Jump to content
The Wifcon Forums and Blogs


  • Content count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by ji20874

  1. ji20874

    Waiver of Amounts Due the Government

    Maybe there is another way to look at it, in order to make it okay? At least it is mutual and works both ways. I suppose both parties could agree, for administrative efficiency and to avoid nickels and dimes, that any amounts due by or to either party will be rounded downward to the nearest $500 increment -- so $415 gets rounded down to zero and $1,215,412 gets rounded down to $1,215,000. If so, then they could agree to limit the effect to closeout. Since the clause has been in effect for 22 years, and since there was probably a legally sufficient determination at the first, and since it has stood the test of time, I'm willing to leave it alone. I say this as a contracting practicioner, not as an attorney and not as a party that would be aggrieved. I suppose anyone wanting to object to the clause should do so before proposals are submitted, rather than after contract formation.
  2. Joel, You may err in your conclusion -- this is not a design-build discussion; rather, this is a FPI discussion focusing on whether the target and ceiling prices may be different.
  3. I'm not aware that a D&F is required for competitive multiple-award contracts. A D&F for what?
  4. While it is common practice for contracting officers to combine special standards of responsibility with evaluation factors, the GAO is able to tell the difference (as illustrated in the cases that Vern cited). But all along, FAR 9.104-2(a) tells us that "[t]he special standards shall be set forth in the solicitation (and so identified) and shall apply to all offerors" (emphasis added). Thus, a contracting officer errs when he or she combines special standards of responsibility with evaluation factors, and categorizes all of them as evaluation factors.
  5. Was there anything in FAR 31.205-18 that was helpful to you? Or 48 CFR 9904.420 (referenced in FAR 31.205-18(b))?
  6. Which do you want to monitor: the outputs (outcomes, results, deliverables) or the inputs (labor hours)?
  7. ji20874

    Park the money

    By the way, in the old days we had ways of dealing with situations like this -- for example, we might have included additive items in the schedule, or options that could be exercised at time of award -- all of these possibilities can still be used today if program managers and contracting officers work together to plan an acquisition.
  8. ji20874

    Park the money

    How about, "Please tell me the name and title of the person who provided your instruction and the regulatory citation for that instruction. I will consider whether your instruction takes precedence over 48 CFR 32.703-1(a), which tells me that funds will be obligated to cover the price (or target price) of a fixed-price contract or the estimated cost and any fee of a cost-reimbursement contract. If there is no reasonable basis for your instruction, will it be okay with you if I refer this matter to the inspector general for a fraud-waste-abuse investigation?"
  9. tj, So, using my format, is this what your order provides? (a) 0001 - (b) Accounting & Financial Operations Support Services – (c) 12 – (d) MO - (e) $1,133,268.60 - (f) $13,599,223.00 (a) = Item (b) = Supplies/Services (c) = Quantity (d) = Unit (e) = Unit Price (f) = Amount Regarding the invoice, I agree with Vern -- if the order requires the data, the contractor has to provide it. However, the actual hours data will be for your information only, and will not serve as a basis for payment -- the basis for payment is the FFP of $1,133,268.60 per month (provided the contractor rendered promised services and the Government accepted them). It will not be necessary for the hours data to add up to $1,133,268.60 for any month.
  10. deleted -- let me re-work it...
  11. So, is your contract line item set up something like this? (a) 0001 - (b) Accounting Services IAW PWS – (c) 12 – (d) MO - (e) $10,000 - (f) $120,000 (a) = Item (b) = Supplies/Services (c) = Quantity (d) = Unit (e) = Unit Price (f) = Amount
  12. tj, Your agency doesn't allow T&M contracts -- so why are you trying to do a T&M contract? From the little you wrote, it seems your contractor should invoice for the agreed-upon firm-fixed-price each month. The hours are estimated, and may fluctuate each month, but the invoice amount will be the same each month.
  13. The contracting officer doesn't have to make any decision -- he or she simply sends the timely size protest to the SBA. I think the answer is going to be the date of the original offer, not the date of the final proposal revision.
  14. ji20874

    Davis Bacon Wage Determination For Non Construction

    Really -- that's exactly where the answer will be found. There is no expectation that every contracting officer will contact the DOL for a determination for every acquisition. At least, FAR 22.402 is the starting point. If the original poster will read FAR 22.402, I think he or she will find the answer to the question. However, you are right that the AAMs do provide clarifications on a few hard-to-judge or esoteric situations.
  15. ji20874

    Davis Bacon Wage Determination For Non Construction

    I think you'll find your answer in FAR 22.400 and 22.402.
  16. ji20874

    Davis Bacon Wage Determination For Non Construction

    Are FAR 22.400 and 22.402 helpful to you?
  17. There may be some matters where the FAR and the SBA's regulations don't match precisely. However, for this matter, the FAR and the SBA's regulations agree -- see FAR 19.301-1(a). It seems to me that the date of representation and the date of the offer will usually be the same, because the representation occurs as part of the offer -- for example, see FAR 52.219-1(c)(1).
  18. They are not the same. Special standards of responsibility must be identified as such in a solicitation (FAR 9.104-2(a) requires this), rather than disguising them as evaluation factors.
  19. ji20874

    Project Manager - Count as Labor / Personnel?

    William, Are you in a situation where you meet the limitation on subcontracting only if you include project management, and don't meet it if you don't? I wonder if you're classifying a whole bunch of back-office or overhead workers as project management? If you're in a solicitation situation, you don't have much time -- you need to resolve this with your contracting officer before he or she eliminates you from the competition. If you're really talking about people who will contribute to contract performance, perhaps you might reply to the contracting officer with something such as, We consider the cost for the project manager [or the cost for Project Management staff] as part of the cost of personnel for contract performance. We are not aware of any policy or regulation that defines cost of personnel for contract performance as excluding the project manager [or the Project Management staff]. Can you share the basis for your assertion that the cost of the project manager [or the Project Management staff] cannot be included in the cost for personnel for contract performance? But be careful -- if this is a competitive acquisition, you need to know whether the Government's outreach to you is a matter of clarifications, communications, or discussions, as those terms are defined in FAR 15.306.
  20. That's what I'm thinking -- a prime contractor with a subcontractor holding 8(a) status is not reached by FAR 22.603 -- well, the prime contractor is reached, but the 8(a) subcontractor is not. In FAR 22.603, 8(a) subcontractor is included to make sure coverage reaches to an 8(a) contractor who holds a contract directly with the Government (whether a subcontract issued by the SBA, a tripartite contract, or a direct award).
  21. ji20874

    Buy American Act and Services

    If the contract includes the clause at FAR 52.225-3 or -5, then there is no traditional limitation on subcontracting (but the ITAR or NISPOM or something like that, or a homemade contract clause, could effectively limit subcontracting). So a YES answer will be good for the original poster, because it means there is no traditional limitation on subcontracting. A NO answer might suggest further inquiry into the question of whether work can be subcontracted. For example, the contract might not contain either clause because it is a set-aside -- if it is a set-aside, then a limitation on subcontracting will be built into the contract, and the proposed subcontract will have to fit within that limitation. But that's a second-level inquiry -- one step at a time. Don is right -- the identity of the proposed subcontractor as Irish is irrelevant, and the proposed location of the work in India is also irrelevant to the question of whether the work may be subcontracted -- these questions apply to prime contract awards subject to Trade Agreements, not to subcontracts. The question of whether the prime can issue the proposed subcontract is one of limitations on subcontracting, not Buy American/Trade Agreements.
  22. Zag, I'm curious -- I found and read the 1996 version of the Walsh-Healey clause -- it says nothing about flow-down, to 8(a) subcontractors or anyone else. Where are you finding the requirement to flow-down the FAR 52.222-20 clause to 8(a) subcontractors?
  23. ji20874

    CPFF LOE Calculations

    Maybe you don't have a LOE contract. If your contract calls for completion of specific tasks, and you satisfactorily complete them and meet all criteria in the statement of work, then you are entitled to 100% of the fixed fee. Your performance of the work at an actual cost less than the estimated cost should help towards an EXCEPTIONAL rating in CPARS for the Cost Control factor. You are entitled to 100% of the fixed fee if your CPFF contract is of the completion form (contractor calls for specific tasks or outcomes) rather than the LOE or term form (contract obligates the contractor to devote a specified level of effort for a stated time period). See FAR 16.306(d)(1) and (2). So, back to your original posting. In your contract, did you agree to and promise to provide a required LOE per contract year, or did you merely agree to an estimated LOE? Since we don't have your contract, I don't think anyone here can answer your question about fee entitlement without this answer.
  24. ji20874

    CPFF LOE Calculations

    You realize that your failure to provide the promised level of effort is a real failure, right? Unsatisfactory in CPARS and so forth? I'm not aware of a principle that says you get a percentage of the fixed fee based on the percentage of your promise that you deign to deliver. What if the contracting officer allows zero fee, and demands a return of fee already paid?
  25. Zag, The clause at FAR 52.222-20 now has the title "Contracts for Materials, Supplies, Articles, and Equipment Exceeding $15,000" and a date of May 2014. This is still the same subject matter as Walks-HealyWalsh-Healey. Anyway, your contract has an old version of the clause, and the old version is applicable for the life of your contract (see FAR 1.108(d)), but one would have to know what FAR revision was in effect at the time of your contract to give you a definitive answer. But I wonder if FAR Subpart 22.6 has really changed all that much, other than the title? Nothing in the current clause or the current 22.6 requires a flow-down, to 8(a) contractors or anyone else. The prime contractor must ensure that subcontractors comply with the clause, but it can achieve that end by ways other than a flow-down. What are you looking at that requires a flow-down?