quoter.
  21. This raises two thoughts... (1) Order of precedence applies to multiple items within a single document (perhaps including attachments), such as a solicitation or a contract. A solicitation may contain the provision at FAR 52.212-1, but it does not contain "FAR 13 rules" -- so is there any order of precedence question to be resolved? If you are running a procurement where the solicitation includes FAR 52.212-1, you do what the solicitation says. If you are planning a procurement that will include FAR 52.212-1, you tailor that provision to show what you intend to do -- then you do it. If you don't want to do the debriefing described in FAR 52.212-1, then you should tailor that provision accordingly. (2) But, have you carefully read that text? The standard version of the provision at FAR 52.212-1 does not promise a debriefing -- it merely says "If a debriefing is offered..." A solicitation does not have to offer a debriefing, as the general right to debriefing arises outside the solicitation. The provision at FAR 52.212-1 does not promise a debriefing. So, what is the conflict for which you need to reach to order of precedence to resolve?
  22. Well, Vern has answered the questions you asked. Inasmuch as your contract does not contain either the clause at FAR 52.216-7 or Alt I to 52.212-4, it seems to me that you do not have a cost-reimbursment contract (or other contract that allows for government payment to reimburse for indirect costs). That the contract does contain the clause at FAR 52.212-4 (without its Alt I) suggests it is a firm-fixed-price contract for commercial items, and there can be no cost-reimbursable CLINs in such a contract. That said, I don't know what your contract actually says -- only you know that. I hope this thread has been helpful.
  23. The original poster is talking about paying G&A as an actual cost listed on the invoice. He or she is not talking about the contractor's internal bookkeeping after receiving payment. At least, that is what I have gathered from this thread. In the case of the original poster, it is important that he or she know whether G&A is separately reimbursable (payable) on invoices for that particular contract as a function of travel costs on that invoice. It is error to automatically assume that G&A, being a legitimate and real actual cost, is therefore separately reimbursable or payable on the invoice that is on the table now. The text of the contract matters. Generalized assumptions are not dispositive.
×
×
  • Create New...